Segment Routing interworking with LDP
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (spring WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last updated | 2018-06-21 (latest revision 2018-06-13) | ||
| Replaces | draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | plain text pdf html bibtex | ||
| Reviews | GENART, SECDIR will not review this version | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication (wg milestone: Apr 2016 - Document inter-worki... ) | |
| Document shepherd | Rob Shakir | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2017-07-12) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
Has a DISCUSS. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved. |
||
| Responsible AD | Alvaro Retana | ||
| Send notices to | aretana.ietf@gmail.com, Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - No Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | None | ||
Network Working Group A. Bashandy, Ed.
Internet-Draft Individual
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils, Ed.
Expires: December 13, 2018 S. Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
B. Decraene
S. Litkowski
Orange
June 11, 2018
Segment Routing interworking with LDP
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13
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 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 document
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 https://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
Bashandy, et al. Expires December 13, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing and LDP June 2018
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 13, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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 Ships-in-the-night coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. MPLS2MPLS, MPLS2IP and IP2MPLS co-existence . . . . . . . 5
3. SR and LDP Interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. LDP to SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. LDP to SR Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. SR to LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. SR to LDP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3. Interoperability of Multiple SRMSes and Prefix-SID
advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. SR/LDP Interworking Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. SR Protection of LDP-based Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Eliminating Targeted LDP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Guaranteed FRR coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Inter-AS Option C, Carrier's Carrier . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. SR and LDP co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Dataplane Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Show full document text