LSR WG Ran. Chen
Internet-Draft Shaofu. Peng
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: September 29, 2020 March 28, 2020
IGP Extensions for Shorter SRv6 SID
draft-chen-lsr-igp-shorter-srv6-extensions-00
Abstract
This document describes the IGP extensions required to support the
Shorter SRv6 SIDs( Compressing SRv6 SIDs).
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 September 29, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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.
Chen & Peng Expires September 29, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IGP for Shorter SRv6 SID March 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Advertising Shorter SRv6 SIDs capabilities. . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. IS-IS Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. OSPFv3 Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Advertising SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Advertising Endpoint Behaviors with UET-Flavor . . . . . . . 6
5. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
Segment Routing [RFC8402] leverages the source routing paradigm. An
ingress node steers a packet through an ordered list of
instructions,called segments.
Segment Routing can be directly instantiated on the IPv6 data plane
through the use of the Segment Routing Header defined in
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. SRv6 refers to this SR
instantiation on the IPv6 dataplane.
However, the size of the SRv6 SID presents a scalabilities challenge
to use topological instructions that define a strict explicitly
routed path in combination with service-based instructions. At the
same time, the size of the SRH/SID may be a challenge for some data
plane processors and traffic overhead.
[I-D.cheng-spring-shorter-srv6-sid-requirement] describes a list of
requirements for the use of a shortened identifier in a segment
routing network with the IPv6 data plane.
[I-D.mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr] proposed an extension of SRH that
enables the use of a shorter segment identifier in dataplane, such as
32-bits Label format SID or 32-bits IP address format SID.
This document defines extensions to IGP in order to to support the
Shorter SRv6 SIDs contained in SID list that installed in dataplane.
2. Advertising Shorter SRv6 SIDs capabilities.
2.1. IS-IS Extensions
A node indicates that it supports the SR Segment Endpoint Node
functionality as specified in [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
by advertising a new SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV
Chen & Peng Expires September 29, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IGP for Shorter SRv6 SID March 2020
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] of the router capabilities TLV
[RFC7981].
This document extensions the flags field in the SRv6 Capabilities
sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] to indicate the node
supports the Shorter SRv6 SIDs.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Flags | UEC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| optional sub-sub-TLVs...
Figure 1: UET-Flag in SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV
where
UEC: Unified-SID Encapsulation Capability, 3-bits field, refers to
[I-D.mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr], it indicates the U-SID capabilities
which the node support. A node advertised a specific UEC also means
the node belongs to the related UET domain, so it will have
capability to install a local SID entry with behavor to get next UET
related U-SID from SRH. The value of UEC could be:
0b000: The node only support to use classical 128-bits SRv6 SID.
It only belongs to UET-128 domain, and has capability only to get
next classical 128-bits SID from SRH.
0b001: The node support to use both classical 128-bits SRv6 SID
and 32-bits U-SID. It can belongs to both UET-128 domain and
UET-32 IP domain, and has capability both to get next classical
128-bits SID and 32-bits IP U-SID from SRH.
0b010: The node support to use both classical 128-bits SRv6 SID
and 32-bits MPLS U-SID. It can belongs to both UET-128 domain and
UET-32 MPLS domain, and has capability both to get next classical
128-bits SID and 32-bits MPLS U-SID from SRH.
0b011: The node support to use both classical 128-bits SRv6 SID,
32-bits IP U-SID, and 32-bits MPLS U-SID. It can belongs to both
UET-128 domain, UET-32 IP domain, and UET-32 MPLS domain, and has
capability both to get next classical 128-bits SID, 32-bits IP
U-SID, and 32-bits MPLS U-SID from SRH.
0b100: The node support to use both classical 128-bits SRv6 SID
and 16-bits U-SID. It can belongs to both UET-128 domain and
Chen & Peng Expires September 29, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IGP for Shorter SRv6 SID March 2020
UET-16 domain, and has capability both to get next classical
128-bits SID and 32-bits U-SID from SRH.
0b101: The node support to use both classical 128-bits SRv6 SID,
32-bits IP U-SID, and 16-bits U-SID. It can belongs to both
UET-128 domain, UET-32 IP domain, and UET-16 domain, and has
capability both to get next classical 128-bits SID, 32-bits IP
U-SID, and 16-bits U-SID from SRH.
others: For later defined.
For typical 32-bits based compression scenario, 0b001 UCE is enough.
Note that UEC has two meanings. The first meaning, indicate which
UET domain does the advertised node belongs to, this will help to
outline which UET domains the SR path crosses. The second meanning,
indicate the advertised node has capability to install a local SID
entry with UET related behavor, to get next UET related U-SID from
SRH, this will help to select appropriate SID with specific UET
related behavor for an segment list during compression.
2.2. OSPFv3 Extensions
The SRv6 Capabilities TLV is used by an OSPFv3 router to advertise
its SRv6 support along with its related capabilities for SRv6
functionality. This is an optional top level TLV of the OSPFv3
Router Information LSA [RFC7770] which MUST be advertised by an SRv6
enabled router.
This document extensions the flags field in the SRv6 Capabilities TLV
[I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] to indicate the node supports
the Shorter SRv6 SIDs.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | UEC | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLVs...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: UET-Flag in SRv6 Capabilities TLV
where
Chen & Peng Expires September 29, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IGP for Shorter SRv6 SID March 2020
UEC: Unified-SID Encapsulation Capability, 3-bits field, refers to
[I-D.mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr], it indicates the U-SID capabilities
which the node support. A node advertised a specific UEC also means
the node belongs to the related UET domain, so it will have
capability to install a local SID entry with behavor to get next UET
related U-SID from SRH. The value of UEC could be:
0b000: The node only support to use classical 128-bits SRv6 SID.
It only belongs to UET-128 domain, and has capability only to get
next classical 128-bits SID from SRH.
0b001: The node support to use both classical 128-bits SRv6 SID
and 32-bits IP U-SID. It can belongs to both UET-128 domain and
UET-32 IP domain, and has capability both to get next classical
128-bits SID and 32-bits IP U-SID from SRH.
0b010: The node support to use both classical 128-bits SRv6 SID
and 32-bits MPLS U-SID. It can belongs to both UET-128 domain and
UET-32 MPLS domain, and has capability both to get next classical
128-bits SID and 32-bits MPLS U-SID from SRH.
0b011: The node support to use both classical 128-bits SRv6 SID,
32-bits IP U-SID, and 32-bits MPLS U-SID. It can belongs to both
UET-128 domain, UET-32 IP domain, and UET-32 MPLS domain, and has
capability both to get next classical 128-bits SID, 32-bits IP
U-SID, and 32-bits MPLS U-SID from SRH.
0b100: The node support to use both classical 128-bits SRv6 SID
and 16-bits U-SID. It can belongs to both UET-128 domain and
UET-16 domain, and has capability both to get next classical
128-bits SID and 32-bits U-SID from SRH.
0b101: The node support to use both classical 128-bits SRv6 SID,
32-bits IP U-SID, and 16-bits U-SID. It can belongs to both
UET-128 domain, UET-32 IP domain, and UET-16 domain, and has
capability both to get next classical 128-bits SID, 32-bits IP
U-SID, and 16-bits U-SID from SRH.
others: For later defined.
Other considerations is similar with IS-IS section.
3. Advertising SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV
SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV is an optional Sub-Sub-TLV of SRv6 End
SID Sub-TLV, SRv6 End.X SID Sub-TLV ,and SRv6 LAN End.X SID Sub-TLV .
Chen & Peng Expires September 29, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IGP for Shorter SRv6 SID March 2020
As discussed in [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming], the node
with the SRv6 capability will maintain its local SID table. A Local
SID is generally composed of two parts, that is, LOC:FUNCT, or may
carry arguments at the same time, that is, LOC:FUNCT:ARGS. The
controller plane protocol can also use B:N to represent an LOC, where
B is SRv6 SID Locator Block and N to represent node N. In other
words, the structure of a complete SID is B:N:FUNCT:ARGS.
SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] or
SRv6 SID Structure Sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] is
used to advertise the length of each individual part of the SRv6 SID.
If a node advertised an UEC with 0b001/0b011/0b100/0b101, it SHOULD
advertise the related SIDs with structure information, otherwise the
result optimized SID list will have to contain related classical
128-bits SRv6 SID.
4. Advertising Endpoint Behaviors with UET-Flavor
Endpoint behaviors are defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
and[I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam] . The codepoints for the Endpoint
behaviors are defined in the "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors" registry
defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]. For End,
End.X and End.T behaviors, they can also have PSP, USP and USD
variants. This document continues to extend the following new
flavors for End and End.X behaviors:
UET-32-IP Flavor: indicate the next SID is 32-bits IP address,
termed as UET-1 flavor.
UET-32-MPLS Flavor: indicate the next SID is 32-bits MPLS Label,
termed as UET-2 flavor.
UET-16-IP Flavor: indicate the next SID is 16-bits IP address, ,
termed as UET-3 flavor.
Other flavors are for later defined.
We can take regard the traditional behaviors that has not any
indication of next SID type as behaviors with UET-128-IPv6 flavor,
termed as UET-0 flavor.
To extend the above UET related flavors for other endpoint behaviors,
such as VPN related SID and SFC related SID, is out the scope of this
document.
Chen & Peng Expires September 29, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IGP for Shorter SRv6 SID March 2020
Note that a SID MUST NOT set two or more of the above flavors at the
same time, because these flavors is used to indicate the next SID
type in SRH, that is, the local SID entry must provide exact
indication for this purpose.
Each of the above UET related flavors can be used combined with
existing PSP/USP/USD flavors.
If a node supports an UEC, it SHOULD also allocate related SIDs for
this UEC, otherwise the result optimized SID list will have to
contain related classical 128-bits SRv6 SID.
For example, a node X advertised UCE 0b001, it can allocate a
classical END SID X1 with endpoint behavior "End (no PSP, no USP)",
it can also allocate an END SID X2 with endpoint behavior "End (no
PSP, no USP, UET-32-IP)".
5. Operations
Based on the IGP link-state database which contains UEC capabilities
and SID(s) per UET related flavors, a headend or controller can
firstly check which UET domains a computed SR path crossed, then
secondly select UET related SID to construct an optimized E2E SID
list.
The detailed description can refer to [I-D.mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr]
and [I-D.liu-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-complement].
6. Security Considerations
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the security considerations discussed in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-sr
v6-extensions]and[I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] .
7. IANA Considerations
TBD
8. Normative References
[I-D.cheng-spring-shorter-srv6-sid-requirement]
Cheng, W., Xie, C., Pang, R., Li, Z., Chen, R., Lijun, L.,
Duan, X., and G. Mirsky, "Shorter SRv6 SID Requirements",
draft-cheng-spring-shorter-srv6-sid-requirement-01 (work
in progress), March 2020.
Chen & Peng Expires September 29, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IGP for Shorter SRv6 SID March 2020
[]
Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 (work in
progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam]
Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Matsushima, S., Voyer, D., and M.
Chen, "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)",
draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03 (work in progress),
December 2019.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]
Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over
IPv6 Dataplane", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-07
(work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]
Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak,
"OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-lsr-
ospfv3-srv6-extensions-00 (work in progress), February
2020.
[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-15 (work in
progress), March 2020.
[I-D.liu-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-complement]
Yao, L. and S. Peng, "BGP Extensions for Unified SID in TE
Policy", draft-liu-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-
complement-01 (work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr]
Cheng, W., Mirsky, G., Peng, S., Aihua, L., Wan, X., and
C. Wei, "Unified Identifier in IPv6 Segment Routing
Networks", draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-06 (work in
progress), March 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>.
Chen & Peng Expires September 29, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IGP for Shorter SRv6 SID March 2020
[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
[RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions
for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.
[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>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Ran Chen
ZTE Corporation
No. 50 Software Ave, Yuhuatai Distinct
Nanjing
China
Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
Peng Shaofu
ZTE Corporation
No. 50 Software Ave, Yuhuatai Distinct
Nanjing
China
Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Chen & Peng Expires September 29, 2020 [Page 9]