BGP SR Policy Extensions for Segment List Identifier
draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-02
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 "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Changwang Lin , Mengxiao Chen , Weiqiang Cheng , Jiang Wenying | ||
| Last updated | 2023-03-09 | ||
| 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-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-02
Network Working Group C. Lin
Internet Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track New H3C Technologies
Expires: September 9, 2023 W. Cheng
W. Jiang
China Mobile
March 9, 2023
BGP SR Policy Extensions for Segment List Identifier
draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-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 a set of candidate paths, each consisting of one or more
segment lists. This document defines extensions to BGP SR Policy to
specify the identifier of segment list.
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Lin, et al. Expire September 9, 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP SR Policy Segment List Identifier March 2023
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
1.1. Requirements Language.....................................3
2. Segment List Identifier in SR Policy...........................3
2.1. Segment List ID Sub-TLV...................................4
2.2. Segment List Name Sub-TLV.................................5
3. Security Considerations........................................6
4. IANA Considerations............................................6
5. References.....................................................6
5.1. Normative References......................................6
5.2. Informative References....................................6
Authors' Addresses................................................8
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 [RFC9256].
In order to distribute SR policies to the headend, [I-D.ietf-idr-
segment-routing-te-policy] specifies a mechanism by using BGP.
However, there is no identifier for segment list in BGP SR Policy,
which may cause inconvenience for other mechanisms to designate
segment lists distributed by BGP.
For example, a network controller distributes SR policies to the
headend nodes, and the headend nodes collect traffic forwarding
statistics per segment list. When a headend node reports each
statistic to the controller, it needs to specify the segment list
which the statistic belongs to. Due to the lack of identifier, the
headend node usually reports all SIDs in the associated segment list
along with the statistic, and the controller needs to distinguish
the segment list by comparing the SIDs one by one. The advertisement
of all SIDs in the segment list consumes a lot of octets, and the
comparison of SIDs can be complicated.
Lin, et al. Expires September 9, 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP SR Policy Segment List Identifier March 2023
For another example, a network controller distributes SR policies
using BGP, and then it uses NETCONF to set some configurations of
the segment lists, which are not suitable to be carried in BGP. So,
the controller needs to specify the segment list which the
configurations belong to. In this case, a simple identifier of
segment list can also be helpful.
This document defines extensions to BGP SR Policy to specify the
identifier of segment list.
1.1. Requirements Language
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.
2. Segment List Identifier 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
SRv6 Binding SID
Preference
Priority
Policy Name
Policy Candidate Path Name
Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
Segment List
Weight
Segment
Segment
...
...
SR policy with segment list identifier is expressed as below:
Lin, et al. Expires September 9, 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP SR Policy Segment List Identifier March 2023
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
Attributes:
Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
Tunnel Type: SR Policy
Binding SID
SRv6 Binding SID
Preference
Priority
Policy Name
Policy Candidate Path Name
Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
Segment List
Weight
Segment List Identifier
Segment
Segment
...
...
The segment list identifier can be advertised using the Segment List
ID sub-TLV or the Segment List Name sub-TLV, as defined in Section
2.1 and 2.2.
When signaling SR Policy by PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath], a segment
list is identified by "Path ID", which is a 4-octet identifier. In
the YANG data model for SR Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang],
a segment-list is keyed by its name, which is a string. In this
document, both the two forms of segment list identifier are provided
to achieve greater flexibility.
2.1. Segment List ID Sub-TLV
The Segment List ID sub-TLV specifies the identifier of the segment
list by a 4-octet number.
The Segment List ID sub-TLV is optional and it MUST NOT appear more
than once inside the Segment List sub-TLV.
The Segment List ID sub-TLV has the following format:
Lin, et al. Expires September 9, 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP SR Policy Segment List Identifier March 2023
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 | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment List ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: TBD.
o Length: 6.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags. None are defined at this stage. Flags
SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
receipt.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Segment List ID: 4 octet of ID for the segment list.
2.2. Segment List Name Sub-TLV
The Segment List Name sub-TLV specifies the identifier of the
segment list by a symbolic name.
The Segment List Name sub-TLV is optional and it MUST NOT appear
more than once inside the Segment List sub-TLV.
The Segment List Name 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 | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Segment List Name //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: TBD.
o Length: Variable.
Lin, et al. Expires September 9, 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP SR Policy Segment List Identifier March 2023
o Flags: 1 octet of flags. None are defined at this stage. Flags
SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
receipt.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Segment List Name: Symbolic name for the segment list. It SHOULD
be a string of printable ASCII characters, without a NULL
terminator.
3. Security Considerations
TBD
4. IANA Considerations
Segment List ID sub-TLV and Segment List Name sub-TLV (TBD)
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, May 2017
[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>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C.,
Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., Rosen, E., Jain, D., and S.
Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP", Work
in Progress, Internet- Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-
routing-te-policy-20, 27 July 2022,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- ietf-idr-
segment-routing-te-policy-20.txt>.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
Lin, et al. Expires September 9, 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP SR Policy Segment List Identifier March 2023
[I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Saad, T.,
Beeram, V. P., Bidgoli, H., Yadav, B., Peng, S., and G. S.
Mishra, "PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath
Information", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-pce-multipath-07, 14 November 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
multipath-07>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang] Raza, S., Sawaya, R., Shunwan, Z.,
Voyer, D., Durrani, M., Matsushima, S., and V. P. Beeram,
"YANG Data Model for Segment Routing Policy", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-
yang-02, 23 September 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
sr-policy-yang-02>.
Lin, et al. Expires September 9, 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP SR Policy Segment List Identifier March 2023
Authors' Addresses
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Mengxiao Chen
New H3C Technologies
Email: chen.mengxiao@h3c.com
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Wenying Jiang
China Mobile
Email: jiangwenying@chinamobile.com
Lin, et al. Expires September 9, 2023 [Page 8]