Routing area                                                    S. Hegde
Internet-Draft                                                  K. Arora
Intended status: Standards Track                   Juniper Networks Inc.
Expires: May 30, 2019                                  November 26, 2018


   Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR)
Egress Peer engineering Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes
                   draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-01

Abstract

   Egress Peer Engineering is an application of Segment Routing to solve
   the problem of egress peer selection.  The SR-based BGP-EPE solution
   allows a centralized (Software Defined Network, SDN)controller to
   program any egress peer.  The EPE solution requires a node to program
   PeerNodeSID, PeerAdjSID, PeerSetSID as described in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe].This document provides
   Target FEC stack TLV definitions as defined in [RFC8029] for the EPE
   SIDs.

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 May 30, 2019.








Hegde & Arora             Expires May 30, 2019                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   November 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.  FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  PeerSetSID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] is an effective
   mechanism to select the egress peer link based on different criteria.
   The EPE SIDs provide means to represent egress peer links.  Many
   network deployments have built their networks consisting of multiple
   Autonomous Systems either for ease of operations or as a result of
   network mergers and acquisitons.  The egress links connecting the two
   Autonomous Systems could be managed using EPE-SIDs in this case as
   well.  It is important to be able to validate the control plane to
   forwarding plane synchronization for these SIDs so that any anomaly
   can be detected easily by the operator.

   This document provides Target FEC stack TLV definitions for EPE SIDs.
   Other procedures for mpls ping and traceroute as defined in [RFC8287]
   are applicable for EPE-SIDs as well.





Hegde & Arora             Expires May 30, 2019                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   November 2018


2.  FEC Definitions

   As described in [RFC8287] sec 5, 3 new type of segment IDs are
   defined for the Target FEC stack TLV corresponding to each label in
   the label stack

2.1.  PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID


        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 = TBD                     |          Length               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local AS Number (4  octets)                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote As Number (4 octets)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local Interface address (4/6 octets)            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote Interface address (4/6 octets)            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |          Advertising BGP router ID (4 octets)                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           Receiving Node BGP Router ID (4 octets)             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



                Figure 1: Peer Node/Adj Segment ID Sub TLV

   Type: TBD

   Length: variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address

   AS Number: 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN
   inside the Confederation.[RFC5065]

   Interface Address: BGP session IPv4/IPv6 local/remote address.

   BGP Router ID: 4 octet unsigned integer representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

2.2.  PeerSetSID







Hegde & Arora             Expires May 30, 2019                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   November 2018


        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 = TBD                     |          Length               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   No.of elements in set       |                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local AS Number (4  octets)                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote As Number (4 octets)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local Interface address (4/6 octets)            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote Interface address (4/6 octets)            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |          Advertising BGP router ID (4 octets)                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           Receiving Node BGP Router ID (4 octets)             |
       ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++
       |           .......                                                 |
       ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++





                 Figure 2: Peer set SID Segment ID Sub TLV

   Type : TBD

   Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address

   No.of elements in set : Number of links in the set.

   AS Number : 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN
   inside the Confederation.[RFC5065]

   Interface Address : BGP session IPv4/IPv6 local/remote address.

   BGP Router ID : 4 octet unsigned integer representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286]

3.  Security Considerations

   TBD






Hegde & Arora             Expires May 30, 2019                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   November 2018


4.  IANA Considerations

   New Target FEC stack sub-TLV from the "sub-TLVs for TLV types 1,16
   and 21" subregistry of the "Multi-Protocol Label switching (MPLs)
   Label Switched Paths 9LSPs) Ping parameters" registry

      PeerNode/PeerAdjSID segment ID Sub-TLV : TBD

      PeerSetSID segment ID Sub-TLV : TBD

5.  Acknowledgments

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D.
              Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer
              Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-
              epe-10 (work in progress), December 2017.

   [RFC8287]  Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
              N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
              Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
              IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
              Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [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>.

   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.

Authors' Addresses








Hegde & Arora             Expires May 30, 2019                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   November 2018


   Shraddha Hegde
   Juniper Networks Inc.
   Exora Business Park
   Bangalore, KA  560103
   India

   Email: shraddha@juniper.net


   Kapil Arora
   Juniper Networks Inc.

   Email: kapilaro@juniper.net






































Hegde & Arora             Expires May 30, 2019                  [Page 6]