Carrying Label Information for BGP FlowSpec
draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-label-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (candidate for idr WG)
Authors liangqiandeng  , Jianjie You  , Robert Raszuk  , Dan Ma 
Last updated 2016-01-07 (latest revision 2015-09-29)
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state Call For Adoption By WG Issued
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Idr Working Group                                               Q. Liang
Internet-Draft                                                    J. You
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: April 1, 2016                                         R. Raszuk
                                                                  Nozomi
                                                                   D. Ma
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                      September 29, 2015

              Carrying Label Information for BGP FlowSpec
                 draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-label-01

Abstract

   This document specifies a method in which the label mapping
   information for a particular FlowSpec rule is piggybacked in the same
   Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Update message that is used to
   distribute the FlowSpec rule.  Based on the proposed method, the
   Label Switching Routers (LSRs) (except the ingress LSR) on the Label
   Switched Path (LSP) can use label to indentify the traffic matching a
   particular FlowSpec rule; this facilitates monitoring and traffic
   statistics for FlowSpec rules.

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 [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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 1, 2016.

Liang, et al.             Expires April 1, 2016                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                BGP FlowSpec                September 2015

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   [RFC5575] defines the flow specification (FlowSpec) that is an
   n-tuple consisting of several matching criteria that can be applied
   to IP traffic.  The matching criteria can include elements such as
   source and destination address prefixes, IP protocol, and transport
   protocol port numbers.  A given IP packet is said to match the
   defined flow if it matches all the specified criteria.  [RFC5575]
   also defines a set of filtering actions, such as rate limit,
   redirect, marking, associated with each flow specification.  A new
   Border Gateway Protocol Network Layer Reachability Information (BGP
   NLRI) (AFI/SAFI: 1/133 for IPv4, AFI/SAFI: 1/134 for VPNv4) encoding
   format is used to distribute traffic flow specifications.

   [RFC3107] specifies the way in which the label mapping information
   for a particular route is piggybacked in the same Border Gateway
   Protocol Update message that is used to distribute the route itself.
   Label mapping information is carried as part of the Network Layer
   Reachability Information (NLRI) in the Multiprotocol Extensions
   attributes.  The Network Layer Reachability Information is encoded as
   one or more triples of the form <length, label, prefix>.  The NLRI

Liang, et al.             Expires April 1, 2016                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                BGP FlowSpec                September 2015

   contains a label is indicated by using Subsequent Address Family
   Identifier (SAFI) value 4.

   [RFC4364] describes a method in which each route within a Virtual
   Private Network (VPN) is assigned a Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (MPLS) label.  If the Address Family Identifier (AFI) field is set to
   1, and the SAFI field is set to 128, the NLRI is an MPLS-labeled VPN-
   IPv4 address.

   In BGP VPN/MPLS networks, when FlowSpec rules on multiple forwarding
   devices in the network bound with labels form one or more LSPs, only
   the ingress LSR (Label Switching Router) needs to identify a
   particular traffic flow based on the matching criteria and then
   steers the packet to a corresponding LSP (Label Switched Path).
   Other LSRs of the LSP just need to forward the packet according to
   the label carried in it.

   Though the FlowSpec rule could use the label(s) bound with the best-
   match unicast route for the destination prefix embedded in the
   FlowSpec rule or the best-match route to the target IP in the
   'redirect to IP' action, this way means that if two or more FlowSpec
   rules have the same best-match unicast route for the embedded
   destination prefix or the same best-match route to target IP in the
   'redirect to IP' action; they would be mapped to the same label.
   This would affect monitoring and traffic statistics facilities,
   because each FlowSpec rule requires an independent statistic and log
   data, which is described in Section 9 [RFC5575].  The LSRs (except
   the ingress LSR) on the LSP can use label to indentify the traffic
   matching a particular FlowSpec rule; this facilitates monitoring and
   traffic statistics for FlowSpec rules.

   So this document proposes that the BGP router supports to allocate a
   label to one or more FlowSpec rule(s), the forwarding path is still
   decided by the best-match unicast route for the embedded destination
   prefix or the best-match route to target IP in the 'redirect to IP'
   action.  Figure 1 gives an example that FlowSpec rule bound with a
   label is disseminated in the network.

                  Option-B inter-AS connection
                  |<------AS1----->|    |<------AS2----->|
                  +-----+    +-----+    +-----+    +-----+
       VPN 1,IP1..| PE1 |====|ASBR1|----|ASBR2|====| PE2 |..VPN1,IP2
                  +-----+    +-----+    +-----+    +-----+
                     | LDP LSP1 |          | LDP LSP2 |
                     | -------> |          | -------> |
                     |-------BGP VPN Flowspec LSP---->|
                 (Label1)    (Label2)   (Label3)   (Label4)
                    Figure 1: Usage of FlowSpec with Label

Liang, et al.             Expires April 1, 2016                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                BGP FlowSpec                September 2015

  FlowSpec rule1 (injected in PE2):
       Filters:
          destination ip prefix:IP2/32
          source ip prefix:IP1/32
       Actions:
          traffic-marking: 1

  Labels allocated for FlowSpec1:
       Label4 allocated by PE2
       Label3 allocated by ASBR2
       Label2 allocated by ASBR1
       Label1 allocated by PE1

  PE2 disseminates the FlowSpec1 bound with Label4 to ASBR2.
  ASBR2 disseminates the FlowSpec1 bound with Label3 to ASBR1.
  ASBR1 disseminates the FlowSpec1 bound with Label2 to PE1.

  Forwarding information for the traffic from IP1 to IP2 in the Routers:
       PE1: in(<IP2,IP1>) --> out(Label2)
       ASBR1: in(Label2) --> out(Label3)
       ASBR2: in(Label3) --> out(Label4)
       PE2: in(Label4) --> out(--)

   So ASBR1 can do traffic statistics for FlowSpec rule 1 based on
   Label2; ASBR2 can do it based on Label3; and PE2 can do it based on
   Label4.

2.  Terminology

   This section contains definitions of terms used in this document.

      Flow Specification (FlowSpec): A flow specification is an n-tuple
      consisting of several matching criteria that can be applied to IP
      traffic, including filters and actions.  Each FlowSpec consists of
      a set of filters and a set of actions.

3.  Protocol Extensions

   In this document, BGP is used to distribute the FlowSpec rule bound
   with label(s).  A new label-action is defined as BGP extended
   community value based on Section 7 of [RFC5575].

        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | type   | extended community | encoding                 |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | TBD1   | label-action       | MPLS tag                 |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+

Liang, et al.             Expires April 1, 2016                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                BGP FlowSpec                September 2015

   Label-action is described below:

  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  (TBD1)             |OpCode |         Reserved      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Label
 |                Label                  | Exp |S|       TTL     | Stack
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Entry

   The use and the meaning of these fields are as follows:

      Type: the same as defined in [RFC4360]

      OpCode: Operation code

   +------+------------------------------------------------------------+
   |OpCode| Function                                                   |
   +------+------------------------------------------------------------+
   |  0   | Push the MPLS tag                                          |
   +------+------------------------------------------------------------+
   |  1   | Pop the outermost MPLS tag in the packet                   |
   +------+------------------------------------------------------------+
   |  2   | Swap the MPLS tag with the outermost MPLS tag in the packet|
   +------+------------------------------------------------------------+
   | 3~15 | Reserved                                                   |
   +------+------------------------------------------------------------+

         When the OpCode field is set to 1, the label stack entry is
         invalid, and the router SHOULD pop the existing outermost MPLS
         tag in the packet.

         When the OpCode field is set to 2, the router SHOULD swap the
         label stack entry with the existing outermost MPLS tag in the
         packet.  If the packet has no MPLS tag, it just pushes the
         label stack entry.

         The OpCode 0 or 1 may be used in some SDN networks, such as the
         scenario described in
         [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-central-epe].

         The OpCode 2 can be used in traditional BGP MPLS/VPN networks.

      Bottom of Stack (S): the same as defined in [RFC3032].  It SHOULD
      be invalid, and set to zero by default.  It MAY be modified by the
      forwarding router locally.

Liang, et al.             Expires April 1, 2016                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                BGP FlowSpec                September 2015

      Time to Live (TTL): the same as defined in[RFC3032].  It MAY be
      modified by the forwarding router locally.

      Experimental Use (Exp): the same as defined in [RFC3032].  It MAY
      be modified by the forwarding router according to the local
      routing policy.

      Label: the same as defined in [RFC3032].

   A FlowSpec rule MAY include one or more ordering label-action(s).
   The arrival order of the label-actions decides the action order.

   If the BGP router allocates a label for a FlowSpec rule and
   disseminates the labeled FlowSpec rule to the upstream peers, it can
   use the label to match the traffic identified by the FlowSpec rule in
   the forwarding plane.

4.  IANA Considerations

   For the purpose of this work, IANA should allocate value for the type
   of label-action:

      TBD1 for label-action

5.  Security considerations

   This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
   inherent in the existing BGP.

6.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank Shunwan Zhuang, Zhenbin Li, Peng Zhou
   and Jeff Haas for their comments.

7.  Normative References

   [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Patel, K., Shaw, S., Ginsburg,
              D., and D. Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized Egress
              Peer Engineering", draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-
              central-epe-05 (work in progress), August 2015.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

Liang, et al.             Expires April 1, 2016                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                BGP FlowSpec                September 2015

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.

   [RFC3107]  Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
              BGP-4", RFC 3107, DOI 10.17487/RFC3107, May 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3107>.

   [RFC4360]  Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
              Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
              February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC5575]  Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
              and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
              Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.

Authors' Addresses

   Qiandeng Liang
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
   Nanjing,  210012
   China

   Email: liangqiandeng@huawei.com

   Jianjie You
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
   Nanjing,  210012
   China

   Email: youjianjie@huawei.com

   Robert Raszuk
   Nozomi

   Email: robert@raszuk.net

Liang, et al.             Expires April 1, 2016                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                BGP FlowSpec                September 2015

   Dan Ma
   Cisco Systems

   Email: danma@cisco.com

Liang, et al.             Expires April 1, 2016                 [Page 8]