Inter-Domain Routing S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Individual
Intended status: Standards Track K. Talaulikar
Expires: April 22, 2019 C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
K. Patel
Arrcus, Inc.
S. Ray
Individual Contributor
J. Dong
Huawei Technologies
October 19, 2018
BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-17
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a
packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by
prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any
instruction, topological or service-based. SR segments allow
steering a flow through any topological path and service chain while
maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain.
This document describes an extension to BGP Link State (BGP-LS) for
advertisement of BGP Peering Segments along with their BGP peering
node information so that efficient BGP Egress Peer Engineering (EPE)
policies and strategies can be computed based on Segment Routing.
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/.
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
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 April 22, 2019.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Segment Routing Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. BGP Peering Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. BGP-LS NLRI for BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. BGP Router ID and Member ASN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Mandatory BGP Node Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Optional BGP Node Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. BGP-LS Attributes for BGP Peering Segments . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Peer-Node-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Peer-Adj-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Peer-Set-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Reference Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Peer-Node-SID for Node D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3. Peer-Node-SID for Node F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.4. Peer-Node-SID for Node E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.5. Peer-Adj-SID for Node E, Link 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.6. Peer-Adj-SID for Node E, Link 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. New BGP-LS Protocol-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Node Descriptors and Link Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . 18
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a
packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by
prepending the packet with an SR header with segment identifiers
(SID). A SID can represent any instruction, topological or service-
based. SR segments allows to enforce a flow through any topological
path or service function while maintaining per-flow state only at the
ingress node of the SR domain.
The SR architecture [RFC8402] defines three types of BGP Peering
Segments that may be instantiated at a BGP node:
o Peer Node Segment (Peer-Node-SID) : instruction to steer to a
specific peer node
o Peer Adjacency Segment (Peer-Adj-SID) : instruction to steer over
a specific local interface towards a specific peer node
o Peer Set Segment (Peer-Set-SID) : instruction to load-balance to a
set of specific peer nodes
SR can be directly applied to either an MPLS dataplane (SR/MPLS) with
no change on the forwarding plane or to a modified IPv6 forwarding
plane (SRv6).
This document describes extensions to the Link State NLRI and the
BGP-LS Attribute defined for BGP-LS [RFC7752] for advertising BGP
peering segments from a BGP node along with its peering topology
information (i.e. its peers, interfaces, and peering ASs) to enable
computation of efficient BGP Egress Peer Engineering (BGP-EPE)
policies and strategies using the SR/MPLS dataplane. The
corresponding extensions for SRv6 are specified in
[I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext].
One use-case for these BGP Peering Segments is to enable computation
of SR paths that enable Central BGP-EPE as described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]. This use-case
comprises of a centralized controller that learns the BGP Peering
SIDs via BGP-LS and then uses this information to program a SR policy
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] at any node in the domain to
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
perform traffic steering via a specific BGP egress node to a specific
EBGP peer(s) optionally also over a specific interface.
This document introduces a new BGP protocol type for BGP-LS NLRI and
defines new BGP-LS Node and Link description TLVs to facilitate
advertising BGP-LS Link NLRI that represent the BGP peering topology.
Further, it specifies the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs for advertisement of
the BGP Peering Segments (i.e. Peer Node SID, Peer Adjacency SID,
and Peer Set SID) to be advertised in the same BGP-LS Link NLRI.
2. Segment Routing Documents
The main reference is the SR architecture defined in [RFC8402].
The SR BGP-EPE architecture and use-case is described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe].
3. BGP Peering Segments
As described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe], a BGP-
EPE enabled Egress PE node MAY advertise SIDs corresponding to its
attached peers. These SIDs are called BGP peering segments or BGP
Peering SIDs. In case of EBGP, they enable the expression of source-
routed inter-domain paths.
An ingress border router of an AS may compose a list of SIDs to steer
a flow along a selected path within the AS, towards a selected egress
border router C of the AS, and to a specific EBGP peer. At minimum,
a BGP-EPE policy applied at an ingress PE involves two SIDs: the Node
SID of the chosen egress PE and then the BGP Peering SID for the
chosen egress PE peer or peering interface.
Each BGP session MUST be described by a Peer Node SID. The
description of the BGP session MAY be augmented by additional Peer
Adjacency SIDs. Finally, multiple Peer Node SIDs or Peer Adjacency
SIDs MAY be part of the same group/set in order to group EPE
resources under a common Peer-Set SID.
When the extensions defined in this document are applied to the EPE
use-case defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe],
then the following BGP Peering SIDs need to be instantiated on a BGP
router for each of its BGP peer sessions that are enabled for EPE:
o One Peer-Node-SID MUST be instantiated to describe the BGP peer
session.
o One or more Peer-Adj-SID MAY be instantiated corresponding to the
underlying link(s) to the directly connected BGP peer session.
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
o A Peer-Set-SID MAY be instantiated and additionally associated and
shared between one or more Peer-Node-SIDs or Peer-Adj-SIDs.
While an egress point in a topology usually refers to EBGP sessions
between external peers, there's nothing in the extensions defined in
this document that would prevent the use of these extensions in the
context of IBGP sessions. However, unlike EBGP sessions which are
generally between directly connected BGP routers which are also along
the traffic forwarding path, IBGP peer sessions may be setup to BGP
routers which are not in the forwarding path. As such, when the IBGP
design includes sessions with route-reflectors, a BGP router SHOULD
NOT instantiate a BGP Peering SID for those sessions to peer nodes
which are not in the forwarding path since the purpose of BGP Peering
SID is to steer traffic to that specific peers. Thus, the
applicability for IBGP peering may be limited to only those
deployments where the IBGP peer is also along with forwarding data
path. Further details and the use-cases of BGP Peering SIDs and
their BGP-LS extensions to IBGP deployments are beyond the scope of
this document.
The BGP Peering SIDs instantiated as described above are then
advertised via BGP-LS Link NLRI as described in the sections below.
4. BGP-LS NLRI for BGP
This section describes the BGP-LS NLRI encodings that describe the
BGP peering and link connectivity between BGP routers.
This document specifies the advertisement of BGP peering topology
information via BGP-LS NLRI which requires use of a new BGP protocol
identifier.
Protocol-ID : BGP (codepoint 7 Early Allocation by IANA Section 8
from the registry "BGP-LS Protocol-IDs")
The use of a new Protocol-ID allows separation and differentiation
between the BGP-LS NLRI carrying BGP information from the NLRI
carrying IGP link-state information as defined in [RFC7752].
The BGP Peering information along with their Peering Segments are
advertised using BGP-LS Link NLRI with the protocol ID set to BGP.
The BGP-LS Link NLRI uses the descriptor TLVs and BGP-LS Attribute
TLVs as defined in [RFC7752]. In order to correctly describe BGP
nodes, new TLVs are defined in this section.
[RFC7752] defines Link NLRI Type is as follows:
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier |
| (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local Node Descriptors //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Remote Node Descriptors //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Link Descriptors //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: BGP-LS Link NLRI
Node Descriptors and Link Descriptors are defined in [RFC7752].
4.1. BGP Router ID and Member ASN
Two new Node Descriptors TLVs are defined in this document:
o BGP Router Identifier (BGP Router-ID):
Type: 516 (Early Allocation by IANA Section 8 from the registry
"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor,
and Attribute TLVs").
Length: 4 octets
Value: 4 octet unsigned non-zero integer representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
o Confederation Member ASN (Member-ASN)
Type: 517 (Early Allocation by IANA Section 8 from the registry
"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor,
and Attribute TLVs").
Length: 4 octets
Value: 4 octet unsigned non-zero integer representing the
Member ASN inside the Confederation [RFC5065].
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
4.2. Mandatory BGP Node Descriptors
The following Node Descriptors TLVs MUST be included in BGP-LS NLRI
as Local Node Descriptors when distributing BGP information:
o BGP Router-ID, which contains a valid BGP Identifier of the local
BGP node.
o Autonomous System Number, which contains the ASN or confederation
identifier (ASN), if confederations are used, of the local BGP
node.
Note that [RFC6286] (section 2.1) requires the BGP identifier
(router-id) to be unique within an Autonomous System and non-zero.
Therefore, the <ASN, BGP Router-ID> tuple is globally unique.
The following Node Descriptors TLVs MUST be included in BGP-LS Link
NLRI as Remote Node Descriptors when distributing BGP information:
o BGP Router-ID, which contains the valid BGP Identifier of the peer
BGP node.
o Autonomous System Number, which contains the ASN or the
confederation identifier (ASN), if confederations are used, of the
peer BGP node.
4.3. Optional BGP Node Descriptors
The following Node Descriptors TLVs MAY be included in BGP-LS NLRI as
Local Node Descriptors when distributing BGP information:
o Member-ASN, which contains the ASN of the confederation member, if
BGP confederations are used, of the local BGP node.
o Node Descriptors as defined in [RFC7752].
The following Node Descriptors TLVs MAY be included in BGP-LS Link
NLRI as Remote Node Descriptors when distributing BGP information:
o Member-ASN, which contains the ASN of the confederation member, if
BGP confederations are used, of the peer BGP node.
o Node Descriptors as defined in defined in [RFC7752].
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
5. BGP-LS Attributes for BGP Peering Segments
This section defines the BGP-LS Attributes corresponding to the
following BGP Peer Segment SIDs:
Peer Node Segment Identifier (Peer-Node-SID)
Peer Adjacency Segment Identifier (Peer-Adj-SID)
Peer Set Segment Identifier (Peer-Set-SID)
The following new BGP-LS Link attributes TLVs are defined for use
with BGP-LS Link NLRI for advertising BGP Peering SIDs:
+----------+---------------------------+----------+
| TLV Code | Description | Length |
| Point | | |
+----------+---------------------------+----------+
| 1101 | Peer Node Segment | variable |
| | Identifier (Peer-Node-SID)| |
| 1102 | Peer Adjacency Segment | variable |
| | Identifier (Peer-Adj-SID) | |
| 1103 | Peer Set Segment | variable |
| | Identifier (Peer-Set-SID) | |
+----------+---------------------------+----------+
Figure 2: BGP-LS TLV code points for BGP-EPE
Peer-Node-SID, Peer-Adj-SID, and Peer-Set-SID have all the same
format defined here below:
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 | Weight | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID/Label/Index (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: BGP-LS Peering SIDs TLV Format
o Type: 1101, 1102 or 1103 (Early Allocation by IANA (Section 8)
from the registry "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix
Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs").
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
o Length: variable.
o Flags: one octet of flags with the following definition:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V|L|B|P| Rsvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Peering SID TLV Flags Format
* V-Flag: Value flag. If set, then the SID carries a label
value. By default the flag is SET.
* L-Flag: Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by
the SID has local significance. By default the flag is SET.
* B-Flag: Backup Flag. If set, the SID refers to a path that is
eligible for protection.
* P-Flag: Persistent Flag: If set, the SID is persistently
allocated, i.e., the SID value remains consistent across router
restart and session/interface flap.
* Rsvd bits: Reserved for future use and MUST be zero when
originated and ignored when received.
o Weight: 1 octet. The value represents the weight of the SID for
the purpose of load balancing. An example use of the weight is
described in [RFC8402].
o SID/Index/Label. According to the TLV length and to the V and L
flags settings, it contains either:
* A 3 octet local label where the 20 rightmost bits are used for
encoding the label value. In this case, the V and L flags MUST
be SET.
* A 4 octet index defining the offset in the SRGB (Segment
Routing Global Block as defined in [RFC8402] advertised by this
router. In this case, the SRGB MUST be advertised using the
extensions defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].
The values of the Peer-Node-SID, Peer-Adj-SID, and Peer-Set-SID Sub-
TLVs SHOULD be persistent across router restart.
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
The Peer-Node-SID TLV MUST be included in the BGP-LS Attribute for
the BGP-LS Link NLRI when advertising BGP peering information for the
use case described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
and MAY be omitted for other use cases.
The Peer-Adj-SID and Peer-Set-SID TLVs MAY be included in the BGP-LS
Attribute for the BGP-LS Link NLRI when advertising BGP peering
information for the use case described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] and MAY be omitted for
other use cases.
Additional BGP-LS Link Attribute TLVs, as defined in [RFC7752] MAY be
included with the BGP-LS Link NLRI in order to advertise the
characteristics of the peering link.
5.1. Peer-Node-SID
The Peer-Node-SID TLV includes a SID associated with the BGP peer
node that is described by a BGP-LS Link NLRI as specified in
Section 4.
The Peer-Node-SID, at the BGP node advertising it, has the following
semantics:
o SR header operation: NEXT (as defined in [RFC8402]).
o Next-Hop: the connected peering node to which the segment is
associated.
The Peer-Node-SID is advertised with a BGP-LS Link NLRI, where:
o Local Node Descriptors include:
* Local BGP Router-ID (TLV 516) of the BGP-EPE enabled egress PE.
* Local ASN (TLV 512).
o Remote Node Descriptors include:
* Peer BGP Router-ID (TLV 516) (i.e.: the peer BGP ID used in the
BGP session)
* Peer ASN (TLV 512).
o Link Descriptors include the addresses used by the BGP session
encoded using TLVs as defined in [RFC7752]:
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
* IPv4 Interface Address (TLV 259) contains the BGP session IPv4
local address.
* IPv4 Neighbor Address (TLV 260) contains the BGP session IPv4
peer address.
* IPv6 Interface Address (TLV 261) contains the BGP session IPv6
local address.
* IPv6 Neighbor Address (TLV 262) contains the BGP session IPv6
peer address.
o Link Attribute TLVs include the Peer-Node-SID TLV as defined in
Figure 3.
5.2. Peer-Adj-SID
The Peer-Adj-SID TLV includes a SID associated with the underlying
link to the BGP peer node that is described by a BGP-LS Link NLRI as
specified in Section 4.
The Peer-Adj-SID, at the BGP node advertising it, has the following
semantics:
o SR header operation: NEXT (as defined in [RFC8402]).
o Next-Hop: the interface peer address.
The Peer-Adj-SID is advertised with a BGP-LS Link NLRI, where:
o Local Node Descriptors include:
* Local BGP Router-ID (TLV 516) of the BGP-EPE enabled egress PE.
* Local ASN (TLV 512).
o Remote Node Descriptors include:
* Peer BGP Router-ID (TLV 516) (i.e. the peer BGP ID used in the
BGP session).
* Peer ASN (TLV 512).
o Link Descriptors MUST include the following TLV, as defined in
[RFC7752]:
* Link Local/Remote Identifiers (TLV 258) contains the 4-octet
Link Local Identifier followed by the 4-octet Link Remote
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
Identifier [RFC5307]. The value 0 is used by default when the
link remote identifier is unknown.
o Additional Link Descriptors TLVs, as defined in [RFC7752], MAY
also be included to describe the addresses corresponding to the
link between the BGP routers:
* IPv4 Interface Address (Sub-TLV 259) contains the address of
the local interface through which the BGP session is
established.
* IPv6 Interface Address (Sub-TLV 261) contains the address of
the local interface through which the BGP session is
established.
* IPv4 Neighbor Address (Sub-TLV 260) contains the IPv4 address
of the peer interface used by the BGP session.
* IPv6 Neighbor Address (Sub-TLV 262) contains the IPv6 address
of the peer interface used by the BGP session.
o Link Attribute TLVs include the Peer-Adj-SID TLV as defined in
Figure 3.
5.3. Peer-Set-SID
The Peer-Set-SID TLV includes a SID that is shared amongst BGP peer
nodes or the underlying links that are described by BGP-LS Link NLRI
as specified in Section 4.
The Peer-Set-SID, at the BGP node advertising it, has the following
semantics:
o SR header operation: NEXT (as defined in [RFC8402]).
o Next-Hop: load balance across any connected interface to any peer
in the associated peer set.
The Peer-Set-SID TLV containing the same SID value (encoded as
defined in Figure 3) is included in the BGP-LS Attribute for all of
the BGP-LS Link NLRI corresponding to the Peer Node or Peer Adjacency
segments associated with the peer set.
6. Illustration
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
6.1. Reference Diagram
The following reference diagram is used throughout this section. The
solution is illustrated for IPv6 with MPLS-based SIDs and the BGP-EPE
topology is based on EBGP sessions between external peers.
This illustration is non-normative text provided as an example for
implementers and describes the BGP-LS advertisements for the Central
EPE use-case.
As stated in Section 3, the solution illustrated hereafter is equally
applicable to an IBGP session topology. In other words, the solution
also applies to the case where C, D, F, and E are in the same AS and
run IBGP sessions between each other.
+------+
| |
+---D H
+---------+ / | AS 2 |\ +------+
| X |/ +------+ \ | Z |---L/8
A C---+ \| |
| |\\ \ +------+ /| AS 4 |---M/8
| AS1 | \\ +-F |/ +------+
| | \\ | G
+----P----+ +===E AS 3 |
| +--Q---+
| |
+----------------+
Figure 5: Reference Diagram
IP addressing:
o C's IP address of interface to D: 2001:db8:cd::c/64, D's
interface: 2001:db8:cd::d/64
o C's IP address of interface to F: 2001:db8:cf::c/64, F's
interface: 2001:db8:cf::f/64
o C's IP address of upper interface to E: 2001:db8:ce1::c/64, E's
interface: 2001:db8:ce1::e
o C's local identifier of upper interface to E: 0.0.0.1.0.0.0.0
o C's IP address of lower interface to E: 2001:db8:ce2::c, E's
interface: 2001:db8:ce2::e
o C's local identifier of lower interface to E: 0.0.0.2.0.0.0.0
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
o Loopback of E used for EBGP multi-hop peering to C:
2001:db8:e::e/128
o C's loopback is 2001:db8:c::c/128 with SID 64
BGP Router-IDs are C, D, F and E.
o C's BGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.3
o D's BGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.4
o E's BGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.5
o F's BGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.6
C's BGP peering:
o Single-hop EBGP peering with neighbor 2001:db8:cd::d (D)
o Single-hop EBGP peering with neighbor 2001:db8:cf::f (F)
o Multi-hop EBGP peering with E on ip address 2001:db8:e::e (E)
C's resolution of the multi-hop EBGP session to E:
o Static route 2001:db8:e::e/128 via 2001:db8:ce1::e
o Static route 2001:db8:e::e/128 via 2001:db8:ce2::e
Node C configuration is such that:
o A Peer-Node-SID is allocated to each peer (D, F and E).
o An Peer-Adj-SID is defined for each recursing interface to a
multi-hop peer (CE upper and lower interfaces).
o A Peer-Set-SID is defined to include all peers in AS3 (peers F and
E).
A BGP-LS Link NLRI is used in order to encode C's connectivity. The
Link NLRI uses the Protocol-ID for BGP (value 7 as per Early
Allocation by IANA).
Once the BGP-LS update is originated by C, it may be advertised to
internal (IBGP) as well as external (EBGP) neighbors supporting the
BGP-LS EPE extensions defined in this document. Note that the BGP-LS
sessions may be completely separate and different from the normal BGP
routing sessions described above - e.g. to a central EPE controller.
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
6.2. Peer-Node-SID for Node D
Descriptor TLVs used in the BGP-LS Link NLRI:
o Local Node Descriptors (BGP Router-ID, local ASN): 192.0.2.3, AS1
o Remote Node Descriptors (BGP Router-ID, peer ASN): 192.0.2.4, AS2
o Link Descriptors (BGP session IPv6 local address, BGP session IPv6
neighbor address): 2001:db8:cd::c, 2001:db8:cd::d
Link Attribute TLVs used in the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the
BGP-LS Link NLRI above:
o Peer-Node-SID: 1012
o Other Link Attributes: see section 3.3.2 of [RFC7752]
6.3. Peer-Node-SID for Node F
Descriptor TLVs used in the BGP-LS Link NLRI:
o Local Node Descriptors (BGP Router-ID, ASN): 192.0.2.3, AS1
o Remote Node Descriptors (BGP Router-ID ASN): 192.0.2.6, AS3
o Link Descriptors (BGP session IPv6 local address, BGP session IPv6
peer address): 2001:db8:cf::c, 2001:db8:cf::f
Link Attribute TLVs used in the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the
BGP-LS Link NLRI above:
o Peer-Node-SID: 1022
o Peer-Set-SID: 1060
o Other Link Attributes: see section 3.3.2 of [RFC7752]
6.4. Peer-Node-SID for Node E
Descriptor TLVs used in the BGP-LS Link NLRI:
o Local Node Descriptors (BGP Router-ID, ASN): 192.0.2.3, AS1
o Remote Node Descriptors (BGP Router-ID, ASN): 192.0.2.5, AS3
o Link Descriptors (BGP session IPv6 local address, BGP session IPv6
peer address): 2001:db8:c::c, 2001:db8:e::e
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
Link Attribute TLVs used in the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the
BGP-LS Link NLRI above:
o Peer-Node-SID: 1052
o Peer-Set-SID: 1060
6.5. Peer-Adj-SID for Node E, Link 1
Descriptor TLVs used in the BGP-LS Link NLRI:
o Local Node Descriptors (BGP Router-ID, ASN): 192.0.2.3, AS1
o Remote Node Descriptors (BGP Router-ID, ASN): 192.0.2.5, AS3
o Link Descriptors (local interface identifier, IPv6 peer interface
address): 0.0.0.1.0.0.0.0 , 2001:db8:ce1::e
Link Attribute TLVs used in the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the
BGP-LS Link NLRI above:
o Peer-Adj-SID: 1032
o Other Link Attributes: see section 3.3.2 of [RFC7752]
6.6. Peer-Adj-SID for Node E, Link 2
Descriptor TLVs used in the BGP-LS Link NLRI:
o Local Node Descriptors (BGP Router-ID, ASN): 192.0.2.3, AS1
o Remote Node Descriptors (BGP Router-ID, ASN): 192.0.2.5, AS3
o Link Descriptors (local interface identifier, IPv6 peer interface
address): 0.0.0.2.0.0.0.0 , 2001:db8:ce2::e
Link Attribute TLVs used in the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the
BGP-LS Link NLRI above:
o Peer-Adj-SID: 1042
o Other Link Attributes: see section 3.3.2 of [RFC7752]
7. Implementation Status
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication,
as well as the reference to RFC 7942.
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
Several early implementations exist and will be reported in detail in
a forthcoming version of this document. For purposes of early
interoperability testing, when no FCFS code point was available,
implementations have made use of the following values:
+---------------------------------------+
| Codepoint | Description |
+---------------------------------------+
| 7 | Protocol-ID BGP |
| 516 | BGP Router-ID |
| 517 | BGP Confederation Member |
| 1101 | Peer-Node-SID |
| 1102 | Peer-Adj-SID |
| 1103 | Peer-Set-SID |
+------------+--------------------------+
Figure 6: BGP-LS New Codepoints
IANA has now confirmed the Early Allocation of the above codepoints.
See Section 8.
8. IANA Considerations
This document defines:
A new Protocol-ID: BGP. The codepoint is from the "BGP-LS
Protocol-IDs" registry.
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
Two new TLVs: BGP-Router-ID and BGP Confederation Member. The
codepoints are in the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor,
Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry.
Three new BGP-LS Attribute TLVs: Peer-Node-SID, Peer-Adj-SID and
Peer-Set-SID. The codepoints are in the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor,
Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry.
8.1. New BGP-LS Protocol-ID
This document defines a new value in the registry "BGP-LS Protocol-
IDs":
+------------------------------------------------------+
| Codepoint | Description | Status |
+------------------------------------------------------+
| 7 | BGP | Early Allocation by IANA |
+------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 7: BGP Protocol Codepoint
8.2. Node Descriptors and Link Attribute TLVs
This document defines 5 new TLVs in the registry "BGP-LS Node
Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs":
o Two new node descriptor TLVs
o Three new link attribute TLVs
All the new 5 codepoints are in the same registry: "BGP-LS Node
Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs".
The following new Node Descriptors TLVs are defined:
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Codepoint | Description | Status |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 516 | BGP Router-ID | Early Allocation by IANA |
| 517 | BGP Confederation Member | Early Allocation by IANA |
+------------+------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 8: BGP-LS Descriptor TLVs Codepoints
The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Codepoint | Description | Status |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1101 | Peer-Node-SID | Early Allocation by IANA |
| 1102 | Peer-Adj-SID | Early Allocation by IANA |
| 1103 | Peer-Set-SID | Early Allocation by IANA |
+------------+------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 9: BGP-LS Attribute TLVs Codepoints
9. Manageability Considerations
The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the
existing IGP topology information BGP-LS distribution [RFC7752] by
adding support for distribution of BGP peering topology information.
As such, the Manageability Considerations section of [RFC7752]
applies to these new extensions as well.
Specifically, the malformed NLRI attribute tests for syntactic checks
in the Fault Management section of [RFC7752] now apply to the TLVs
for the BGP-LS NLRI TLVs defined in this document. The semantic or
content checking for the TLVs specified in this document and their
association with the BGP-LS NLRI types or their associated BGP-LS
Attributes is left to the consumer of the BGP-LS information (e.g. an
application or a controller) and not the BGP protocol.
A consumer of the BGP-LS information is retrieving this information
from a BGP protocol component, that is doing the signaling over a
BGP-LS session, via some APIs or a data model (refer Section 1 and 2
of [RFC7752]). The handling of semantic or content errors by the
consumer would be dictated by the nature of its application usage and
hence is beyond the scope of this document. It may be expected that
an error detected in the NLRI descriptor TLVs would result in that
specific NLRI update being unusable and hence its update to be
discarded along with an error log. While an error in Attribute TLVs
would result in only that specific attribute being discarded with an
error log.
The operator MUST be provided with the options of configuring,
enabling, and disabling the advertisement of each of the Peer-Node-
SID, Peer-Adj-SID, and Peer-Set-SID as well as control of which
information is advertised to which internal or external peer. This
is not different from what is required by a BGP speaker in terms of
information origination and advertisement.
BGP Peering Segments are associated with the normal BGP routing
peering sessions. However, the BGP peering information along with
these Peering Segments themselves are advertised via a distinct BGP-
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
LS peering session. It is expected that this isolation as described
in [RFC7752] is followed when advertising BGP peering topology
information via BGP-LS.
BGP-EPE functionality enables the capability for instantiation of an
SR path for traffic engineering a flow via an egress BGP router to a
specific peer, bypassing the normal BGP best path routing for that
flow and any routing policies implemented in BGP on that egress BGP
router. As with any traffic engineering solution, the controller or
application implementing the policy needs to ensure that there is no
looping or mis-routing of traffic. Traffic counters corresponding to
the MPLS label of the BGP Peering SID on the router would indicate
the traffic being forwarded based on the specific EPE path.
Monitoring these counters and the flows hitting the corresponding
MPLS forwarding entry would help identify issues, if any, with
traffic engineering over the EPE paths.
10. Security Considerations
[RFC7752] defines BGP-LS NLRI to which the extensions defined in this
document apply. The Security Considerations section of [RFC7752]
also applies to these extensions.
BGP-EPE enables engineering of traffic when leaving the
administrative domain via an egress BGP router. Therefore precaution
is necessary to ensure that the BGP peering information collected via
BGP-LS is limited to specific controllers or applications in a secure
manner. By default, Segment Routing operates within a trusted domain
(refer Security Considerations section in [RFC8402] for more detail)
and its security considerations also apply to BGP Peering Segments.
The BGP-EPE policies are expected to be used entirely within this
trusted SR domain (e.g. between multiple AS/domains within a single
provider network).
The isolation of BGP-LS peering sessions is also required to ensure
that BGP-LS topology information (including the newly added BGP
peering topology) is not advertised to an external BGP peering
session outside an administrative domain.
11. Contributors
Mach (Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
Acee Lindem
Cisco Systems Inc.
US
Email: acee@cisco.com
12. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jakob Heitz, Howard Yang, Hannes
Gredler, Peter Psenak, Arjun Sreekantiah and Bruno Decraene for their
feedback and comments. The authors would also like to thank Susan
Hares for her substantial contributions in improving the clarity of
the document during her shepherd's review.
13. References
13.1. Normative 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>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC5065] Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous
System Confederations for BGP", RFC 5065,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5065, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5065>.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
[RFC6286] Chen, E. and J. Yuan, "Autonomous-System-Wide Unique BGP
Identifier for BGP-4", RFC 6286, DOI 10.17487/RFC6286,
June 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6286>.
[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>.
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
13.2. Informative References
[I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M.,
daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Uttaro, J., Decraene, B., and
H. Elmalky, "BGP Link State extensions for IPv6 Segment
Routing(SRv6)", draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04 (work in
progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-09
(work in progress), October 2018.
[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.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing
Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
policy-01 (work in progress), June 2018.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Authors' Addresses
Stefano Previdi (editor)
Individual
Email: stefano@previdi.net
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing EPE BGP-LS Extensions October 2018
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: ketant@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Keyur Patel
Arrcus, Inc.
Email: Keyur@arrcus.com
Saikat Ray
Individual Contributor
Email: raysaikat@gmail.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Previdi, et al. Expires April 22, 2019 [Page 23]
