SRv6 Inter Domain Routing
draft-mishra-srv6ops-inter-domain-routing-03
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.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Gyan Mishra , Bruce McDougall | ||
| Last updated | 2024-11-07 | ||
| 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-mishra-srv6ops-inter-domain-routing-03
SRV6OPS Working Group G. Mishra
Internet-Draft Verizon Inc.
Intended status: Informational B. McDougall
Expires: 11 May 2025 Cisco Systems
7 November 2024
SRv6 Inter Domain Routing
draft-mishra-srv6ops-inter-domain-routing-03
Abstract
This draft describes the SRv6 Inter Domain routing architecture with
IP VPN and EVPN overlays and seamlessly stitching the overlays across
inter domain boundaries. This draft analyzes the SRv6 Design and
Operational considerations regarding SRv6 Inter Domain routing and
the SRv6 forwarding plane. This draft also describes three real
world use cases of SRv6 Compression Next CSID and operational
considrations with regards to SRv6 inter domain routing.
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
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 11 May 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing - Inter-AS Local Peer . . . . . . . 6
4.1. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing - SID Not Signalled . . . . . . 6
4.2. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing - SID Signalled . . . . . . . . 8
5. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing E2E - Inter-AS Remote Peer . . . . 9
5.1. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing E2E - eBGP / iBGP - SID Not
Signalled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing E2E - eBGP / iBGP - SID
Signalled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. APPENDIX-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
This draft describes the SRv6 Inter Domain routing architecture with
IP VPN and EVPN overlays and seamlessly stitching the overlays across
inter domain boundaries. This draft analyzes the SRv6 Design and
Operational considerations regarding SRv6 Inter Domain routing and
the SRv6 forwarding plane. This draft also describes three real
world use cases of SRv6 Compression Next CSID and operational
considrations with regards to SRv6 inter domain routing.
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
[RFC4364] describes BGP/MPLS IPv4 VPN and [RFC4659] describes BGP/
MPLS IPv6 VPN. [RFC4364] describes BGP/MPLS IPv4 VPN Section 10 (a)
describes Inter-AS Options A known as back to back PE-CE style
peering, Section (b) Inter-AS Option B BGP-LU with Direct eBGP
peering VPN overlay, Section (c) describes Inter-AS Option-C ASBR to
ASBR interdomain loopbacks advertised with RR to RR eBGP multihop
peering with next-hop unchangd.
With SRv6 MPLS Inter-AS options described in [RFC4364] and [RFC4659]
are not applicable. However the knobs and concepts used in overaly
stitching are still very applicable and are used with SRv6. SRv6
Service SID refers to the SRv6 specific endpoint behaviors defined in
SRv6 Programming [RFC8986]. In this draft we discuss in detail the
end to end service stitching of the L2 VPN EVPN and IP VPN SRv6
Service SID endpoint behaviors which includes L2 VPN endpoint
behaviors End.DX2, End.DX2V, End.DX2U, End.DX2M and IP VPN endpoint
behaviors End.DX4, End.DX6, End.DT4 and End.DT6.
SRv6 inter domain routting L2 VPN EVPN and IP VPN SRv6 service
stitching is applicable to SRv6 Programming [RFC8986] 128 bit full
SID and SRv6 Compression [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression] C-SID
Next C-SID (uSID) endpoint flavor and Replace SID C-SID (G-SID)
endpoint flavor.
[RFC9252] describes BGP Overlay services over SRv6 forwarding plane.
For SRv6 Best effort (BE) service, the egress PE signals an SRv6
service SID with ingress PE for the BGP service overlay route. The
ingress PE encapsulates the payload packet from the CE in an outer
IPv6 header where the desitnation address is the SRv6 Service SID
provided by the egress PE. In this case the underlay intermediate
notes only need to support IPv6 data plane. In order to provide SRv6
service with an SLA from ingress PE to egress PE, the ingress PE
colors the overlay service route with a color extended community
[RFC9012] so the overlay color extended community maps to SR Policy
[RFC9012], overlay color to underlay intent mapping. The ingress PE
encapsulates the payload paacket from the CE in an outer IPv6 header
with SR Policy candidate SID list related to the SLA path bound to
the forwarding plane with Binding SID (BSID) set with the SRv6
service SID associated with the overlay service route active segment
in the SRH for 128 bit Full SID or SRv6 Compression Next SID carrier
uN endpoint function to forward along the static SID list or dynamic
SID list path end to end steering.
SRv6 Prefix SID attribute [RFC8669] is extended by [RFC9252] to carry
the SRv6 L2 VPN and IP VPN Service SIDs and their associated
information in BGP NLRI AFI / SAFI. SRv6 L3 Service TLV encodes the
service SID information for the SRv6 based L3 services providing the
equivalent functionality of MPLS service label when received with a
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
Layer 3 Service route as defined in BGP/MPLS VPN-IPv4 [RFC4364] and
BGP/MPLS VPN-IPv6 [RFC4659]. Essentially the SRv6 L3 Service TLV
encodes the L3 Service SID for SRv6 based services as an MPLS label
for SRv6 Programming [RFC8986] endpoint behaviors End.DX4, End.DX6,
End.DT4 and End.DT6. SRv6 L2 Service TLV encodes the service SID
information for the SRv6 based L2 services providing the equivalent
functionality of MPLS service label for an Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Route
Types for L2 services as defined in BGP/MPLS EVPN [RFC7432].
Essentially the SRv6 L2 Service TLV encodes the L2 VPN Service SID
for SRv6 based services as an MPLS label for SRv6 Programming
[RFC8986] endpoint behaviors End.DX2, End.DX2V, End.DX2U, End.DX2M.
[RFC9252] defines the encoding of the SRv6 SID information. The SRv6
Service SIDs for a BGP service prefix is carried in the SRv6 Service
TLVs of the BGP Prefix SID attribute as described above [RFC8669].
BGP services such as IP VPN BGP/MPLS VPN-IPv4 [RFC4364] and BGP/MPLS
VPN-IPv6 [RFC4659] where Per VRF SID allocation is used End.DT4 and
End.DT6 endpoint behaviors the same SID is shared across multiple
NLRIs, thus providing efficient packing. However for BGP services
such as Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC7432] and VPLS / H-VPLS where where
per-PW SID allocation is required such as for End.DX2 endpoint
behavior, each NLRI would have its own unique SID, resulting in
inefficient update packing. [RFC9252] defines an efficient method
for update packing for cases such as EVPN NLRI using a transposition
scheme, where the SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV describes the sizes
of the parts of the SRv6 SID and indicates the offsets such that the
common part locator is encoded into the BGP Prefix SID attribute and
the variable part Service label encoded into the func / arg field of
the SRv6 Service SID is encoded into the NLRI.
This draft describes how to successfully implement end to end inter
domain routing over an SRv6 forwarding plane where the L2 VPN EVPN
and IP VPN overlay services SRv6 Service SIDs can be stitched end to
end.
[RFC9252] BGP Service Overlay Section 2 last 2 paragraphs discusses
the use of Next hop Unchanged (NHU) operational guideline at all eBGP
boundaries to signal End-to-End SID. The signaling must be done on
both side of the eBGP peering for the SID to be propagated End-to-End
in both directions. A BGP speaker receiving a route containing the
BGP Prefix-SID attribute with one or more SRv6 service TLVs observes
the following rules when advertising the received route to other
peers:
[RFC9252] Rule-1: BGP Service Overlay Section 2 2nd to last paragraph
- SID not signalled when the Next hop is Changed. If the BGP Next
Hop is changed, the TLVs, Sub TLVs, or Sub-Sub-TLVs SHOULD be updated
with the locally allocated SRv6 SID information from the SID Manager.
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
Any received Sub-TLVs and Sub-Sub-TLVs that are unrecognized must be
removed. SRv6 summary locators are advertised for all Algo's between
domains for reachability inter domain routing. When the next hop
changes between the inter-as PE for L2 VPN or L3 VPN service route
the inter domain loopback propagated however since the next hop
changes on the eBGP peering the next hop is set to the directly
connected eBGP subnet and not the Loopback for the service route and
has the locally generated SRv6 Service SID resulting in SID not
signalled end to end.
[RFC9252] Rule-2: BGP Service Overlay Section 2 last paragraph -
Solutoin for propagating L2 VPN and L3 VPN SRv6 Service SID end to
end If the BGP Next Hop is Unchanged during the advertisement, the
SRv6 Service TLVs, including any unrecognized types of of Sub-TLVs
and Sub-Sub-TLVs, SHOULD be propagated further. In addition, all
Reserved fields in the TLV, Sub-TLV, or Sub-Sub-TLV MUST be
propagated Unchanged. When the next hop is unchanged between the
inter-as PE for L2 VPN or L3 VPN service route the inter domain
Loopback is now propagated and has the SRv6 Service SID propagated
resulting in SRv6 Data Plane being intact and working end to end.
2. Terminology
Terminolgoy used in defining the SRv6 Inter Domain Routing
specification.
IDR: SRv6 Inter Domain Routing End to End
NH: BGP Next Hop
NHC: BGP Next Hop Changed
NHU: BGP Next Hop Unchanged
NHS: BGP Next Hop Self
Service SID Preserved: Service SID is does not change and is
propagated
Service SID Locally Generated: Service SID is locally generated by
SRv6 SID Manager
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
3. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing Topology
SRv6 Inter Domain Routing topology is made up of a two domains.
Domain-1 AS1 is made up of PE1 and PE2 which have iBGP peering
between them. Domain-2 AS2 is made up of PE3. PE2 is the inter-as
ASBR eBGP peering to AS2 PE3 ASBR. ALl nodes PE1, PE2 and PE3 are
running [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression] C-SID Next C-SID
(uSID) endpoint flavor.
SRv6 Next SID Topology
Loc:fc00:0:1::/48 Loc:fc00:0:2::/48 Loc:fc00:0:3::/48
Lo0:fc00:0:1::1 Lo0:fc00:0:2::1 Lo0:fc00:0:3::1
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| AS1 |2001:1::2/127 | AS1 | 2001:1::5/127| AS2 |
| PE1 |---------------------| PE2 |--------------------| PE3 |
| | 2001:1::3/127| (ASBR)|2001:1::4/127 |(ASBR) |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
iBGP (Remote Peer) eBGP (Local Peer)
Figure 1: SRv6 Inter Domain Routing Topology
4. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing - Inter-AS Local Peer
4.1. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing - SID Not Signalled
SRv6 Inter Domain Routing where SID not signalled end to end:
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
eBGP Direct Peering (NHC = Next Hop Changed) - (Local Peer)
::4 - ::5 - SID Changes
Loc:fc00:0:2::/48 Loc:fc00:0:3::/48
Lo0:fc00:0:2::1 Lo0:fc00:0:3::1
+-------+ +-------+
| AS1 | 2001:1::5/127| AS2 |
| PE2 |--------------------| PE3 |
| (ASBR)|2001:1::4/127 |(ASBR) |
+-------+ +-------+
NHC:2001:1::4
vpn sid:fc00:0:2::db8a::
eBGP (Local Peer)
If R2 advertised with NHC 2001:1::4
vpn sid not preserved fc00:0:1:db8a::
when NH changes the service sid changes
R3 Sees valid/best path but SID is locally generated
Figure 2: SRv6 Inter Domain Routing - SID Not Signalled
SRv6 eBGP Inter-AS L2 EVPN, L3 VPN Overlay
SRv6 SID is not signalled end to end:
1. When the Next hop changes the Label Changes
NHC = Next Hop Changed is the default behavior on eBGP peering
2. MPLS Service Label (L2 VPN / L3 VPN) = SRv6 Service SID
3. When the MPLS Label changes the SRv6 Service SID changes
SRv6 SID is now locally generated by SID Manager instead of being
propagated
[RFC9252] Rule-1: BGP Service Overlay Section 2 2nd to last paragraph
when the Next Hop is Changed (NHC) the SRv6 Service SID is locally
generated
4. SRv6 SID not signalled and therefore is not propagated end to end
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
4.2. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing - SID Signalled
SRv6 Inter Domain Routing where SID is signalled end to end:
eBGP Direct Peering (NHU = Next Hop Unchanged) - (Local Peer)
Loc:fc00:0:2::/48 Loc:fc00:0:3::/48
Lo0:fc00:0:2::1 Lo0:fc00:0:3::1
+-------+ +-------+
| AS1 | 2001:1::5/127| AS2 |
| PE2 |--------------------| PE3 |
| (ASBR)|2001:1::4/127 |(ASBR) |
+-------+ +-------+
NHU:fc00:0:2::1
vpn sid:fc00:0:2::e005::
eBGP (Local Peer)
If R2 advertised with NHU fc00:0:2::1
vpn sid is preserved fc00:0:1:e005::
when NH changes the service sid changes
R3 sees valid/best path next hop is accessible
Figure 3: SRv6 Inter Domain Routing - SID Signalled
SRv6 eBGP Inter-AS L2 EVPN, L3 VPN Overlay
SRv6 SID is signalled end to end:
1. When the Next hop is Unchanged the MPLS Label is Preserved
NHU = Next Hop Unchanged
2. MPLS Service Label (L2 VPN / L3 VPN) = SRv6 Service SID
3. When the MPLS Label is preserved the SRv6 Service SID is
preserved
[RFC9252] Rule-2: BGP Service Overlay Section 2 last paragraph when
the next hop is Unchanged (NHU) the SRv6 Service SID is propagated
4. SRv6 SID is signalled and therefore is propagated end to end
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
5. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing E2E - Inter-AS Remote Peer
5.1. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing E2E - eBGP / iBGP - SID Not Signalled
SRv6 Inter Domain Routing - eBGP / iBGP - SID Not Signalled End to
End:
SRv6 SID not signalled (NHC = Next Hop Changed)
::4 - ::5
NHS re-write Loopback0
Loc:fc00:0:1::/48 Loc:fc00:0:2::/48 Loc:fc00:0:3::/48
Lo0:fc00:0:1::1 Lo0:fc00:0:2::1 Lo0:fc00:0:3::1
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| AS1 |2001:1::2/127 | AS1 | 2001:1::5/127| AS2 |
| PE1 |---------------------| PE2 |--------------------| PE3 |
| | 2001:1::3/127| (ASBR)|2001:1::4/127 |(ASBR) |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
NHC:fc00:0:1::1 NHC:2001:1::4 NHC:2001:1::4
vpn sid:fc00:0:1::abdf:: vpn sid:fc00:0:2::db8a:: vpn sid:fc00:0:2::db8a::
iBGP (Remote Peer) eBGP (Local Peer)
---------------------------------------------------------------->>
NHC:fc00:0:1::1 If R2 advertises with NHC 2001:1::4
vpn sid:fc00:0:1::abdf:: vpn sid not preserved fc00:0:2::db8a::
SID Not Preserved R3 sees valid/best but sid locally generated on PE2
Figure 4: SRv6 Inter Domain Routing E2E - eBGP / iBGP - SID Not
Signalled
SRv6 eBGP Inter-AS L2 EVPN, L3 VPN Overlay
SRv6 SID not signalled end to end:
1. When the Next hop changes the Label Changes
NHC = Next Hop Changed is the default behavior on eBGP peering
[RFC9252] Rule-1: BGP Service Overlay Section 2 2nd to last paragraph
when the Next Hop is Changed (NHC) the SRv6 Service SID is locally
generated
NHS = Next Hop Self configuration on iBGP peering PE-RR (Typical
configuration)
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
For the iBGP peering (Remote peering) with NHS the next hop is re-
written to the Loopback0 (Changed)
[RFC9252] Rule-1: BGP Service Overlay Section 2 2nd to last paragraph
when the Next Hop is Changed (NHC) the SRv6 Service SID is locally
generated
2. MPLS Service Label (L2 VPN / L3 VPN) = SRv6 Service SID
3. When the MPLS Label changes the SRv6 Service SID changes
SRv6 SID is now locally generated by SID Manager instead of being
propagated
4. SRv6 SID not signalled and therefore is not propagated end to end
5.2. SRv6 Inter Domain Routing E2E - eBGP / iBGP - SID Signalled
SRv6 Inter Domain Routing - eBGP / iBGP - SID Signalled End to End:
SRv6 SID Signalled (NHU = Next Hop Unchanged)
::4 - ::5
No NHS re-write Loopback0
Loc:fc00:0:1::/48 Loc:fc00:0:2::/48 Loc:fc00:0:3::/48
Lo0:fc00:0:1::1 Lo0:fc00:0:2::1 Lo0:fc00:0:3::1
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| AS1 |2001:1::2/127 | AS1 | 2001:1::5/127| AS2 |
| PE1 |---------------------| PE2 |--------------------| PE3 |
| | 2001:1::3/127| (ASBR)|2001:1::4/127 |(ASBR) |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
NHU:fc00:0:1::1 NHU:fc00:0:1::1 NHU:fc00:0:1::1
vpn sid:fc00:0:1::e006:: vpn sid:fc00:0:1::e006:: vpn sid:fc00:0:1::e006::
iBGP (Remote Peer) eBGP (Local Peer)
---------------------------------------------------------------->>
If R1 advertises with NHC fc00:0:1::1
vpn sid preserved fc00:0:1::e006::
R2 sees valid/best NH is accessible
If R2 advertises with NHC fc00:0:1::1
vpn sid preserved fc00:0:1::e006::
R3 sees valid/best NH is accessible
Figure 5: SRv6 Inter Domain Routing E2E - eBGP / iBGP - SID Signalled
SRv6 eBGP Inter-AS L2 EVPN, L3 VPN Overlay
SRv6 SID signalled end to end:
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
1. When the Next hop is Unchanged the MPLS Label is Preserved
[RFC9252] Rule-2: BGP Service Overlay Section 2 last paragraph when
the next hop is Unchanged (NHU) the SRv6 Service SID is propagated
NHU = Next Hop Unchanged
Remove NHS = Next Hop Self configuration on iBGP peering PE-RR
By removing NHS the NH does not change essentially "unchanged"
allowing the NH to be propagated end to end
[RFC9252] Rule-2: BGP Service Overlay Section 2 last paragraph when
the next hop is Unchanged (NHU) the SRv6 Service SID is propagated
2. MPLS Service Label (L2 VPN / L3 VPN) = SRv6 Service SID
3. When the MPLS Label is preserved by not changing the SRv6 Service
SID is preserved
4. SRv6 SID is signalled and therefore is propagated end to end
6. Operational Considerations
Operational Guidance to always use Next-Hop-Unchanged (NHU) on all
eBGP boundaries on both sides of the eBGP peering to signal "End to
End SID" for SID propagation End-to-End in both directions.
Operational Guidance to not use Next-Hop-Self on iBGP PE-RR peering
so that the received service SID from an Ingress Domain is propagated
"End to End" to an Egress Domain and vice versa in both directions.
Operational Guidance is applicable to both SRv6 (Full SID) and SRv6
compression.
7. IANA Considerations
There are not any IANA considerations.
8. Security Considerations
No new extensions are defined in this document. As such, no new
security issues are raised beyond those that already exist in BGP-4
and use of MP-BGP for IPv6.
The security features of BGP and corresponding security policy
defined in the ISP domain are applicable.
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
For the inter-AS distribution of IPv6 prefixes according to case (a)
of Section 4 of this document, no new security issues are raised
beyond those that already exist in the use of eBGP for IPv6
[RFC2545].
9. Acknowledgments
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext]
Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Mattes, P., and
D. Jain, "Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions for BGP
SR Policy", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-05, 27 September 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
sr-segtypes-ext-05>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., and
D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-
routing-te-policy-26, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
segment-routing-te-policy-26>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression]
Cheng, W., Filsfils, C., Li, Z., Decraene, B., and F.
Clad, "Compressed SRv6 Segment List Encoding", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-
compression-19, 3 November 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
srv6-srh-compression-19>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
[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>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2545] Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol
Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2545, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2545>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and
B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3036, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3036>.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, DOI 10.17487/RFC3107, May 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3107>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S.,
Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen,
"Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of
Differentiated Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270,
May 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC4029] Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P.
Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into
ISP Networks", RFC 4029, DOI 10.17487/RFC4029, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4029>.
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
[RFC4182] Rosen, E., "Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS
Explicit NULL", RFC 4182, DOI 10.17487/RFC4182, September
2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4182>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[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>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
[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>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8950] Litkowski, S., Agrawal, S., Ananthamurthy, K., and K.
Patel, "Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability
Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop", RFC 8950,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8950, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8950>.
[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>.
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
[RFC9252] Dawra, G., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Raszuk, R., Decraene,
B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "BGP Overlay Services
Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9252, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9252>.
[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>.
[RFC9313] Lencse, G., Palet Martinez, J., Howard, L., Patterson, R.,
and I. Farrer, "Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition
Technologies for IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS)", RFC 9313,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9313, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9313>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-dynamic-cap]
Chen, E. and S. R. Sangli, "Dynamic Capability for BGP-4",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-
cap-16, 21 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
dynamic-cap-16>.
[I-D.mapathak-interas-ab]
Pathak, M., Patel, K., and A. Sreekantiah, "Inter-AS
Option D for BGP/MPLS IP VPN", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-mapathak-interas-ab-02, 28 May 2015,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mapathak-
interas-ab-02>.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4659>.
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
[RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684,
November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4684>.
[RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur,
"Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6
Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4798, February 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798>.
[RFC4925] Li, X., Ed., Dawkins, S., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and A.
Durand, Ed., "Softwire Problem Statement", RFC 4925,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4925, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4925>.
[RFC5549] Le Faucheur, F. and E. Rosen, "Advertising IPv4 Network
Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop",
RFC 5549, DOI 10.17487/RFC5549, May 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5549>.
[RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh
Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5565>.
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
"Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6074, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6074>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Inter Domain Routing November 2024
Appendix A. APPENDIX-A
SRv6 Compression [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression] C-SID Next
C-SID (uSID) endpoint flavor Inter Domain Routing development work is
all contained in GitHub link below.
https://github.com/segmentrouting/srv6-labs/tree/main/3-srv6-dc-case-
studies
Authors' Addresses
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc.
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Bruce McDougall
Cisco Systems
Email: brmcdoug@cisco.com
Mishra & McDougall Expires 11 May 2025 [Page 18]