SR Policy Extensions for Path Segment and Bidirectional Path
draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Cheng Li , China Telecom , Mach Chen , Jie Dong , Zhenbin Li | ||
Last updated | 2019-06-27 | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
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-sr-policy-path-segment-00
Interdomain Routing Working Group C. Li Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track H. Chen Expires: December 29, 2019 China Telecom M. Chen J. Dong Z. Li Huawei Technologies June 27, 2019 SR Policy Extensions for Path Segment and Bidirectional Path draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-00 Abstract A Segment Routing (SR) policy is a set of candidate SR paths consisting of one or more segment lists with necessary path attributes. For each SR path, it may also have its own path attributes, and Path Segment is one of them. A Path Segment is defined to identify an SR path, which can be used for performance measurement, path correlation, and end-2-end path protection. Path Segment can be also used to correlate two unidirctional SR paths into a bidirectional SR path which is required in some scenarios, for example, mobile backhaul transport network. This document defines extensions to BGP to distribute SR policies carrying Path Segment and bidirectional path information. 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 Li, et al. Expires December 29, 2019 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP June 2019 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 29, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Path Segment in SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. SR Path Segment Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. SR Policy for Bidirectional Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. SR Bidirectional Path Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. SR Reverse Path Segment List Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Existing Registry: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1. Introduction 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]. For distributing SR policies to the headend, [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] Li, et al. Expires December 29, 2019 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP June 2019 specifies a mechanism by using BGP, and new sub-TLVs are defined for SR Policies in BGP UPDATE message. In many use cases such as performance measurement, the path to which the packets belong is required to be identified. Futhermore, in some scenarios, for example, mobile backhaul transport network, there are requirements to support bidirectional path. However, there is no path identification information for each Segment List in the SR Policies defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. Also, the SR Policies defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] only supports unidirectional SR paths. Therefore, this document defines the extension to SR policies that carry Path Segment in the Segment List and support bidirectional path. The Path Segment can be a Path Segment in SR-MPLS [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment] , or a Path Segment in SRv6 [I-D.li-spring-srv6-path-segment], or other IDs that can identify a path. Also, this document defines extensions to BGP to distribute SR policies carriying Path Segment and bidirectional path information. 2. Terminology This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8402] and [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]. 3. Path Segment in SR Policy As defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] , the SR Policy encoding structure is as follows: SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint> Attributes: Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23) Tunnel Type: SR Policy Binding SID Preference Priority Policy Name Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) Segment List Weight Segment Segment ... ... An SR path can be specified by an Segment List sub-TLV that contains a set of segment sub-TLVs and other sub-TLVs as shown above. As Li, et al. Expires December 29, 2019 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP June 2019 defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], a candidate path includes multiple SR paths specified by SID list. The Path Segment can be used for idendifying an SR path(specified by SID list). Also, it can be used for identifying an SR candidate path or an SR Policy in some use cases if needed. New SR Policy encoding structure is expressed as below: SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint> Attributes: Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23) Tunnel Type: SR Policy Binding SID Preference Priority Policy Name Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) Path Segment Segment List Weight Path Segment Segment Segment ... Segment List Weight Path Segment Segment Segment ... ... The Path Segment can appear at both segment-list level and candidate path level, and generally it SHOULD also appear only at one level depending upon use case. Path segment at segment list level and at candidate path level may be same or may be different based on usecase and the ID allocation scope. When multiple Path Segments appear in both levels, it means the the Path Segment associated with candidate path and segment list SHOULD both be inserted into the SID list. 3.1. SR Path Segment Sub-TLV This section defines an SR Path Segment sub-TLV. An SR Path Segment sub-TLV can be included in the segment list sub- TLV to identify an SID list, and it MUST appear only once within a Segment List sub-TLV. It has the following format: Li, et al. Expires December 29, 2019 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP June 2019 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 | Flag | ST | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Segment (Variable depends on ST) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1. Path Segment sub-TLV Where: Type: to be assigned by IANA (suggested value 10). Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and Length fields. Flag: 8 bits of flags. Following flags are defined: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | Reserved |G | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ G-Flag: Global flag. Set when the Path Segment is global within an SR domain. Reserved: 5 bits reserved and MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. ST: Segment type, specifies the type of the Path Segment, and it has following types: o 0: SR-MPLS Path Segment o 1: SRv6 Path Segment o 2-255:Reserved Path Segment: The Path Segment of an SR path. The Path Segment type is indicated by the Segment Type(ST) field. It can be a Path Segment in SR-MPLS [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment], which is 32-bits value, or a Path Segment in SRv6 [I-D.li-spring-srv6-path-segment], which is a 128-bits value, or other IDs that can identify a path. Li, et al. Expires December 29, 2019 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP June 2019 4. SR Policy for Bidirectional Path In some scenarios, for example, mobile backhaul transport network, there are requirements to support bidirectional path. In SR, a bidirectional path can be represented as a binding of two unidirectional SR paths. This document also defines new sub-TLVs to describe an SR bidirectional path. An SR policy carrying SR bidirectional path information is expressed as below: SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint> Attributes: Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23) Tunnel Type: SR Policy Binding SID Preference Priority Policy Name Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) Bidirectioanl Path Segment List Weight Path Segment Segment Segment ... Reverse Segment List Weight Path Segment Segment Segment ... 4.1. SR Bidirectional Path Sub-TLV This section defines an SR bidirectional path sub-TLV to specify a bidirectional path, which contains a Segment List sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] and an associated Reverse Path Segment List as defined at section 4.2. The SR bidirectional path sub-TLV has the following format: 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-TLVs (Variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2. SR Bidirectional path sub-TLV Li, et al. Expires December 29, 2019 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP June 2019 Where: Type: TBA, and the suggest value is 14. Length: the total length of the sub-TLVs encoded within the SR Bidirectional Path Sub-TLV not including Type and Length fields. RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Sub-TLVs: o An Segment List sub-TLV o An associated Reverse Path Segment List sub-TLV 4.2. SR Reverse Path Segment List Sub-TLV An SR Reverse Path Segment List sub-TLV is defined to specify an SR reverse path associated with the path specified by the Segment List in the same SR Bidirectional Path Sub-TLV, and it has the following format: 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-TLVs (Variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2. SR Reverse Path Segment List Sub-TLV where: Type: TBA, and suggest value is 127. Length: the total length of the sub-TLVs encoded within the SR Reverse Path Segment List Sub-TLV not including the Type and Length fields. RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. sub-TLVs, reuse the sub-TLVs in Segment List defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]. o An optional single Weight sub-TLV. Li, et al. Expires December 29, 2019 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP June 2019 o An mandatory SR Path Segment sub-TLV that contains the Path Segment of the reverse SR path. o Zero or more Segment sub-TLVs to specify the reverse SR path. The Segment sub-TLVs in the Reverse Path Segment List sub-TLV provides the information of the reverse SR path, which can be used for directing egress BFD peer to use specific path for the reverse direction of the BFD session [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed] or other applications. 5. Operations The document does not bring new operation beyong the description of operations defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]. The existing operations defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] can apply to this document directly. Typically but not limit to, the unidirectional or bidirectional SR policies carrying path identification infomation are configured by a controller. After configuration, the unidirectional or bidirectional SR policies carrying path identification infomation will be advertised by BGP update messages. The operation of advertisement is the same as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], as well as the receiption. The consumer of the unidirectional or bidirectional SR policies is not the BGP process, it can be any applications, such as performance measurement [I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm]. The operation of sending information to consumers is out of scope of this document. 6. IANA Considerations This document defines new Sub-TLVs in following registries: 6.1. Existing Registry: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs This document defines new sub-TLVs in the registry "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs" to be assigned by IANA: Li, et al. Expires December 29, 2019 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP June 2019 Codepoint Description Reference ------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Path Segment sub-TLV This document 15 SR Bidirectional Path sub-TLV This document 127 Reverse Segment List sub-TLV This document This document defines new sub-TLVs in the registry "SR Policy List Sub-TLVs" [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] to be assigned by IANA: Codepoint Description Reference ------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Path Segment sub-TLV This document 7. Security Considerations TBA 8. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Shraddha Hedge for her detailed review and professional comments. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Jain, D., Mattes, P., Rosen, E., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-06 (work in progress), May 2019. [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment] Cheng, W., Li, H., Chen, M., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler, "Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network", draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-00 (work in progress), March 2019. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- policy-03 (work in progress), May 2019. Li, et al. Expires December 29, 2019 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP June 2019 [I-D.li-spring-srv6-path-segment] Li, C., Chen, M., Dhody, D., Li, Z., Dong, J., and R. Gandhi, "Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6)", draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment-00 (work in progress), October 2018. [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>. [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>. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm] Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Salsano, S., Ventre, P., and M. Chen, "UDP Path for In- band Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks", draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-02 (work in progress), September 2018. [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed] Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return Path", draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-11 (work in progress), April 2019. Authors' Addresses Cheng Li Huawei Technologies Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: chengli13@huawei.com Li, et al. Expires December 29, 2019 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP June 2019 Huanan Chen China Telecom 109 West Zhongshan Ave Guangzhou China Email: chenhn8.gd@chinatelecom.cn Mach(Guoyi) Chen Huawei Technologies Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: Mach.chen@huawei.com Jie Dong Huawei Technologies Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: jie.dong@huawei.com Zhenbin Li Huawei Technologies Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Li, et al. Expires December 29, 2019 [Page 11]