SPRING S. Agrawal, Ed.
Internet-Draft Z. Ali
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: August 25, 2022 Cisco Systems
D. Voyer
Bell Canada
G. Dawra
LinkedIn
Z. Li
Huawei Technologies
February 21, 2022
SRv6 and MPLS interworking
draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-07
Abstract
This document describes SRv6 and MPLS/SR-MPLS interworking and co-
existence procedures.
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 August 25, 2022.
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Interworking(IW) scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. IW scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Transport IW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Service IW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. SRv6 SID behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. End.DTM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. SRv6 Policy Headend Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. H.Encaps.M: H.Encaps applied to MPLS label stack . . . . 7
5.2. H.Encaps.M.Red: H.Encaps.Red applied to MPLS label stack 7
6. Interworking Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Transport IW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.1. SR-PCE multi-domain On Demand Nexthop . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.2. BGP inter domain routing procedures . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Service IW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.1. Gateway Interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.2. Translation between Service labels and SRv6 service
SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Migration and co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
1. Introduction
Many of the deployments require SRv6 insertion in the brownfield
networks. The incremental deployment of SRv6 into existing networks
require SRv6 to interwork and co-exist with SR-MPLS/MPLS. This
document discusses solutions for the various interworking scenarios.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Interworking(IW) scenarios
A multi-domain network (Figure 1) can be generalized as a central
domain C with many leaf domains around it. Specifically, document
look at a service flow from an ingress PE in an ingress leaf domain
(LI), through the C domain and up to an egress PE of the egress leaf
domain (LE). Each domain runs its own IGP instance. A domain has a
single data plane type applicable both for its overlay and its
underlay.
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
+-----+ +-----+ RD:V/v via 10 +-----+
.......|S-RR1|<...............|S-RR2|<.................|S-RR3| <..
: +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ :
: :
: :
+--:-------------------+----------------------+---------------------:-+
| : | 2 | | | 5 | | | 8 | : |
| : +---+ | +---+ | +---+ : |
| : | | : |
| : | | : |
| : | | : |
|----+ IGP1 +---+ IGP2 +---+ IGP3 +----|
| 1 | | 4 | | 7 | | 10 |
|----+ +---+ +---+ +----|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| +---+ | +---+ | +---+ |
| | 3 | | | 6 | | | 9 | |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
iPE iBR eBR ePE
<----------LI---------><----------C----------><-----------LE---------->
Figure 1: Reference multi-domain network topology
Document assumes SR-MPLS-IPv4 for MPLS data plane. Note: Procedures
in the document equally work for SR-MPLS-IPv6, LDP-IPv4/IPv6 and
RSVP-TE-MPLS.
2.1. IW scenarios
There are various SRv6 and SR-MPLS-IPv4 interworking scenarios
possible.
Below scenarios cover various cascading of SRv6/MPLS network, e.g.,
SR-MPLS-IPv4 <-> SRv6 <-> SR-MPLS-IPv4 <-> SRv6 <-> SR-MPLS-IPv4,
etc.
2.1.1. Transport IW
L3/L2 service continuity over a different intermediate transport.
o SRv6 over SR-MPLS-IPv4 (6oM)
* LI and LE domains are SRv6 data plane, C is SR-MPLS-IPv4 data
plane
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
* L3/L2 BGP SRv6 services [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] between
PEs. The ingress PE encapsulates the payload in an outer IPv6
header where the destination address(DA) is the SRv6 Service
SID.
* Tunnel traffic destined to egress PE SRv6 locator over SR-MPLS-
IPv4 C domain.
o SR-MPLS-IPv4 over SRv6 (Mo6)
* LI and LE domains are SR-MPLS-IPv4 data plane, C is SRv6 data
plane
* L3/L2 BGP MPLS services [RFC4364], [RFC7432]. The ingress PE
encapsulates the payload in an MPLS service label and sends it
MPLS LSP to next hop.
* Tunnel MPLS LSP to egress PE next hop over SRv6 C domain.
2.1.2. Service IW
Service discontinuity over a different intermediate transport i.e.
L2/L3 BGP SRv6 PE interworking with L2/L3 BGP MPLS PE for service
connectivity.
o SRv6 to SR-MPLS-IPv4 (6toM): The ingress PE encapsulates the
payload in an outer IPv6 header where the destination address is
the SRv6 Service SID[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]. Payload is
delivered to egress PE with MPLS service label[RFC4364] that it
advertised with service prefixes.
o SR-MPLS-IPv4 to SRv6 (Mto6): The ingress PE encapsulates the
payload in an MPLS service label. Payload is delivered to egress
PE with IPv6 header with destination address as SRv6 service SID
that it advertised with service prefixes.
3. Terminology
The following terms used within this document are defined in
[RFC8402]: Segment Routing, SR-MPLS, SRv6, SR Domain, Segment ID
(SID), SRv6 SID, Prefix-SID.
Domain: Without loss of the generality, domain is assumed to be
instantiated by a single IGP instance or a network within IGP if
there is clear separation of data plane.
Node k has a classic IPv6 loopback address Ak::1/128.
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
A SID at node k with locator block B and function F is represented by
B:k:F::
A SID list is represented as <S1, S2, S3> where S1 is the first SID
to visit, S2 is the second SID to visit and S3 is the last SID to
visit along the SR path.
(SA,DA) (S3, S2, S1; SL) represents an IPv6 packet with:
IPv6 header with source address SA, destination addresses DA and SRH
as next-header
SRH with SID list <S1, S2, S3> with SegmentsLeft = SL
Note the difference between the <> and () symbols: <S1, S2, S3>
represents a SID list where S1 is the first SID and S3 is the last
SID to traverse. (S3, S2, S1; SL) represents the same SID list but
encoded in the SRH format where the rightmost SID in the SRH is the
first SID and the leftmost SID in the SRH is the last SID. When
referring to an SR policy in a high-level use-case, it is simpler to
use the <S1, S2, S3> notation. When referring to an illustration of
the detailed packet behavior, the (S3, S2, S1; SL) notation is more
convenient.
4. SRv6 SID behavior
This document introduces a new SRv6 SID behavior. This behavior is
executed on border routers between the SRv6 and MPLS domain.
4.1. End.DTM
The "Endpoint with decapsulation and MPLS table lookup" behavior.
The End.DTM SID MUST be the last segment in a SR Policy, and a SID
instance is associated with an MPLS table.
When N receives a packet destined to S and S is a local End.DTM SID,
N does:
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
S01. When an SRH is processed {
S02. If (Segments Left != 0) {
S03. Send an ICMP Parameter Problem to the Source Address,
Code 0 (Erroneous header field encountered),
Pointer set to the Segments Left field,
interrupt packet processing and discard the packet.
S04. }
S05. Proceed to process the next header in the packet
S06. }
When processing the Upper-layer header of a packet matching a FIB
entry locally instantiated as an End.DTM SID, N does:
S01. If (Upper-Layer Header type == 137(MPLS) ) {
S02. Remove the outer IPv6 Header with all its extension headers
S03. Set the packet's associated FIB table to T
S04. Submit the packet to the MPLS FIB lookup for
transmission according to the lookup result.
S05. } Else {
S06. Process as per [RFC8986] section 4.1.1
S07. }
Note: IANA has allocated the Internet Protocol number 137 [RFC4023]
for MPLS-in-IP.
5. SRv6 Policy Headend Behaviors
5.1. H.Encaps.M: H.Encaps applied to MPLS label stack
The H.Encaps.M behavior encapsulates a received MPLS Label stack
[RFC3032] packet in an IPv6 header with an SRH. Together MPLS label
stack and its payload becomes the payload of the new IPv6 packet.
The Next Header field of the SRH MUST be set to 137 [RFC4023].
5.2. H.Encaps.M.Red: H.Encaps.Red applied to MPLS label stack
The H.Encaps.M.Red behavior is an optimization of the H.Encaps.M
behavior. H.Encaps.M.Red reduces the length of the SRH by excluding
the first SID in the SRH of the pushed IPv6 header. The first SID is
only placed in the Destination Address field of the pushed IPv6
header. The push of the SRH MAY be omitted when the SRv6 Policy only
contains one segment and there is no need to use any flag, tag or
TLV. In such case, the Next Header field of the IPv6 header MUST be
set to 137 [RFC4023].
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
6. Interworking Procedures
Figure 1 shows reference multi-domain network topology and Section 2
its description. The procedure in this section are illustrated using
the topology.
Following is assumed for data plane support of various nodes:
o Nodes 2,3,5,6,8,9 are provider(P) routers which need to support
single data plane type.
o 1 and 10 are PEs. They need to support single data plane type
both for overlay and underlay.
o Border routers 4 and 7 need to support both the SRv6 and SR-MPLS-
IPv4 data plane.
A VPN route is advertised via service RRs (S-RR) between an egress
PE(node 10) and an ingress PE (node 1).
For illustrations, the SRGB range starts from 16000 and prefix SID of
a node is 16000 plus node number
6.1. Transport IW
As described in Section 2.1.1, transport IW requires:
o Tunnel traffic destined to SRv6 Service SID bound to SRv6 locator
of egress PE over SR-MPLS-IPv4 C domain.
o Tunnel MPLS LSP bound to IPv4 loopback address of egress PE over
SRv6 C domain.
This draft enhances two well-known solutions to achieve above
tunneling: a controller(SR-PCE) and BGP inter domain routing based
approach. The SR-PCE based solution is applicable to both best
effort as well as deployments where intents are required (e.g., On-
Demand Next-hop like deployments scenarios) by L3/L2 services. The
BGP signaling covers the best effort case.
Specifically, the draft proposes the following two ways:
o An SR-PCE [RFC8664] multi-domain On Demand Next-hop (ODN) SR
policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] stitching end to
end across different data plane domains. These procedures can be
used when overlay prefixes are signaled with a color extended
community [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps].
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
o BGP Inter-Domain routing procedures advertising PE locator/IPv4
Loopback address for best effort end to end connectivity. These
procedures can be used when overlay prefixes don't have color
extended community.
6.1.1. SR-PCE multi-domain On Demand Nexthop
This procedure provides a best-effort as well as a path that
satisfies the intent (e.g. low latency), across multiple domains. A
Color is a 32-bit numerical value that associates an SR Policy with
an intent [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. In this case,
based on the intent, the PCE computes and programs end to end path
using SR-Policy(C,PE). The PCE is also aware of interworking
requirement at border nodes, as each domain feeds topological
information to the PCE through BGP LS feeds. Intermediate domain of
different data plane type is represented by Binding SID (BSID)
[RFC8402] of ingress domain type in SID list. In summary, an
intermediate domain of different data plane is replaced by a BSID of
the data plane nature of headend.
Below sections describe 6oM and Mo6 IW with SR-PCE
6.1.1.1. 6oM
Refer Section 2.1.1 for 6oM scenario. Service prefix (e.g. VPN or
EVPN) is received on head-end(node 1) with color extended
community(C1) from egress PE(node 10) and SRv6 service SID. Head-end
does not know how to compute the traffic engineered path through the
multi-domain network to node 10. Node 1 requests SR-PCE to compute a
path to node 10 providing intent (e.g. low latency). The PCE
computes low latency path via node 2, 5 and 8. The PCE identifies
the end-to-end path is not consistent data plane and kicks in
interworking procedures at the border router(node 4). It programs a
SR policy with MPLS segment list at 4 along required SLA path(node 5
and 7) bounded to an End.BM BSID [RFC8986]. SR-PCE responds back to
node 1 with SRv6 segments along required SLA including End.BM at node
4 to traverse SR-MPLS-IPv4 C domain.
For example, SR-PCE create SR-MPLS policy (C1,7) at node 4 with
segments <16005,16007>. It is bound to End.BM behavior with SRv6
BSID as B:4:BM-C1-7::
The data plane operations for the above-mentioned interworking
example are described in the following:
Node 1 performs SRv6 function H.Encaps.Red with VPN service SID
and SRv6 Policy (C1,10):
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
Packet leaving node 1 IPv6 ((A:1::, B:2:E::) (B:10::DT4, B:8:E::,
B:4:BM-C1-7:: ; SL=3))
Node 2 performs End function
Packet leaving node 2 IPv6 ((A:1::, B:4:BM-C1-7::) (B:10::DT4,
B:8:E::, B:4:BM-C1-7:: ; SL=2))
Node 4(border rout4er) performs End.BM function
Packet leaving node 4 MPLS (16005,16007,2)((A:1::, B:8:E::)
(B:10::DT4, B:8:E::, B:4:BM-C1-7-:: ; SL=1)).
Node 7 performs a native IPv6 lookup on due PHP behavior for 16007
Packet leaving node 7 IPv6 ((A:1::, B:8:E::) (B:10::DT4, B:8:E::,
B:4:BM-C1-7:: ; SL=1))
Node 8 performs End(PSP) function
Packet leaving node 8 IPv6 ((A:1::, B:10::DT4))
Node 10 performs End.DT function and lookups IP in VRF and send
traffic to CE.
6.1.1.2. Mo6
Refer Section 2.1.1 for Mo6 scenario. MPLS Service prefix (e.g. VPN
or EVPN) is received on head-end(node 1) with color extended
community(C1) from egress PE(node 10). Head-end does not know how to
compute the traffic engineered path through the multi-domain network
to node 10. Node 1 requests SR-PCE to compute a path to node 10
providing intent(eg: low latency). The PCE computes low latency path
via node 2, 5 and 8. The PCE identifies the end-to-end path is not
consistent data plane and kicks in interworking procedures at the
border router(node 4). It programs a SRv6 policy bound to MPLS BSID
at node 4 with SRv6 SID segment list along required SLA path with
last segment of behavior End.DTM. End.DTM behavior decapsulates the
IPv6 header and looks up top MPLS label in MPLS table. SR-PCE
responds back to node 1 with MPLS segment list along required SLA
path including MPLS BSID of SRv6 policy at node 4 to traverse SRv6
core domain.
For example, SR-PCE create SRv6 policy (C1,7) at node 4 with segments
<B:5:E::,B:7:DTM::>. It is bound to MPLS BSID 24407.
The data plan operations for the above-mentioned interworking example
are described in the following:
1. Node 1 performs MPLS label stack encapsulation with VPN label and
SR-MPLS Policy (C1,10):
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
Packet leaving node 1 towards 2 (Note: PHP of node 2 prefix SID):
MPLS packet (16004,24407,16008,16010,vpn_label)
2. Node 2 forwards traffic towards 4 (PHP of 16004)
Packet leaving node 2 MPLS packet (24407,16008,16010,vpn_label)
3. Node 4 steers MPLS traffic into SRv6 policy bound to 24407
Packet leaving node 4 IPv6(A:4::, B:5:E::) (B:7:DTM:: ;
SL=1)NH=137) MPLS((16008,16010,vpn_label)
4. Node 7 receive IPv6 packet with DA=B:7:DTM::. It performs DTM
behavior to remove IPv6 header and perform 16008 lookup in MPLS
table.
Packet leaves node 7 towards node 8(PHP of 16008) MPLS packet
(16010,vpn_label)
5. Node 8 forwards traffic towards 10 (PHP of 16010)
Packet leaving node 8 MPLS packet (vpn_label)
6. Node 10 performs vpn_label lookup and send traffic to CE.
6.1.2. BGP inter domain routing procedures
BGP 3107 [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] like procedures to advertise
PE locators and IPv4 loopbacks transport reachability in multi-domain
network with next hop self on border routers.
Below sections describe 6oM and Mo6 IW with BGP procedures
6.1.2.1. 6oM
Refer Section 2.1.1 for 6oM scenario. SRv6 based L3/L2 BGP services
are signaled with SRv6 Service SID between PEs through Service RRs
with no color extended community. Ingress PEs need reachability to
remote locator to send traffic to SRv6 service SID.
o Egress border router learns local PE locators through IGP. These
should be redistributed in BGP like any IPv6 global prefixes.
Alternatively, locator is advertised by PE in the BGP ipv6 unicast
address family (AFI=2,SAFI=1) to border nodes.
o Egress border router advertise LE domain PE locators in BGP IPv6
LU[AFI=2/SAFI=4] with local label (explicit NULL) to ingress
border router with IPv4 next hops. These next hops have SR-MPLS-
IPv4 LSP paths built in C domain. It may advertise summary prefix
covering all locators in LE domain.
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
o If ingress border router advertise remote locators in LI domain to
ingress PE in BGP address family (AFI=2,SAFI=1), it attaches local
End behavior as SRv6 SID in Prefix-SID attribute TLV type 5
[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]. Alternatively, it may leak remote
locators in LI IGP domain such that P routers also have
reachability
o Ingress PE learn remote locator over BGP ipv6 address family
AFI=2, SAFI=1 or through LI IGP. When learnt through BGP, SRv6
SID carried in Prefix-SID attribute TLV 5 tunnels traffic to
ingress border node in LI domain as P routers(node 2 and 3) will
not be aware of remote locator
Control plane example:
1. Routing Protocol(RP) @10:
* In ISIS advertise locator B:10::/48
* BGP AFI=1,SAFI=128 originates a VPN route RD:V/v via B:10::1
and Prefix-SID attribute B:10:DT4::. This route is advertised
to service RR.
2. RP @ 7:
* ISIS redistribute B:10::/48 into BGP
* BGP Originates B:10::/48 in AFI=2/SAFI=4 with next hop node 7
and label explicit null among border routers.
3. RP @ 4:
* BGP learns B:10::/48 with next hop node 7 and outgoing label.
* BGP advertise B:10::/48 in AFI=2/SAFI=1 with next hop B:4::1
and Prefix-SID attribute tlv type 5 carrying local End
behavior function B:4:END:: to node 1
* Alternatively, BGP redistributes remote locator or summary
route in LI domain IGP.
4. RP @ 1:
* BGP learns B:10::/48 via B:4::1 and Prefix-SID attribute TLV
type 5 with SRv6 SID B:4:END::
* Alternatively, B:10::/48 or summary route reachability is
learned through ISIS
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
* BGP AFI=1, SAFI=128 learn service prefix RD:V/v, next hop
B:10::1 and PrefixSID attribute TLV type 5 with SRv6 SID
B:10:DT4
FIB state
@1: IPv4 VRF V/v => H.Encaps.red <B:4:END::, B:10:DT4::> with SRH, SRH.NH=IPv4
@4: IPv6 Table: B:4:END:: => Update DA with B:10:DT4::,set IPv6.NH=IPv4, pop the SRH
@4: IPv6 Table: B:10::/48 => push MPLS label 2 (Explicit NULL), push MPLS Label 16007
@7: MPLS label 2 => pop and lookup next IPv6 DA
@7: IPv6 Table B:10::/48 => forward via ISIS path to 10
@10: IPv6 Table B:10:DT4:: => pop the outer header and lookup the inner IPv4 DA in the VRF
6.1.2.2. Mo6
Refer Section 2.1.1 for Mo6 scenario. MPLS based L3/L2 BGP services
are signaled with IPv4 next-hop of PE through Service RRs with no
color extended community. Ingress PE need labelled reachability to
remote PE IPv4 loopback address advertised as next hop with service
routes.
BGP LU [RFC8277] advertise IPv4 PE loopbacks. Next hop self-
performed on border routers.
Following are options and protocol extensions to tunnel IPv4 PE
loopback LSP through SRv6 C domain
6.1.2.2.1. Tunnel BGP LU LSP across SRv6 C domain
Intuitive solution for an MPLS-minded operator
o Existing BGP-LU label cross-connect on border routers for each PE
IPv4 loopback address.
o The lookups at the ingress border router are based on BGP3107
label as usual
o Just the SR-MPLS IGP label to next hop is replaced by an IPv6
tunnel with DA = SRv6 SID associated with DTM behavior in C
domain.
o Ingress border router forwarding perform 3107 label swap and
H.Encaps.M with DA = SRv6 SID associated with DTM behavior
o Similar to MPLS-over-IP
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
Following section describes how existing BGP LU updates between
border routers may carry SRv6 SID associated with DTM behavior to
tunnel LSP across SRv6 C domain
6.1.2.2.1.1. SRv6 label route tunnel TLV
This document introduces a new TLV called "SRv6 label route tunnel"
TLV of the BGP Prefix-SID Attribute to achieve signaling of SRv6 SIDs
to tunnel MPLS packet with label in NLRI at the top of its label
stack through SRv6/IPv6 domain. Behavior which may be encoded but
not limited to is End.DTM. SRv6 label route tunnel TLV signals "AND"
semantics i.e. push label signaled in NLRI and perform H.Encaps.M
with DA as SRv6 SID signaled in TLV.
o Reminder: RFC 8669 introduced Prefix-SID attribute with TLV type 1
for label index and TLV type 3 for Originator SRGB for AFI=1/2 and
SAFI 4 (BGP LU)
o This document extends the BGP Prefix-SID attribute [RFC8669] to
carry new "SRv6 label route tunnel" TLV. This document limits the
usage of this new TLV to AFI=1/2 SAFI 4. The usage of this TLV
for other AFI/SAFI is out of scope of this document.
o "SRv6 label route tunnel" TLV is encoded exactly like SRv6 Service
TLVs in Prefix-SID Attribute [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] with
following modification:
1. TLV Type (1 octet): This field is assigned values from the
IANA registry "BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types". It is set to 7 for
"SRv6 label route tunnel" TLV.
2. No transposition scheme is allowed i.e. transposition length
MUST be 0 in SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV
o Possibility of label encapsulation when dataplane has LSP to next
hop irrespective of SRv6 SID signaled in "SRv6 label route tunnel"
of Prefix-SID attribute. This allows existing implementation to
keep operating(legacy ingress border routers).
Control plane example
1. Routing Protocol(RP) @10:
* ISIS originates its IPv4 PE loopback with Node SID 16010
* BGP AFI=1,SAFI=4 originate IPv4 loopback address with next hop
node 10 and optionally label index=10 in Label-Index TLV of
Prefix-SID attribute.
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
* BGP AFI=1, SAFI=128 originates a VPN route RD:V/v next hop
node 10. This route is advertised to service RR.
2. RP @ 7:
* ISIS v6, advertise locator B:7::/48 in C domain
* BGP learns node 10 IPv4 loopback address with outgoing label.
It allocates local label (based on label index if present) and
programs label swap to outgoing label and MPLS LSP to next
hop.
* BGP AFI=1, SAFI=4 advertise IPv4 loopback address of node 10
to node 4. NLRI label is set to local label and SRv6 SID
B:7:DTM:: carried in SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV of "SRv6
label route tunnel" TLV in Prefix-Sid attribute. If received,
label index=10 in Label-Index TLV of Prefix-SID attribute is
also signaled.
3. RP @ 4:
* ISIS v4 originates its IPv4 loopback with prefix SID 16004 in
LI domain.
* BGP learns node10 IPv4 loopback address from node 7 with
outgoing label. It allocate local label (based on label index
if present) and programs label swap and H.Encaps.M.red with
IPv6 header destination address as SRv6 SID received in "SRv6
label route tunnel" TLV of Prefix-Sid attribute i.e.
B:7:DTM::.
* BGP AFI=1, SAFI=4 advertise IPv4 Loopback address of node 10
to node 1. NLRI label is set to local label and do not signal
"SRv6 label route tunnel" TLV in Prefix-SID attribute.
4. RP @ 1:
* BGP learns IPv4 loopback address of node 10 from node 4 with
outgoing label. It programs route to push outgoing label and
MPLS LSP to next hop i.e. node 4
* BGP AFI=1, SAFI=128 learn service prefix RD:V/v, next hop IPv4
loopback address of node 10 and service label.
Forwarding state at different nodes:
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
@1: IPv4 VRF: V/v => out label=vpn_label, next hop=IPv4 address of node 10
@1: IPv4 table: IPv4 address of node 10 => out label=16010, next hop=node4
@1: IPv4 table: IPv4 address of node 4 => out label=16004, next hop=interface to reach 2
@4: MPLS Table: 16010 => out label=16010, H.Encaps.M.red with DA=B:7:DTM::
@4: IPv6 table: B:7::/48 => next hop=interface to reach 5
@7: SRv6 My SID table: B:7:DTM:: => decaps IPv6 header and lookup top label.
@7: MPLS table: 16010 => out label=16010, next hop=interface to reach 8
@10: MPLS table: vpn label => pop label and lookup the inner IPv4 DA in the VRF
6.1.2.2.2. Label and SRv6 SID cross connect for BGP LU route
o Allocate SRv6 SID associated with behavior that is decap variant
of End.BM in [RFC8986] for each BGP LU route(IPv4 loopback address
of PE) received from LE domain on egress border router
o Lookup of SRv6 SID result in decaps of IPv6 header and push of BGP
LU outgoing label and MPLS LSP to next hop
o Advertise BGP LU route with SRv6 SID to ingress border router
o Ingress border router allocate local label and performs pop and
H.Encaps.M.Red with DA=per PE SRv6 SID on receiving packet with
local label
BGP protocol extension will be detailed in future version.
6.2. Service IW
As described in Section 2.1.2 Service IW need BGP SRv6 based L2/L3 PE
interworking with BGP MPLS based L2/L3 PE.
There are a number of different ways of handling this scenario as
detailed below.
6.2.1. Gateway Interworking
Gateway is router which supports both BGP SRv6 based L2/L3 services
and BGP MPLS based L2/L3 services for a service instance (e.g. L3
VRF, EVPN EVI). It terminates service encapsulation and perform L2/
L3 destination lookup in service instance.
o A border router between SRv6 domain and SR-MPLS-IPv4 domain is
suitable for Gateway role.
o Transport reachability to SRv6 PE and gateway locators in SRv6
domain or MPLS LSP to PE/gateway IPv4 Loopbacks can be exchanged
in IGP or through mechanism detailed in Section 2.1.1.
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
o Gateway exchange BGP L2/L3 service prefix with SRv6 based Service
PEs via set of service RRs. This session will learn/advertise L3/
L2 service prefixes with SRv6 service SID in prefix SID attribute
[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services].
o Gateway exchange BGP L2/L3 service prefix with MPLS based Service
PEs via set of distinct service RRs. This session will learn/
advertise L3/L2 service prefixes with service labels [RFC4364]
[RFC7432].
o L2/L3 prefix received from a domain is locally installed in
service instance and re advertised to other domain with modified
service encapsulation information.
o Prefix learned with SRv6 service SID from SRv6 PE is installed in
service instance with instruction to perform H.Encaps. It is
advertised to MPLS service PE with service label. When gateway
receives traffic with service label from MPLS service PE, it
perform destination lookup in service instance. Lookup result in
instruction to perform H.Encaps with DA being SRv6 Service SID
learnt with prefix from SRv6 PE.
o Prefix learned with MPLS service label from MPLS service PE is
installed in service instance with instruction to perform service
label encapsulation and send to MPLS LSP to nexthop. It is
advertised to SRv6 service PE with SRv6 service SID of behavior
(e.g. DT4/DT6/DT2U) [RFC8986]. When gateway receives traffic
with SRv6 Service SID as DA of IPv6 header from SRv6 service PE,
it perform destination lookup in service instance after decaps of
IPv6 header. Lookup result in instruction to push service label
and send it to nexthop.
Couple of border routers can act as gateway for redundancy. It can
scale horizontally by distributing service instance among them.
6.2.2. Translation between Service labels and SRv6 service SID
This is similar to inter-as option B control plane procedures
described in [RFC4364].
This would be described in future version of draft.
7. Migration and co-existence
In addition, the draft also addresses migration and coexistence of
the SRv6 and SR-MPLS-IPv4. Co-existence means a network that
supports both SRv6 and MPLS in a given domain. This may be a
transient state when brownfield SR-MPLS-IPv4 network upgrades to SRv6
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
(migration) or permanent state when some devices are not capable of
SRv6 but supports native IPv6 and SR-MPLS-IPv4.
These procedures would be detailed in a future revision
8. Availability
o Failure within domain are taken care by existing FRR mechanisms
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa].
o Procedures listed in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
provides protection in SR-PCE multi-domain On Demand Nexthop (ODN)
SR policy based approach.
o Convergence on failure of border routers can be achieved by well
known methods for BGP inter domain routing approach:
* BGP Add Path provide diverse path visibility
* BGP backup path pre-programming
* Sub-second convergence on border router failure notified by
local IGP.
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types registry
This document introduce a new TLV Type of the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute. IANA is requested to assign Type value in the registry
"BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types" as follows
Value Type Reference
----------------------------------------------------------
TBD SRv6 label route tunnel TLV <this document>
9.2. SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors
This document introduces a new SRv6 Endpoint behavior "End.DTM".
IANA is requested to assign identifier value in the "SRv6 Endpoint
Behaviors" sub-registry under "Segment Routing Parameters" registry.
+-------------+--------+-------------------------+------------------+
| Value | Hex | Endpoint behavior | Reference |
+-------------+--------+-------------------------+------------------+
| TBD | TBD | End.DTM | <this document> |
+-------------+--------+-------------------------+------------------+
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
10. Security Considerations
11. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Kamran Raza, Dhananjaya Rao,
Stephane Litkowski, Pablo Camarillo, Ketan Talaulikar
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[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-11 (work
in progress), February 2022.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-18 (work in progress),
February 2022.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, Ed.,
"Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE)", RFC 4023, DOI 10.17487/RFC4023, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4023>.
[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>.
[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>.
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[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>.
[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>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Patel, K., Velde, G. V. D., Sangli, S. R., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-
tunnel-encaps-22 (work in progress), January 2021.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]
Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz,
M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", draft-
ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
Reroute using Segment Routing", draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-
routing-ti-lfa-08 (work in progress), January 2022.
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking February 2022
Authors' Addresses
Swadesh Agrawal (editor)
Cisco Systems
Email: swaagraw@cisco.com
Zafar ALI
Cisco Systems
Email: zali@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Gaurav dawra
LinkedIn
USA
Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Agrawal, et al. Expires August 25, 2022 [Page 21]