Signaling Composite Candidate Path of SR Policy using BGP-LS
draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-path-02
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Hao Li , Mengxiao Chen , Changwang Lin, Jiang Wenying , Weiqiang Cheng | ||
| Last updated | 2022-03-06 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-path-02
Network Working Group H. Li
Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track C. Lin
Expires: 8 September 2022 New H3C Technologies
W. Jiang
W. Cheng
China Mobile
7 March 2022
Signaling Composite Candidate Path of SR Policy using BGP-LS
draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-path-02
Abstract
Segment Routing is a source routing paradigm that explicitly
indicates the forwarding path for packets at the ingress node. An SR
Policy is associated with one or more candidate paths, and each
candidate path is either dynamic, explicit or composite. This
document specifies the extensions to BGP Link State (BGP-LS) to carry
composite candidate path information in the advertisement of an SR
policy.
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
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 8 September 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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.
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Signal SR Policy Composite Path in BGP-L March 2022
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. BGP-LS Extensions for Composite Candidate Path . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Constituent SR Policy TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
As described in [RFC7752], BGP Link State (BGP-LS) provides a
mechanism by which link-state and TE information can be collected
from networks and shared with external components using the BGP
routing protocol.
Segment routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a source routing paradigm that
explicitly indicates the forwarding path for packets at the ingress
node. The ingress node steers packets into a specific path according
to the Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy) as defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
An SR Policy is associated with one or more candidate paths. A
composite candidate path acts as a container for grouping of SR
Policies. As described in section 2.2 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], the composite candidate
path construct enables combination of SR Policies, each with explicit
candidate paths and/or dynamic candidate paths with potentially
different optimization objectives and constraints, for a load-
balanced steering of packet flows over its constituent SR Policies.
[I-D.jiang-spring-sr-policy-group-use-cases] describes some use cases
for SR policy group composite candidate path.
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Signal SR Policy Composite Path in BGP-L March 2022
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] describes a mechanism to collect
the SR policy information that is locally available in a node and
advertise it into BGP-LS updates. This document extends it to
provide some extra information to carry composite candidate path
information in the BGP-LS advertisement.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. BGP-LS Extensions for Composite Candidate Path
[RFC7752] defines the BGP-LS NLRI that can be a Node NLRI, a Link
NLRI or a Prefix NLRI. The corresponding BGP-LS attribute is a Node
Attribute, a Link Attribute or a Prefix Attribute.
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] describes a mechanism to collect
the SR Policy information that is locally available in a node and
advertise it into BGP Link State (BGP-LS) updates. This section
defines a new sub-TLV which is carried in the optional non-transitive
BGP Attribute "LINK_STATE Attribute" defined in [RFC7752].
3.1. Constituent SR Policy TLV
Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy) architecture is specified in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. A SR Policy can comprise
of one or more candidate paths, and each candidate path is either
dynamic, explicit or composite. A composite candidate path can
comprise of one or more constituent SR policies. The endpoints of
the constituent SR Policies and the parent SR Policy MUST be
identical, and the colors of each of the constituent SR Policies and
the parent SR Policy MUST be different.
The Constituent SR Policy TLV is used to report the constituent SR
policy(s) of a composite candidate path. The TLV has following
format:
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Signal SR Policy Composite Path in BGP-L March 2022
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Color |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Weight |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLVs (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
* Type: to be assigned by IANA.
* Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and
Length fields.
* Reserved: 32 bits reserved and MUST be set to 0 on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
* Color: 4 octets that indicates the color of the constituent SR
Policy.
* Weight: 4 octet field that indicates the weight associated with
the SID-List for weighted load-balancing. Refer Section 2.2 and
2.11 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
* Sub-TLVs: no sub-TLV is currently defined.
4. Operations
The document does not bring new operation beyond the description of
operations defined in [RFC7752] and
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]. The existing operations defined
in [RFC7752] and [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] can apply to this
document directly.
Typically but not limit to, the BGP-LS messages carring composite
candidate path information along with the SR policy are distributed
to a controller.
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Signal SR Policy Composite Path in BGP-L March 2022
After configuration, the composite candidate path information will be
advertised by BGP update messages. The operation of advertisement is
the same as defined in [RFC7752] and
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution], as well as the receiption.
5. Security Considerations
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the security considerations discussed in
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new TLV in the BGP-LS Link Descriptor and
Attribute TLVs:
+=======+===========================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+===========================+===============+
| TBA | Constituent SR Policy TLV | This document |
+-------+---------------------------+---------------+
Table 1
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Dong, J., Chen, M., Gredler,
H., and J. Tantsura, "Distribution of Traffic Engineering
(TE) Policies and State using BGP-LS", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-16, 22
October 2021, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-16.txt>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Signal SR Policy Composite Path in BGP-L March 2022
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
routing-policy-19, 5 March 2022, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-
19.txt>.
[I-D.jiang-spring-sr-policy-group-use-cases]
Jiang, W., Cheng, W., Lin, C., and Y. Qiu, "Segment
Routing Policy Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-jiang-spring-sr-policy-group-use-cases-00, 7
March 2022, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
jiang-spring-sr-policy-group-use-cases-00.txt>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
Authors' Addresses
Hao Li
New H3C Technologies
Email: lihao@h3c.com
Mengxiao Chen
New H3C Technologies
Email: chen.mengxiao@h3c.com
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Wenying Jiang
China Mobile
Email: jiangwenying@chinamobile.com
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Signal SR Policy Composite Path in BGP-L March 2022
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 7]