SRv6 Compatibility with Legacy Devices
draft-peng-spring-srv6-compatibility-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-10-22
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
SPRING Working Group                                             S. Peng
Internet-Draft                                                     Z. Li
Intended status: Informational                                    Huawei
Expires: April 25, 2019                                 October 22, 2018

                 SRv6 Compatibility with Legacy Devices
                draft-peng-spring-srv6-compatibility-00

Abstract

   When deploying SRv6 on legacy devices, there are some compatibility
   challenges such as the support of SRH processing.  This document
   identifies some of the major challenges, and provides solutions that
   are able to mitigate those challenges and smooth the evolution
   towards SRv6 deployment.

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 April 25, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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

Peng & Li                Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                                              October 2018

   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.  Compatibility challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Fast Reroute (FRR)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Traffic Engineering (TE)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.3.  Service Function Chaining (SFC) . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.4.  iOAM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  TE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.1.  Binding SID (BSID)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  PCEP FlowSpec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  Stateless SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.2.  Stateful SFC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Light Weight iOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Segment Routing (SR) is a source routing paradigm, which allows a
   headend node to steer the packets through an ordered list of
   instructions, i.e. segments [RFC8402].  A segment can either be
   topological or service based.  SR over IPv6 (SRv6)
   [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] is the SR instantiated
   on the IPv6 data plane with a new type of routing extension header,
   i.e. SR Header (SRH) [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].  An SRv6
   segment, also called SRv6 SID, is a 128-bit value, represented as
   LOC:FUNCT:ARGS (ARGS is optional), and encoded as an IPv6 address.
   An ordered list of SRv6 SIDs forms an SR Policy, which can be used
   for, for example, Traffic Engineering (TE), Service Function Chaining
   (SFC), and Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM).
   Meanwhile, it will also bring challenges on the legacy devices to
   support SRv6 correspondingly.

Peng & Li                Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 2]
Show full document text