SPRING Working Group S. Hegde
Internet-Draft R. Bonica
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: August 26, 2021 P. Shaofu
G. Mirsky
Z. Zhang
ZTE Corporation
B. Decraene
Orange
February 22, 2021
The SRv6 END.DTM Endpoint Behavior
draft-bonica-spring-srv6-end-dtm-04
Abstract
This document describes a new SRv6 endpoint behavior, called END.DTM.
END.DTM supports inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS. Like any
endpoint behavior, END.DTM contains a function and arguments. The
function causes the processing node to decapsulate a packet, impose
an SR-MPLS label stack and forward the packet. The arguments
determine SR-MPLS label stack contents.
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 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
Hegde, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft END.DTM February 2021
(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. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use-case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Overview
Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] allows source nodes to steer packets
through SR paths. It can be implemented over IPv6 [RFC8200] or MPLS
[RFC3031]. When SR is implemented over IPv6, it is called SRv6
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]. When SR is implemented
over MPLS, it is called SR-MPLS [RFC8660].
This document describes a new SRv6 endpoint behavior, called END.DTM.
END.DTM supports inter-working between SRv6 and SR-MPLS. Like any
endpoint behavior, END.DTM contains a function and arguments. The
function causes the processing node to:
o Decapsulate a packet (i.e., remove an IPv6 header and its
extensions).
o Impose an SR-MPLS label stack.
o Forward the packet.
The arguments determine MPLS-label stack contents and anything that
might be encoded in the MPLS-label stack (e.g., transport class
[I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr])
Hegde, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft END.DTM February 2021
2. 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.
3. Use-case
------ ------ ------ ------ ------
|Node 1| --- |Node 2| --- |Node 3| --- |Node 4| --- |Node 5|
------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Seg. A Seg. B Seg. C Seg. D
<-----------SRv6 Part ----------><-------SR-MPLS Part------>
Figure 1: END.DTM Use-case
Figure 1 depicts an inter-working SR path. The SR path originates on
Node 1 and terminates on Node 5. It contains:
o An SRv6 part
o An SR-MPLS part
The SRv6 part includes Nodes 1, 2 and 3. Nodes 1 and 2 MUST be
SRv6-capable but are NOT REQUIRED to be SR-MPLS capable. An END.DTM
segment is instantiated on Node 3. Therefore, Node 3 MUST be
SRv6-capable and SR-MPLS capable.
The SRv6 part also includes:
o Segment A - An END segment that is instantiated on Node 2.
o Segment B - An END.DTM segment that is instantiated on Node 3.
The SR-MPLS part includes Nodes 4 and 5. These nodes MUST be SR-
MPLS-capable but are NOT REQUIRED to be SRv6 capable.
The SR-MPLS part also includes:
o Segment C - A prefix segment that is instantiated on Node 4.
o Segment D - A prefix segment that is instantiated on Node 5.
Hegde, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft END.DTM February 2021
The following paragraphs describe how a packet traverses this inter-
working SR path:
Node 1 encapsulates the packet in an SRv6 header. The SRv6 header
contains the following Segment Identifiers (SID):
o A SID representing Segment A, encoded in the Destination Address
field of the IPv6 header.
o A SID representing Segment B, encoded in a Segment Routing Header
(SRH) [RFC8754].
Node 1 sends the packet to Node 2. When the packet arrives at Node
2, The Destination Address field in the IPv6 header represents a
locally instantiated END SID. Node 2 processes the packet as
follows:
o Decrement the Segments Left field in the SRH
o Copy the next SID from the SRH to the Destination Address field of
the IPv6 header.
o Forward the packet to Node 3.
When the packet arrives at Node 3, The Destination Address field in
the IPv6 header represents a locally instantiated END.DTM SID. Node
3 processes the packet as follows:
o Decapsulate the packet (i.e., remove the IPv6 header and its
extensions, including the SRH)
o Push two SR-MPLS label stack entries, representing Segments D and
C. Set the MPLS Traffic Class and TTL values to reflect the
Traffic Class and Hop count values received in the IPv6 header.
o Forward the packet to Node 4.
When the packet arrives at Node 4, it is encapsulated in an SR-MPLS
label stack. Node 4 processes the packet as described in SR-MPLS
[RFC8660].
4. Processing
The End.DTM SID MUST be the last segment in a SR Policy. Its
arguments are associated with an SR-MPLS label stack.
When Node N receives a packet destined to S and S is a locally
instantiated End.DTM SID, Node N executes the following procedure:
Hegde, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft END.DTM February 2021
S01. When an IPv6 Routing Header 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 executes the following
procedure:
S01. Decapsulate the packet (i.e., remove the outer IPv6 Header and all
its extension headers)
S02. Push the SR-MPLS label stack that is associated with the END.DTM
arguments. Set the MPLS Traffic Class and TTL values to reflect
the Traffic Class and Hop count values received in the IPv6 header.
S03. Submit the packet to the MPLS FIB lookup for transmission to the
new destination
5. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA action.
The authors will request an early allocation from the "SRv6 Endpoint
Behaviors" sub-registry of the "Segment Routing Parameters" registry.
6. Security Considerations
Because SR inter-working requires co-operation between inter-working
domains, this document introduces no security consideration beyond
those addressed in [RFC8402], [RFC8754] and
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming].
7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Melchior Aelmans, Bruno Decraene, Takuya Miyasaka and Jeff
Tantsura for their comments.
8. References
Hegde, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft END.DTM February 2021
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-28 (work in
progress), December 2020.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr]
Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Xu, X., Gulko, A., Bogdanov, A.,
Uttaro, J., Jalil, L., Khaddam, M., and A. Alston,
"Seamless Segment Routing", draft-hegde-spring-mpls-
seamless-sr-04 (work in progress), January 2021.
Hegde, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft END.DTM February 2021
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Shraddha Hegde
Juniper Networks
Embassy Business Park
Bangalore, KA 560093
India
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
Ron Bonica
Juniper Networks
Herndon, Virginia 20171
USA
Email: rbonica@juniper.net
Peng Shaofu
ZTE Corporation
Peoples Republic of China
Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corporation
USA
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Zheng Zhang
ZTE Corporation
Peoples Republic of China
Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
Hegde, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft END.DTM February 2021
Bruno Decraene
Orange
France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Hegde, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 8]