PCEP Extension to Support SRv6 Segment List optimization
draft-lin-pce-srv6-segment-list-optimize-01
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Changwang Lin , Yisong Liu , Ran Chen , Yuanxiang Qiu | ||
| Last updated | 2024-01-05 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (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-pce-srv6-segment-list-optimize-01
PCE Working Group C. Lin
Internet-Draft New H3C Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Liu
Expires: July 5, 2024 China Mobile
R. Chen
ZTE
Y. Qiu
New H3C Technologies
January 5, 2024
PCEP Extension to Support SRv6 Segment List optimization
draft-lin-pce-srv6-segment-list-optimize-01
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 July 5 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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
Liu, et al. Expire July, 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP SRv6 Segment List Optimization January 2024
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.
Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
Segment routing (SR) leverages the source routing and tunneling
paradigms. The Stateful PCEP extensions allow stateful control of
Segment Routing Traffic Engineering (TE) Paths. Furthermore, PCEP
can be used for computing SR TE paths in the network.
This document defines PCEP extensions for optimizing the arrangement
of segment lists to solve the problem of the penultimate segment
node being unable to perform PSP behavior when the egress node has
both End SID and service SID, and improve the forwarding efficiency
of data packets.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Terminology ................................................. 3
3. Requirement Background ...................................... 4
4. Extend the Flags of SRv6-ERO subobject ...................... 4
5. Operation ................................................... 5
6. IANA Considerations ......................................... 5
7. Security Considerations ..................................... 5
8. References .................................................. 6
8.1. Normative References ................................... 6
8.2. Informative References ................................. 7
9. Acknowledgments ............................................. 7
Authors' Addresses ............................................. 7
Liu, et al. Expires July, 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP SRv6 Segment List Optimization January 2024
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] allows a headend node to steer a
packet flow along any path. Intermediate per-path states are
eliminated thanks to source routing.
The headend node is said to steer a flow into an SR Policy [RFC8402].
The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of
segments associated with that SR Policy.
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
The Stateful PCEP extensions allow stateful control of Segment
Routing Traffic Engineering (TE) Paths.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] provides a mechanism for a
network controller (acting as a PCE) to instantiate candidate paths
for an SR Policy onto a head-end node (acting as a PCC) using PCEP.
This document defines PCEP extensions for optimizing the arrangement
of segment lists to solve the problem of the penultimate segment
node being unable to perform PSP behavior when the egress node has
both End SID and service SID, and improve the forwarding efficiency
of data packets.
2. Terminology
The following terminologies are used in this document.
SR: Segment Routing
SRv6: SR for IPv6
SRH: Segment Routing Header
SID: Segment Identifier
CE: Customer Edge
PE: Provider Edge
VPN: Virtual Private Network
PSP: Penultimate Segment Pop
PCEP: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
Liu, et al. Expires July, 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP SRv6 Segment List Optimization January 2024
PCE: Path Computation Element
PCC: Path Computation Client
3. Requirement Background
The requirement background of optimizing the arrangement of segment
lists is specified in [I-D.liu-idr-srv6-segment-list-optimize].
When instantiating the candidate path of SRv6 Policy to the ingress
node via PCEP, it is also necessary to inform the ingress node which
is the egress node's SID.
After the head node receives the PCEP message, when the SID is used
as the egress node's SID of the SRv6 forwarding path, if
SRH.SegmentList already contains the service SID of the egress node,
the egress node's SID will not be encapsulated at the same time.
4. Extend the Flags of SRv6-ERO subobject
Extend the Flags of the SRv6-ERO subobject defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-
segment-routing-ipv6]. Define a E bit to identify which is the
egress node's SID.
The format of SRv6 ERO after adding E bit is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type=40 | Length | NT | Flags |E|V|T|F|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Endpoint Behavior |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| SRv6 SID (optional) |
| (128-bit) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// NAI (variable, optional) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID Structure (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
E-Flag: This flag, when set, indicates that this segment is
the egress node's SID.
Liu, et al. Expires July, 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP SRv6 Segment List Optimization January 2024
If the SRH.SegmentList of the packet already contains the service
SID of the egress node, the End SID of the egress node will not be
encapsulated in the segment list at the same time.
5. Operation
After the controller arranges the SRv6 forwarding path, it informs
the ingress node which is the egress node's SID through the E-Flag.
When the controller distributes the SRv6 Policy configuration to the
head node through PCEP, the E bit of Flags field of the SRv6-ERO
Subobject corresponding to the egress node is set to 1. And the E-
Flag bits corresponding to the ingress node and intermediate node
are set to 0.
After receiving the SRv6 Policy configuration with E bit set to 1,
the ingress node will not simultaneously arrange the End SID and
Service SID of the egress node into the SRH.SegmentList of packet.
For data packets forwarded to VPN through this SRv6 Policy, the
SRH.SegmentList will not encapsulate the End SID corresponding to
the egress node in the SID list of SRv6 Policy.
If the forwarding path does not include the service SID of the
egress node, then the End SID of the egress node should be
encapsulated in SRH.SegmentList.
For the OAM detection message of this SRv6 Policy, all node SIDs of
the SID lists will be encapsulated.
6. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA allocate the following registration
in the "SRv6-ERO Flag Field" sub-registry for the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry maintained by IANA:
+-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+=======+=====================================+===============+
| TBA | Indication of egress node's SID (E) | This document |
+-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
7. Security Considerations
[RFC8754] defines the notion of an SR domain and use of SRH within
the SR domain. Procedures for securing an SR domain are defined the
section 5.1 and section 7 of [RFC8754].
Liu, et al. Expires July, 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP SRv6 Segment List Optimization January 2024
This document does not impose any additional security challenges to
be considered beyond security threats described in [RFC8754],
[RFC8679] and [RFC8986].
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S.,
Koldychev, M., Kaladharan, P., Zhu, Y., "Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for
Segment Routing leveraging the IPv6 dataplane", draft-
ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-20 (work in progress),
September 2023.
[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>.
[RFC8679] Shen, Y., Jeganathan, M., Decraene, B., Gredler, H.,
Michel, C., and H. Chen, "MPLS Egress Protection
Framework", RFC 8679, DOI 10.17487/RFC8679, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8679>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing
Header(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986, DOI
10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
Liu, et al. Expires July, 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP SRv6 Segment List Optimization January 2024
8.2. Informative References
TBD
9. Acknowledgments
TBD
Authors' Addresses
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Ran Chen
ZTE Corporation
Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
Yuanxiang Qiu
New H3C Technologies
Email: qiuyuanxiang@h3c.com
Liu, et al. Expires July, 2024 [Page 7]