Segment Routing interworking with LDP
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-08
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (spring WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-07-12
(latest revision 2017-06-15)
|
|
Replaces |
|
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
|
Reviews |
|
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
Submitted to IESG for Publication
(wg milestone:
Apr 2016 - Document inter-worki...
)
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
Martin Vigoureux
|
|
Shepherd write-up |
|
Show
(last changed 2017-07-12)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
Publication Requested
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
Alvaro Retana
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track A. Bashandy
Expires: December 17, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc.
B. Decraene
S. Litkowski
Orange
June 15, 2017
Segment Routing interworking with LDP
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-08
Abstract
A Segment Routing (SR) node steers a packet through a controlled set
of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR
header. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
service-based. SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological
path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the
ingress node to the SR domain.
The Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to the MPLS
data plane with no change in the forwarding plane. This drafts
describes how Segment Routing operates in a network where LDP is
deployed and in the case where SR-capable and non-SR-capable nodes
coexist.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Filsfils, et al. Expires December 17, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing and LDP June 2017
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. SR/LDP Ship-in-the-night coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. MPLS2MPLS co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. IP2MPLS co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Migration from LDP to SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. SR and LDP Interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. LDP to SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. LDP to SR Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. SR to LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. SR to LDP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. SR/LDP Interworking Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. SR Protection of LDP-based Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Eliminating Targeted LDP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Guaranteed FRR coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. Inter-AS Option C, Carrier's Carrier . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. SR and LDP co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. SRMS Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.3. Dataplane Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Show full document text