Insertion of IPv6 Segment Routing Headers in a Controlled Domain
draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-06-22
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)
Network Working Group                                      D. Voyer, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               Bell Canada
Intended status: Informational                                  J. Leddy
Expires: December 23, 2018                                       Comcast
                                                             C. Filsfils
                                                           D. Dukes, Ed.
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                              S. Previdi
                                                  Individual Contributor
                                                           S. Matsushima
                                                                Softbank
                                                           June 21, 2018

    Insertion of IPv6 Segment Routing Headers in a Controlled Domain
             draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-04

Abstract

   The network operator and vendor community has clearly indicated that
   IPv6 header insertion is useful and required.  This is notably the
   case when the entire journey of the packet remains in its source
   domain.  In such a context, it does not matter where the extension
   header is inserted.  The source domain may decide to place the IPv6
   extension header insertion where it suits its best: at the source of
   the packet or at any midpoint within the source domain.

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."

Voyer, et al.           Expires December 23, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                SRH Insertion                    June 2018

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2018.

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
   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.  Source Domain and Packet Journey  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Transit Through a Source Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Impact of SRH Insertion Within a Source Domain  . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  ICMP Error message processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  ICMP Error message processing with routing header . .   5
     4.2.  Destination outside the Source Domain . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   We define the concept of "domain" as the set of nodes under the same
   administration.  For example, a network operator infrastructure
   including routers and links grouped into BGP autonomous systems (ASs)
   and routing domains (running OSFP or IS-IS).

   We define "source domain" as the domain of the source of the packet.

Voyer, et al.           Expires December 23, 2018               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                SRH Insertion                    June 2018
Show full document text