SRv6-based BGP Service Capability
draft-lz-bess-srv6-service-capability-00
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 "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Yao Liu , Zheng Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2021-06-24 | ||
| 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-lz-bess-srv6-service-capability-00
BESS WG Y. Liu
Internet-Draft Z. Zhang
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: December 26, 2021 June 24, 2021
SRv6-based BGP Service Capability
draft-lz-bess-srv6-service-capability-00
Abstract
This draft describes the problems that may be encountered during the
deployment of SRv6-based BGP services and the possible solutions.
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 December 26, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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.
Liu & Zhang Expires December 26, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SRv6-based BGP Service Capability June 2021
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. the Co-existence Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. SRv6-based BGP Service Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] defines procedures and messages for
SRv6-based services. When an egress PE is enabled for BGP Services
over SRv6 data-plane, it signals one or more SRv6 Service SIDs
enclosed in SRv6 Service TLV(s) within the BGP Prefix-SID
Attribute[RFC8669] attached to MP-BGP NLRIs. In other words, the
proposal leveraging the existing AFI/SAFIs of MPLS-based services.
There're two methods to encode SRv6 service SIDs in the
advertisement.
The first method, SRv6 Service SIDs are encoded as a whole in the
SRv6 Services TLVs and the MPLS Label field(s) of the corresponding
NLRI is set to Implicit NULL.
The second method is referred to as the Transposition Scheme in
[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services], the function and/or the argument part
of the SRv6 SID is encoded in the MPLS Label field of the NLRI and
the SID value in the SRv6 Services TLV carries only the locator part
of the SID.
[RFC8669] specifies that unknown TLVs in the BGP Prefix attribute
MUST be ignored and propagated unmodified. PEs that only support
MPLS may discard SRv6 Services TLV in the BGP Prefix attribute and
treat the label in the NLRI as VPN route label for MPLS VPN.
This draft describes the problems that may be encountered during the
deployment of SRv6-based services and the possible solutions.
2. the Co-existence Scenario
In the progress of network upgrading, some of the legacy devices that
only support MPLS/SR-MPLS will coexist with the new devices capable
of SRv6 for a long time.
As shown in Figure 1, PE1 is a legacy device that only supports MPLS-
based services. PE2 and PE3 support both MPLS-based and SRv6-based
Liu & Zhang Expires December 26, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SRv6-based BGP Service Capability June 2021
services. There may be route reflector in the network to reflect the
service routes. S-RR is a service route reflector that supports both
MPLS and SRv6.
+-----+
................|S-RR |..................
: +-----+ :
: :
: :
: :
: :
: +----------------+ :
: | |-------PE2...:
PE1-------| Backbone | :
| |-------PE3...:
+----------------+
Figure 1: the Co-existence Scenario
On PE3, a SRv6 service SID sid-1 and a MPLS VPN route label label-1
are assigned for overlay service 1.
The SRv6 service SID and a MPLS VPN route label for the service 1 are
advertised in separate UPDATE messages. ADD-PATH[RFC7911] is used to
avoid path hiding. S-RR reflects both SRv6-VPN route and MPLS-VPN
route to PE1. Since PE1 only supports MPLS, it may discard the SRv6
Service TLV(s) in the BGP Prefix attribute and treat the SRv6-based
route as a MPLS-based route for service 1, then there're two MPLS-
based routes for the same service 1 on PE1.
Depending on whether the Transposition Scheme is used, the following
two scenarios are described separately.
Scenario 1:
If the Transposition Scheme is used, the function and/or argument
part of sid-1 is encoded in the MPLS Label field of the NLRI of the
SRv6-based service route.
PE1 may choose the route which is originally the SRv6-based route and
use the label field in the NLRI of this route as MPLS VPN label for
packet encapsulation.
After receiving the packets from PE1, if there's no such MPLS label
on PE3, PE3 would discard the packets.
If the allocation of SRv6 SIDs and MPLS labels on PE3 is not well
planned, there may be a MPLS label label-2 whose value is exactly the
Liu & Zhang Expires December 26, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SRv6-based BGP Service Capability June 2021
same as the function and/or argument part of sid-1. In this case,
the packets may be sent to the wrong destination, e.g, service 2.
Scenario 2:
Sid-1 is encoded as a whole in the SRv6 Services TLV and the MPLS
Label field of the corresponding NLRI is set to Implicit NULL.
If the SRv6 Services TLV in the UPDATE messages is discarded by PE1,
from PE1's aspect, it has received a MPLS service route with an
Implicit NULL label.
How to deal with the MPLS-based route with an Implicit NULL label is
not standardized, different vendors may have different processing
procedures which are unpredictable, e.g, set the route to invalid,
send the packet to service 1 without the service route label or
something else.
On PE2, only SRv6-based service is configured.
If the service routes from PE2 are received by PE1, the processing
procedure is similar to PE3's case as described above. PE1 may
discard the SRv6 Service TLV(s) in the BGP Prefix attribute and treat
the SRv6-based route as a MPLS-based route. PE1 may treat the
function and/or argument part of SRv6 service SID as MPLS VPN route
label and use it for packet encapsulation. PE2 may receive
unexpected MPLS packets. If the label field in the NLRI is Implicit
NULL, how PE1 deals with it is unpredictable.
Overall, in the co-existence scenario, if the SRv6-based service
routes are advertised to legacy devices, it may result in service
failure and abnormal extra traffic flows in the network.
To avoid these problems, [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] specifies that
implementations SHOULD provide a mechanism to control advertisement
of SRv6-based BGP service routes on a per neighbor and per service
basis.
This can be done by configuration. First the network operator must
obtain whether the PEs in the network are capable of SRv6-based
services. Then the operator should config on PEs or route reflectors
based on each PE's capability, the configuration is per neighbor.
If there's a service route reflector, configurations on S-RR should
ensure that the SRv6 service routes would not be reflected to legacy
devices like PE1 that don't support SRv6.
Liu & Zhang Expires December 26, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SRv6-based BGP Service Capability June 2021
If there's no route reflector in the network, which neighbors can the
SRv6 service routes be advertised to should be specified when
configuring SRv6 services on the PEs.
The above method may be feasible in small-scale networks, but are not
applicable to large-scale networks.
The main reasons are:
a) The per neighbor configuration need to change with the device
capability. When a PE is upgraded to support SRv6-based services or
rolled back to an old version that only supports MPLS, the
configuration on its neighbors or the RR should be changed to add
this PE to or exclude it from the advertisement of SRv6-based BGP
service routes.
Although this may be done automatically by the network management
system, it is still not a easy job in a large-scale network and is
not flexible enough.
b) The additional steps of device capability acquisition and
capability based configuration increase the fault probability and
troubleshooting difficulty. If the service from PE1 to PE3 fails,
the operator needs to confirm the capability for SRv6-based service
of the two devices, and then check the configuration on PE3 or RR to
make sure that the SRv6-based service route is not advertised to PE1.
c) There is no standard solution for the network operator to obtain
the PE's capability for SRv6-based services. If there are devices
from multiple vendors in the network, there may be interconnection
problems.
3. SRv6-based BGP Service Capability
If the BGP speaker can obtain the capability for SRv6-based services
of its peers, the advertisement of SRv6-based BGP service routes can
be controlled.
It's unrealistic to define new AFI/SAFIs for SRv6-based services to
separate the advertisement of SRv6-based services and MPLS-based
services completely, since this is a big change to the existing
architecture.
Another method is defining a new Capability Code [RFC5492].
[RFC5492] defines the "Capabilities Optional Parameter". A BGP
speaker can include a Capabilities Optional Parameter in a BGP OPEN
message. This allows BGP speakers to communicate capabilities. The
Capabilities Optional Parameter is a triple that includes a one-octet
Liu & Zhang Expires December 26, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SRv6-based BGP Service Capability June 2021
Capability Code, a one-octet Capability length, and a variable-length
Capability Value.
This document defines a Capability Code for SRv6-based BGP service
capability. If a BGP speaker has not sent the SRv6-based BGP service
capability in its BGP OPEN message on a particular BGP session, or if
it has not received the SRv6-based BGP service capability in the BGP
OPEN message from its peer on that BGP session, that BGP speaker MUST
NOT send on that session any UPDATE message that includes the SRv6
service TLVs. Like other capabilities, if the capability for
SRv6-based services is enabled or removed, an established session
needs to be reset to resend the OPEN message.
In this way, the advertisement of SRv6-based BGP service routes is
controlled without per neighbor configuration, which makes it easier
to implement and manage in the network.
In the co-existence scenario, the SRv6-based service routes would
only be exchange between devices that support it based on this
capability. There would not be no UPDATE message that includes the
SRv6 service TLV received by legacy devices.
Back to the scenario in Figure 1, since PE1 only supports MPLS and
has not sent the SRv6-based BGP service capability in the OPEN
message, the S-RR will not reflect the SRv6-based service routes of
PE2 or PE3 to PE1, while the MPLS service routes from PE3 are
reflected to PE1. So PE1 wouldn't receive any SRv6 SRv6-based
service routes that may be misinterpretted, and the MPLS-based
service between PE1 and PE3 is unaffected.
4. Security Considerations
This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
inherent in [RFC5492] and [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services].
5. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new Capability Codes option, named "SRv6
Service Capability" with an assigned value <TBD1> to indicate that a
BGP speaker supports SRv6-based services. The length of this
capability is 1.
6. Normative References
Liu & Zhang Expires December 26, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SRv6-based BGP Service Capability June 2021
[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Raszuk, R.,
Decraene, B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "SRv6 BGP based
Overlay Services", draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07 (work
in progress), April 2021.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.
[RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,
A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.
Authors' Addresses
Liu Yao
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Email: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
Zhang Zheng
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
Liu & Zhang Expires December 26, 2021 [Page 7]