Network Working Group S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Individual
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: January 3, 2019 D. Jain, Ed.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
P. Mattes
Microsoft
E. Rosen
Juniper Networks
S. Lin
Google
July 2, 2018
Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-04
Abstract
This document defines a new BGP SAFI with a new NLRI in order to
advertise a candidate path of a Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy).
An SR Policy is a set of candidate paths, each consisting of one or
more segment lists. The headend of an SR Policy may learn multiple
candidate paths for an SR Policy. Candidate paths may be learned via
a number of different mechanisms, e.g., CLI, NetConf, PCEP, or BGP.
This document specifies the way in which BGP may be used to
distribute candidate paths. New sub-TLVs for the Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute are defined.
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 January 3, 2019.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. SR Policy Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. SR Policy SAFI and NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. SR Policy and Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute . . . . . . 7
2.3. Remote Endpoint and Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. SR Policy Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.1. Preference Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.2. Binding SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.3. Segment List Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.4. Explicit NULL Label Policy Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4.5. Policy Priority Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.4.6. Policy Name Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3. Extended Color Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4. SR Policy Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.1. Configuration and Advertisement of SR Policies . . . . . 30
4.2. Reception of an SR Policy NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2.1. Acceptance of an SR Policy NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2.2. Usable SR Policy NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.2.3. Passing a usable SR Policy NLRI to the SRPM . . . . . 32
4.2.4. Propagation of an SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3. Flowspec and SR Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.1. Existing Registry: Subsequent Address Family Identifiers
(SAFI) Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.2. Existing Registry: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
Tunnel Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.3. Existing Registry: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.4. New Registry: SR Policy List Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.5. New Registry: SR Policy Binding SID Flags . . . . . . . . 36
8.6. New Registry: SR Policy Segment Flags . . . . . . . . . . 37
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) allows a headend node to steer a packet flow
along any path. Intermediate per-flow states are eliminated thanks
to source routing [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
The headend node is said to steer a flow into a Segment Routing
Policy (SR Policy).
The header of a packet steered in an SR Policy is augmented with the
ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] details the concepts of SR
Policy and steering into an SR Policy. These apply equally to the
MPLS and SRv6 instantiations of segment routing.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations] describes some of the
implementation aspects of the SR Policy Headend Architecture and
introduces the notion of an SR Policy Module (SRPM) that performs the
functionality as highlighted in section 2 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]:
o The SRPM may learn multiple candidate paths for an SR Policy via
various mechanisms (CLI, NetConf, PCEP or BGP).
o The SRPM selects the best candidate path for the SR Policy.
o The SRPM binds a BSID to the selected candidate path of the SR
Policy.
o The SRPM installs the selected candidate path and its BSID in the
forwarding plane.
This document specifies the way to use BGP to distribute one or more
of the candidate paths of an SR Policy to the headend of that policy.
The document identifies the functionality that resides in the BGP
process and for the functionality which is outside the scope of BGP
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
and lies within SRPM on the headend node, it refers to such, as
appropriate.
This document specifies a way of representing SR Policies and their
candidate paths in BGP UPDATE messages. BGP can then be used to
propagate the SR Policies and candidate paths. The usual BGP rules
for BGP propagation and "bestpath selection" are used. At the
headend of a specific policy, this will result in one or more
candidate paths being installed into the "BGP table". These paths
are then passed to the SRPM. The SRPM may compare them to candidate
paths learned via other mechanisms, and will choose one or more paths
to be installed in the data plane. BGP itself does not install SR
Policy candidate paths into the data plane.
This document defines a new BGP address family (SAFI). In UPDATE
messages of that address family, the NLRI identifies an SR Policy,
and the attributes encode the segment lists and other details of that
SR Policy.
While for simplicity we may write that BGP advertises an SR Policy,
it has to be understood that BGP advertises a candidate path of an SR
policy and that this SR Policy might have several other candidate
paths provided via BGP (via an NLRI with a different distinguisher as
defined in this document), PCEP, NETCONF or local policy
configuration.
Typically, a controller defines the set of policies and advertise
them to policy head-end routers (typically ingress routers). The
policy advertisement uses BGP extensions defined in this document.
The policy advertisement is, in most but not all of the cases,
tailored for a specific policy head-end. In this case the
advertisement may sent on a BGP session to that head-end and not
propagated any further.
Alternatively, a router (i.e., a BGP egress router) advertises SR
Policies representing paths to itself. In this case, it is possible
to send the policy to each head-end over a BGP session to that head-
end, without requiring any further propagation of the policy.
An SR Policy intended only for the receiver will, in most cases, not
traverse any Route Reflector (RR, [RFC4456]).
In some situations, it is undesirable for a controller or BGP egress
router to have a BGP session to each policy head-end. In these
situations, BGP Route Reflectors may be used to propagate the
advertisements, or it may be necessary for the advertisement to
propagate through a sequence of one or more ASes. To make this
possible, an attribute needs to be attached to the advertisement that
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
enables a BGP speaker to determine whether it is intended to be a
head-end for the advertised policy. This is done by attaching one or
more Route Target Extended Communities to the advertisement
([RFC4360]).
The BGP extensions for the advertisement of SR Policies include
following components:
o A new Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) whose NLRI
identifies an SR Policy.
o A new Tunnel Type identifier for SR Policy, and a set of sub-TLVs
to be inserted into the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (as defined
in [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]) specifying segment lists of the
SR Policy, as well as other information about the SR Policy.
o One or more IPv4 address format route-target extended community
([RFC4360]) attached to the SR Policy advertisement and that
indicates the intended head-end of such SR Policy advertisement.
o The Color Extended Community (as defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]) and used in order to steer traffic
into an SR Policy, as described in section 8.4 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. This document
(Section 3) modifies the format of the Color Extended Community by
using the two leftmost bits of the RESERVED field.
1.1. 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].
2. SR Policy Encoding
2.1. SR Policy SAFI and NLRI
A new SAFI is defined: the SR Policy SAFI, (codepoint 73 assigned by
IANA (see Section 8) from the "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers
(SAFI) Parameters" registry).
The SR Policy SAFI uses a new NLRI defined as follows:
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
+------------------+
| NLRI Length | 1 octet
+------------------+
| Distinguisher | 4 octets
+------------------+
| Policy Color | 4 octets
+------------------+
| Endpoint | 4 or 16 octets
+------------------+
where:
o NLRI Length: 1 octet of length expressed in bits as defined in
[RFC4760].
o Distinguisher: 4-octet value uniquely identifying the policy in
the context of <color, endpoint> tuple. The distinguisher has no
semantic value and is solely used by the SR Policy originator to
make unique (from an NLRI perspective) multiple occurrences of the
same SR Policy.
o Policy Color: 4-octet value identifying (with the endpoint) the
policy. The color is used to match the color of the destination
prefixes to steer traffic into the SR Policy
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
o Endpoint: identifies the endpoint of a policy. The Endpoint may
represent a single node or a set of nodes (e.g., an anycast
address). The Endpoint is an IPv4 (4-octet) address or an IPv6
(16-octet) address according to the AFI of the NLRI.
The color and endpoint are used to automate the steering of BGP
Payload prefixes on SR Policy as described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
The NLRI containing the SR Policy is carried in a BGP UPDATE message
[RFC4271] using BGP multiprotocol extensions [RFC4760] with an AFI of
1 or 2 (IPv4 or IPv6) and with a SAFI of 73 (assigned by IANA from
the "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters"
registry).
An update message that carries the MP_REACH_NLRI or MP_UNREACH_NLRI
attribute with the SR Policy SAFI MUST also carry the BGP mandatory
attributes. In addition, the BGP update message MAY also contain any
of the BGP optional attributes.
The next-hop network address field in SR Policy SAFI (73) updates may
be either a 4 octet IPv4 address or a 16 octet IPv6 address,
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
independent of the SR Policy AFI. The length field of the next-hop
address specifies the next-hop address family. If the next-hop
length is 4, then the next-hop is an IPv4 address; if the next-hop
length is 16, then it is a global IPv6 address; and if the next-hop
length is 32, then it has a global IPv6 address followed by a link-
local IPv6 address. The setting of the next-hop field and its
attendant processing is governed by standard BGP procedures as
described in section 3 in [RFC4760].
It is important to note that any BGP speaker receiving a BGP message
with an SR Policy NLRI, will process it only if the NLRI is among the
best paths as per the BGP best path selection algorithm. In other
words, this document does not modify the BGP propagation or bestpath
selection rules.
It has to be noted that if several candidate paths of the same SR
Policy (endpoint, color) are signaled via BGP to a head-end, it is
recommended that each NLRI use a different distinguisher. If BGP has
installed into the BGP table two advertisements whose respective
NLRIs have the same color and endpoint, but different distinguishers,
both advertisements are passed to the SRPM as different candidate
paths. In addition, the originator information corresponding to the
each candidate path, as described in section 2.4 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], is passed to the SRPM.
2.2. SR Policy and Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
The content of the SR Policy is encoded in the Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute originally defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] using a
new Tunnel-Type TLV (codepoint is 15, assigned by IANA (see
Section 8) from the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types"
registry).
The SR Policy Encoding structure is as follows:
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
Attributes:
Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
Tunnel Type: SR Policy
Binding SID
Preference
Priority
Policy Name
Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
Segment List
Weight
Segment
Segment
...
...
where:
o SR Policy SAFI NLRI is defined in Section 2.1.
o Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute is defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps].
o Tunnel-Type is set to 15 (assigned by IANA from the "BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types" registry).
o Preference, Binding SID, Priority, Policy Name, ENLP, Segment-
List, Weight and Segment sub-TLVs are defined in this document.
o Additional sub-TLVs may be defined in the future.
A Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute MUST NOT contain more than one TLV
of type "SR Policy". If more than one TLV of type "SR Policy"
appears, the update is considered malformed and the "treat-as-
withdraw" strategy of [RFC7606] is applied.
Multiple occurrences of "Segment List" MAY be encoded within the same
SR Policy.
Multiple occurrences of "Segment" MAY be encoded within the same
Segment List.
2.3. Remote Endpoint and Color
The Remote Endpoint and Color sub-TLVs, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps], MAY also be present in the SR Policy
encodings.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
The Remote Endpoint and Color Sub-TLVs are not used for SR Policy
encodings and therefore their value is irrelevant in the context of
the SR Policy SAFI NLRI. If present, the Remote Endpoint sub-TLV and
the Color sub-TLV MUST be ignored by the BGP speaker.
2.4. SR Policy Sub-TLVs
This section defines the SR Policy sub-TLVs.
Preference, Binding SID, Segment-List, Priority, Policy Name and
Explicit NULL Label Policy sub-TLVs are assigned from the "BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry.
Weight and Segment sub-TLVs are assigned from a new registry defined
in this document and called: "SR Policy List Sub-TLVs". See
Section 8 for the details of the registry.
2.4.1. Preference Sub-TLV
The Preference sub-TLV does not have any effect on the BGP bestpath
selection or propagation procedures. The contents of this sub-TLV
are used by the SRPM as described in section 2.7 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
The Preference sub-TLV is optional and it MUST NOT appear more than
once in the SR Policy. If the Preference sub-TLV appears more than
once, the update is considered malformed and the "treat-as-withdraw"
strategy of [RFC7606] is applied.
The Preference sub-TLV has following format:
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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 12
o Length: 6.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags. None are defined at this stage. Flags
SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
receipt.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Preference: a 4-octet value.
2.4.2. Binding SID Sub-TLV
The Binding SID sub-TLV is not used by BGP. The contents of this
sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as described in section 6 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
The Binding SID sub-TLV is optional and it MUST NOT appear more than
once in the SR Policy. If the Binding SID sub-TLV appears more than
once, the update is considered malformed and the "treat-as-withdraw"
strategy of [RFC7606] is applied.
The Binding SID sub-TLV has the following format:
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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Binding SID (variable, optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 13
o Length: specifies the length of the value field not including Type
and Length fields. Can be 2 or 6 or 18.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags. Following flags are defined (to be
assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy Binding SID Flags"
defined in this document Section 8.5):
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|I| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
* S-Flag: This flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-only" behavior.
It is used by SRPM as described in section 6.2.3 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
* I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It
is used by SRPM as described in section 8.2 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
* Unused bits in the Flag octet SHOULD be set to zero upon
transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Binding SID: if length is 2, then no Binding SID is present.
o If length is 6 then the Binding SID contains a 4-octet SID. Below
format is used to encode the SID. TC, S, TTL(Total of 12bits) are
RESERVED and SHOULD be set to Zero and MUST be ignored.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
If length is 18 then the Binding SID contains a 16-octet IPv6 SID.
2.4.3. Segment List Sub-TLV
The Segment List sub-TLV encodes a single explicit path towards the
endpoint as described in section 5.1 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. The Segment List sub-TLV
includes the elements of the paths (i.e., segments) as well as an
optional Weight sub-TLV.
The Segment List sub-TLV may exceed 255 bytes length due to large
number of segments. Therefore a 2-octet length is required.
According to [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps], the first bit of the sub-
TLV codepoint defines the size of the length field. Therefore, for
the Segment List sub-TLV a code point of 128 (or higher) is used.
See Section 8 for details of codepoints allocation.
The Segment List sub-TLV is optional and MAY appear multiple times in
the SR Policy. The ordering of Segment List sub-TLVs, each sub-TLV
encoding a Segment List, does not matter.
The Segment List sub-TLV contains zero or more Segment sub-TLVs and
MAY contain a Weight sub-TLV.
The Segment List sub-TLV has the following format:
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 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 | Length | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// sub-TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 128.
o Length: the total length (not including the Type and Length
fields) of the sub-TLVs encoded within the Segment List sub-TLV.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o sub-TLVs:
* An optional single Weight sub-TLV.
* Zero or more Segment sub-TLVs.
Validation of an explicit path encoded by the Segment List sub-TLV is
completely within the scope of SRPM as described in section 5 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
2.4.3.1. Weight Sub-TLV
The Weight sub-TLV specifies the weight associated to a given segment
list. The contents of this sub-TLV are used only by the SRPM as
described in section 2.11 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
The Weight sub-TLV is optional and it MUST NOT appear more than once
inside the Segment List sub-TLV. If the Weight sub-TLV appears more
than once, the update is considered malformed and the "treat-as-
withdraw" strategy of [RFC7606] is applied.
The Weight sub-TLV has the following format:
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 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 | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Weight |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Type: 9 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
Length: 6.
Flags: 1 octet of flags. None are defined at this stage. Flags
SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
2.4.3.2. Segment Sub-TLV
The Segment sub-TLV describes a single segment in a segment list
(i.e., a single element of the explicit path). Multiple Segment sub-
TLVs constitute an explicit path of the SR Policy.
The Segment sub-TLV is optional and MAY appear multiple times in the
Segment List sub-TLV.
The Segment sub-TLV does not have any effect on the BGP bestpath
selection or propagation procedures. The contents of this sub-TLV
are used only by the SRPM as described in section 4 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] defines several types of
Segments:
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
Type 1: SID only, in the form of MPLS Label
Type 2: SID only, in the form of IPv6 address
Type 3: IPv4 Node Address with optional SID
Type 4: IPv6 Node Address with optional SID for SR MPLS
Type 5: IPv4 Address + index with optional SID
Type 6: IPv4 Local and Remote addresses with optional SID
Type 7: IPv6 Address + index for local and remote pair with optional SID for SR MPLS
Type 8: IPv6 Local and Remote addresses with optional SID for SR MPLS
Type 9: IPv6 Node Address with optional SID for SRv6
Type 10: IPv6 Address + index for local and remote pair with optional SID for SRv6
Type 11: IPv6 Local and Remote addresses for SRv6
2.4.3.2.1. Type 1: SID only, in the form of MPLS Label
The Type-1 Segment Sub-TLV encodes a single SID in the form of an
MPLS label. The format is as follows:
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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 1 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
o Length is 6.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Label: 20 bits of label value.
o TC: 3 bits of traffic class.
o S: 1 bit of bottom-of-stack.
o TTL: 1 octet of TTL.
The following applies to the Type-1 Segment sub-TLV:
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
o The S bit SHOULD be zero upon transmission, and MUST be ignored
upon reception.
o If the originator wants the receiver to choose the TC value, it
sets the TC field to zero.
o If the originator wants the receiver to choose the TTL value, it
sets the TTL field to 255.
o If the originator wants to recommend a value for these fields, it
puts those values in the TC and/or TTL fields.
o The receiver MAY override the originator's values for these
fields. This would be determined by local policy at the receiver.
One possible policy would be to override the fields only if the
fields have the default values specified above.
2.4.3.2.2. Type 2: SID only, in the form of IPv6 address
The Type-2 Segment Sub-TLV encodes a single SRv6 SID in the form of
an IPv6 address. The format is as follows:
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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SRv6 SID (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 2 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
o Length is 18.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o SRv6 SID: 16 octets of IPv6 address.
The IPv6 Segment Identifier (SRv6 SID) is defined in
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
2.4.3.2.3. Type 3: IPv4 Node Address with optional SID
The Type-3 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv4 node address, SR Algorithm
and an optional SID in the form of an MPLS label. The format is as
follows:
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 | SR Algorithm |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Node Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID (optional, 4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 3 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
o Length is 6 or 10.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12.
o SR Algorithm: 1 octet specifying SR Algorithm as described in
section 3.1.1 in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], when A-Flag as
defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12 is present. SR Algorithm is used by
SRPM as described in section 4 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. When A-Flag is not
encoded, this field SHOULD be unset on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
o IPv4 Node Address: a 4 octet IPv4 address representing a node.
o SID: 4 octet MPLS label.
The following applies to the Type-3 Segment sub-TLV:
o The IPv4 Node Address MUST be present.
o The SID is optional and specifies a 4 octet MPLS SID containing
label, TC, S and TTL as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.1.
o If length is 6, then only the IPv4 Node Address is present.
o If length is 10, then the IPv4 Node Address and the MPLS SID are
present.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
2.4.3.2.4. Type 4: IPv6 Node Address with optional SID for SR MPLS
The Type-4 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv6 node address, SR Algorithm
and an optional SID in the form of an MPLS label. The format is as
follows:
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 | SR Algorithm |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IPv6 Node Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID (optional, 4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 4 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
o Length is 18 or 22.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12.
o SR Algorithm: 1 octet specifying SR Algorithm as described in
section 3.1.1 in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], when A-Flag as
defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12 is present. SR Algorithm is used by
SRPM as described in section 4 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. When A-Flag is not
encoded, this field SHOULD be unset on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
o IPv6 Node Address: a 16 octet IPv6 address representing a node.
o SID: 4 octet MPLS label.
The following applies to the Type-4 Segment sub-TLV:
o The IPv6 Node Address MUST be present.
o The SID is optional and specifies a 4 octet MPLS SID containing
label, TC, S and TTL as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.1.
o If length is 18, then only the IPv6 Node Address is present.
o If length is 22, then the IPv6 Node Address and the MPLS SID are
present.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
2.4.3.2.5. Type 5: IPv4 Address + Local Interface ID with optional SID
The Type-5 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv4 node address, a local
interface Identifier (Local Interface ID) and an optional SID in the
form of an MPLS label. The format is as follows:
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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Node Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID (optional, 4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 5 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
o Length is 10 or 14.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Local Interface ID: 4 octets of interface index as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
o IPv4 Node Address: a 4 octet IPv4 address representing a node.
o SID: 4 octet MPLS label.
The following applies to the Type-5 Segment sub-TLV:
o The IPv4 Node Address MUST be present.
o The Local Interface ID MUST be present.
o The SID is optional and specifies a 4 octet MPLS SID containing
label, TC, S and TTL as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.1.
o If length is 10, then the IPv4 Node Address and Local Interface ID
are present.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
o If length is 14, then the IPv4 Node Address, the Local Interface
ID and the MPLS SID are present.
2.4.3.2.6. Type 6: IPv4 Local and Remote addresses with optional SID
The Type-6 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an adjacency local address, an
adjacency remote address and an optional SID in the form of an MPLS
label. The format is as follows:
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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IPv4 Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote IPv4 Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID (optional, 4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 6 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
o Length is 10 or 14.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Local IPv4 Address: a 4 octet IPv4 address.
o Remote IPv4 Address: a 4 octet IPv4 address.
o SID: 4 octet MPLS label.
The following applies to the Type-6 Segment sub-TLV:
o The Local IPv4 Address MUST be present and represents an adjacency
local address.
o The Remote IPv4 Address MUST be present and represents the remote
end of the adjacency.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
o The SID is optional and specifies a 4 octet MPLS SID containing
label, TC, S and TTL as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.1.
o If length is 10, then only the IPv4 Local and Remote addresses are
present.
o If length is 14, then the IPv4 Local address, IPv4 Remote address
and the MPLS SID are present.
2.4.3.2.7. Type 7: IPv6 Address + Interface ID for local and remote
pair with optional SID for SR MPLS
The Type-7 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv6 Link Local adjacency with
IPv6 local node address, a local interface identifier (Local
Interface ID), IPv6 remote node address , a remote interface
identifier (Remote Interface ID) and an optional SID in the form of
an MPLS label. The format is as follows:
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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IPv6 Local Node Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IPv6 Remote Node Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID (optional, 4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 7 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
o Length is 22, 26, 42 or 46.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Local Interface ID: 4 octets of interface index as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
o IPv6 Local Node Address: a 16 octet IPv6 address.
o Remote Interface ID: 4 octets of interface index as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
o IPv6 Remote Node Address: a 16 octet IPv6 address.
o SID: 4 octet MPLS label.
The following applies to the Type-7 Segment sub-TLV:
o The Local Interface ID and IPv6 Local Node Address MUST be
present.
o The Remote Interface ID and Remote Node Address pair is optional.
If Remote Interface ID is present, the Remote Node Address MUST be
present as well. Similarly, if Remote Node Address is present,
the Remote Interface ID MUST be present as well.
o The SID is optional and specifies a 4 octet MPLS SID containing
label, TC, S and TTL as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.1.
o If length is 22, then the Local Interface ID and the Local IPv6
Address are present.
o If length is 26, then the Local Interface ID, Local IPv6 Address
and the MPLS SID are present.
o If length is 42, then the Local Interface ID, Local IPv6 Node
Address, Remote Interface ID, and the Remote IPv6 Node Address are
present.
o If length is 46, then the Local Interface ID, Local IPv6 Node
Address, Remote Interface ID, Remote IPv6 Node Address and the
MPLS SID are present.
2.4.3.2.8. Type 8: IPv6 Local and Remote addresses with optional SID
for SR MPLS
The Type-8 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an adjacency local address, an
adjacency remote address and an optional SID in the form of an MPLS
label. The format is as follows:
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 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 | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local IPv6 Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Remote IPv6 Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID (optional, 4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 8 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
o Length is 34 or 38.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Local IPv6 Address: a 16 octet IPv6 address.
o Remote IPv6 Address: a 16 octet IPv6 address.
o SID: 4 octet MPLS label.
The following applies to the Type-8 Segment sub-TLV:
o The Local IPv6 Address MUST be present and represents an adjacency
local address.
o The Remote IPv6 Address MUST be present and represents the remote
end of the adjacency.
o The SID is optional and specifies a 4 octet MPLS SID containing
label, TC, S and TTL as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.1.
o If length is 34, then only the IPv6 Local and Remote addresses are
present.
o If length is 38, then IPv6 Local and Remote addresses and the MPLS
SID are present.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
2.4.3.2.9. Type 9: IPv6 Node Address with optional SRv6 SID
The Type-9 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv6 node address, SR Algorithm
and an optional SID in the form of an IPv6 address. The format is as
follows:
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 | SR Algorithm |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IPv6 Node Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SID (optional, 16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 10 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
o Length is 18 or 34.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12.
o SR Algorithm: 1 octet specifying SR Algorithm as described in
section 3.1.1 in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], when A-Flag as
defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12 is present. SR Algorithm is used by
SRPM as described in section 4 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. When A-Flag is not
encoded, this field SHOULD be unset on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
o IPv6 Node Address: a 16 octet IPv6 address.
o SID: 16 octet IPv6 address.
The following applies to the Type-9 Segment sub-TLV:
o The IPv6 Node Address MUST be present.
o The SID is optional and specifies an SRv6 SID in the form of 16
octet IPv6 address.
o If length is 18, then only the IPv6 Node Address is present.
o If length is 34, then the IPv6 Node Address and the SRv6 SID are
present.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
2.4.3.2.10. Type 10: IPv6 Address + Interface ID for local and remote
pair for SRv6 with optional SID
The Type-10 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv6 Link Local adjacency with
local node address, a local interface identifier (Local Interface
ID), remote IPv6 node address , a remote interface identifier (Remote
Interface ID) and an optional SID in the form of an IPv6 address.
The format is as follows:
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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IPv6 Local Node Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IPv6 Remote Node Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SID (optional, 16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: 11 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
o Length is 22, 38, 42 or 58.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Local Interface ID: 4 octets of interface index as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
o IPv6 Local Node Address: a 16 octet IPv6 address.
o Remote Interface ID: 4 octets of interface index as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
o IPv6 Remote Node Address: a 16 octet IPv6 address.
o SID: 16 octet IPv6 address.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
The following applies to the Type-10 Segment sub-TLV:
o The Local Interface ID and the Local IPv6 Node Addresses MUST be
present.
o The Remote Interface ID and Remote Node Address pair is optional.
If Remote Interface ID is present, the Remote Node Address MUST be
present as well. Similarly, if Remote Node Address is present,
the Remote Interface ID MUST be present as well.
o The SID is optional and specifies an SRv6 SID in the form of 16
octet IPv6 address.
o If length is 22, then the Local Interface ID, Local IPv6 Node
Address, are present.
o If length is 38, then the Local Interface ID, Local IPv6 Node
Address and the SRv6 SID are present.
o If length is 42, then the Local Interface ID, Local IPv6 Node
Address, Remote Interface ID, and the Remote IPv6 Node Address are
present.
o If length is 58, then the Local Interface ID, Local IPv6 Node
Address, Remote Interface ID, Remote IPv6 Node Address and the
SRv6 SID are present.
2.4.3.2.11. Type 11: IPv6 Local and Remote addresses for SRv6 with
optional SID
The Type-11 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an adjacency local address, an
adjacency remote address and an optional SID in the form of IPv6
address. The format is as follows:
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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local IPv6 Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Remote IPv6 Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SID (optional, 16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
o Type: 12 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" defined in this document).
o Length is 34 or 50.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in Section 2.4.3.2.12.
o RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Local IPv6 Address: a 16 octet IPv6 address.
o Remote IPv6 Address: a 16 octet IPv6 address.
o SID: 16 octet IPv6 address.
The following applies to the Type-11 Segment sub-TLV:
o The Local IPv6 Node Address MUST be present.
o The Remote IPv6 Node Address MUST be present.
o The SID is optional and specifies an SRv6 SID in the form of 16
octet IPv6 address.
o If length is 34, then the Local IPv6 Node Address and the Remote
IPv6 Node Address are present.
o If length is 50, then the Local IPv6 Node Address, the Remote IPv6
Node Address and the SRv6 SID are present.
2.4.3.2.12. Segment Flags
The Segment Types described above MAY contain following flags in the
"Flags" field (codes to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR
Policy Segment Flags" defined in this document Section 8.6):
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V|A| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
V-Flag: This flag encodes the "Segment Verification" behavior. It
is used by SRPM as described in section 5 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
A-Flag: This flag indicates the presence of SR Algorithm id in the
"SR Algorithm" field applicable to various Segment Types. SR
Algorithm is used by SRPM as described in section 4 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
Unused bits in the Flag octet SHOULD be set to zero upon
transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.
The following applies to the Segment Flags:
o V-Flag is applicable to all Segment Types.
o A-Flag is applicable to Segment Types 3, 4 and 9. If A-Flag
appears with any other Segment Type, it MUST be ignored.
2.4.4. Explicit NULL Label Policy Sub-TLV
In order to steer an unlabeled IP packet into an SR policy, it is
necessary to create a label stack for that packet, and to push one or
more labels onto that stack.
The Explicit NULL Label Policy sub-TLV is used to indicate whether an
Explicit NULL Label [RFC3032] must be pushed on an unlabeled IP
packet before any other labels.
If an Explicit NULL Label Policy Sub-TLV is not present, the decision
of whether to push an Explicit NULL label on a given packet is a
matter of local policy.
The contents of this sub-TLV are used by the SRPM as described in
section 4.1 in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ENLP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:
Type: TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs" defined in this document
Section 8.3).
Length: 3.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
Flags: 1 octet of flags. None are defined at this stage. Flags
SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
receipt.
RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
ENLP(Explicit NULL Label Policy): Indicates whether Explicit NULL
labels are to be pushed on unlabeled IP packets that are being
steered into a given SR policy. This field has one of the
following 4 values:
1: Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4
packet, but do not push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an
unlabeled IPv6 packet.
2: Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv6
packet, but do not push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an
unlabeled IPv4 packet.
3: Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4
packet, and push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled
IPv6 packet.
4: Do not push an Explicit NULL label.
The policy signaled in this Sub-TLV MAY be overridden by local
policy.
2.4.5. Policy Priority Sub-TLV
An operator MAY set the Policy Priority sub-TLV to indicate the order
in which the SR policies are re-computed upon topological change.
The Priority sub-TLV does not have any effect on the BGP bestpath
selection or propagation procedures. The contents of this sub-TLV
are used by the SRPM as described in section 2.11 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
The Priority sub-TLV is optional and it MUST NOT appear more than
once in the SR Policy TLV. If the Priority sub-TLV appears more than
once, the update is considered malformed and the "treat-as-withdraw"
strategy of [RFC7606] is applied.
The Priority sub-TLV has following format:
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 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 | Length | Priority | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:
Type: TBD2 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs" defined in this document
Section 8.3).
Length: 2.
Priority: a 1-octet value.
RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
2.4.6. Policy Name Sub-TLV
An operator MAY set the Policy Name sub-TLV to attach a symbolic name
to the SR Policy candidate path.
Usage of Policy Name sub-TLV is described in section 2 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
The Policy Name sub-TLV may exceed 255 bytes length due to long
policy name. Therefore a 2-octet length is required. According to
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps], the first bit of the sub-TLV codepoint
defines the size of the length field. Therefore, for the Policy Name
sub-TLV a code point of 128 (or higher) is used. See Section 8 for
details of codepoints allocation.
The Policy Name sub-TLV is optional and it MUST NOT appear more than
once in the SR Policy TLV. If the Policy Name sub-TLV appears more
than once, the update is considered malformed and the "treat-as-
withdraw" strategy of [RFC7606] is applied.
The Policy Name sub-TLV has following format:
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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Policy Name //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
Where:
Type: TBD3 (to be assigned by IANA from the registry "BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs" defined in this document
Section 8.3).
Length: Variable.
RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Policy Name: Symbolic name for the policy. It SHOULD be a string
of printable ASCII characters, without a NULL terminator.
3. Extended Color Community
The Color Extended Community as defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] is used to steer traffic into a policy.
When the Color Extended Community is used for the purpose of steering
the traffic into an SR Policy, the RESERVED field (as defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] is changed as follows:
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|C O| RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where CO bits are defined as the "Color-Only" bits.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] defines the influence of
these bits on the automated steering of BGP Payload traffic onto SR
Policies.
4. SR Policy Operations
As described in this document, the consumer of an SR Policy NLRI is
not the BGP process. The BGP process is in charge of the origination
and propagation of the SR Policy NLRI but its installation and use is
outside the scope of BGP. The details of SR Policy installation and
use can be referred from [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
4.1. Configuration and Advertisement of SR Policies
Typically, but not limited to, an SR Policy is configured into a
controller.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
Multiple SR Policy NLRIs may be present with the same <color,
endpoint> tuple but with different content when these SR policies are
intended to different head-ends.
The distinguisher of each SR Policy NLRI prevents undesired BGP route
selection among these SR Policy NLRIs and allow their propagation
across route reflectors [RFC4456].
Moreover, one or more route-target SHOULD be attached to the
advertisement, where each route-target identifies one or more
intended head-ends for the advertised SR policy.
If no route-target is attached to the SR Policy NLRI, then it is
assumed that the originator sends the SR Policy update directly
(e.g., through a BGP session) to the intended receiver. In such
case, the NO_ADVERTISE community MUST be attached to the SR Policy
update.
4.2. Reception of an SR Policy NLRI
On reception of an SR Policy NLRI, a BGP speaker MUST determine if
it's first acceptable, then it determines if it is usable.
4.2.1. Acceptance of an SR Policy NLRI
When a BGP speaker receives an SR Policy NLRI from a neighbor it has
to determine if it's acceptable. The following applies:
o The SR Policy NLRI MUST include a distinguisher, color and
endpoint field which implies that the length of the NLRI MUST be
either 12 or 24 octets (depending on the address family of the
endpoint).
o The SR Policy update MUST have either the NO_ADVERTISE community
or at least one route-target extended community in IPv4-address
format. If a router supporting this document receives an SR
policy update with no route-target extended communities and no
NO_ADVERTISE community, the update MUST NOT be sent to the SRPM.
Furthermore, it SHOULD be considered to be malformed, and the
"treat-as-withdraw" strategy of [RFC7606] is applied.
o The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute MUST be attached to the BGP
Update and MUST have a Tunnel Type TLV set to SR Policy (
codepoint is 15, assigned by IANA (see Section 8) from the "BGP
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types" registry).
A router that receives an SR Policy update that is not valid
according to these criteria MUST treat the update as malformed. The
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
route MUST NOT be passed to the SRPM, and the "treat-as-withdraw"
strategy of [RFC7606] is applied.
A unacceptable SR Policy update that has a valid NLRI portion with
invalid attribute portion MUST be considered as a withdraw of the SR
Policy.
4.2.2. Usable SR Policy NLRI
If one or more route-targets are present, then at least one route-
target MUST match one of the BGP Identifiers of the receiver in order
for the update to be considered usable. The BGP Identifier is
defined in [RFC4271] as a 4 octet IPv4 address. Therefore the route-
target extended community MUST be of the same format.
If one or more route-targets are present and no one matches any of
the local BGP Identifiers, then, while the SR Policy NLRI is
acceptable, it is not usable on the receiver node. It has to be
noted that if the receiver has been explicitly configured to do so,
it MAY propagate the SR Policy NLRI to its neighbors as defined in
Section 4.2.4.
The SR Policy candidate paths encoded by the usable SR Policy NLRIs
are sent to the SRPM.
4.2.3. Passing a usable SR Policy NLRI to the SRPM
Once BGP has determined that the SR Policy NLRI is usable, BGP passes
the SR Policy candidate path to the SRPM. Note that, along with the
candidate path details, BGP also passes the originator information
for breaking ties in the path-selection process as described in
section 2.4 in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
The SRPM applies the rules defined in section 2 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] to determine whether the SR
Policy candidate path is valid and to select the best candidate path
among the valid SR Policy candidate paths.
4.2.4. Propagation of an SR Policy
By default, a BGP node receiving an SR Policy NLRI MUST NOT propagate
it to any EBGP neighbor.
However, a node MAY be explicitly configured to advertise a received
SR Policy NLRI to neighbors according to normal BGP rules (i.e., EBGP
propagation by an ASBR or iBGP propagation by a Route-Reflector).
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
SR Policy NLRIs that have been determined acceptable and valid can be
propagated, even the ones that are not usable.
Only SR Policy NLRIs that do not have the NO_ADVERTISE community
attached to them can be propagated.
4.3. Flowspec and SR Policies
The SR Policy can be carried in context of a Flowspec NLRI
([RFC5575]). In this case, when the redirect to IP next-hop is
specified as in [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip], the tunnel to
the next-hop is specified by the segment list in the Segment List
sub-TLVs. The Segment List (e.g., label stack or IPv6 segment list)
is imposed to flows matching the criteria in the Flowspec route to
steer them towards the next-hop as specified in the SR Policy SAFI
NLRI.
5. Contributors
Arjun Sreekantiah
Cisco Systems
US
Email: asreekan@cisco.com
Acee Lindem
Cisco Systems
US
Email: acee@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems
US
Email: msiva@cisco.com
Imtiyaz Mohammad
Arista Networks
India
Email: imtiyaz@arista.com
Gaurav Dawra
Cisco Systems
US
Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
6. Acknowledgments
The authors of this document would like to thank Shyam Sethuram, John
Scudder, Przemyslaw Krol, Alex Bogdanov, Nandan Saha and Ketan
Talaulikar for their comments and review of this document.
7. Implementation Status
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication,
as well as the reference to RFC 7942.
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:
o Preference sub-TLV: 12
o Binding SID sub-TLV: 13
o Segment List sub-TLV: 128
When IANA-assigned values are available, implementations will be
updated to use them.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
8. IANA Considerations
This document defines new Sub-TLVs in following existing registries:
o Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters
o BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types
o BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs
This document also defines following new registries:
o SR Policy List Sub-TLVs
o SR Policy Binding SID Flags
o SR Policy Segment Flags
8.1. Existing Registry: Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI)
Parameters
This document defines a new SAFI in the registry "Subsequent Address
Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters" that has been assigned by IANA:
Codepoint Description Reference
-----------------------------------------------
73 SR Policy SAFI This document
8.2. Existing Registry: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types
This document defines a new Tunnel-Type in the registry "BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types" that has been assigned by IANA:
Codepoint Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------
15 SR Policy Type This document
8.3. Existing Registry: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs
This document defines new sub-TLVs in the registry "BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs" to be assigned by IANA:
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
Codepoint Description Reference
------------------------------------------------------
12 Preference sub-TLV This document
13 Binding SID sub-TLV This document
128 Segment List sub-TLV This document
TBD1 ENLP sub-TLV This document
TBD2 Priority sub-TLV This document
TBD3 Policy Name sub-TLV This document
8.4. New Registry: SR Policy List Sub-TLVs
This document defines a new registry called "SR Policy List Sub-
TLVs". The allocation policy of this registry is "First Come First
Served (FCFS)" according to [RFC8126].
Following Sub-TLV codepoints are defined:
Value Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 MPLS SID sub-TLV This document
2 SRv6 SID sub-TLV This document
3 IPv4 Node and SID sub-TLV This document
4 IPv6 Node and SID for SR-MPLS sub-TLV This document
5 IPv4 Node, index and SID sub-TLV This document
6 IPv4 Local/Remote addresses and SID sub-TLV This document
7 IPv6 Node, index for remote and local pair This document
and SID for SR-MPLS sub-TLV
8 IPv6 Local/Remote addresses and SID sub-TLV This document
9 Weight sub-TLV This document
10 IPv6 Node and SID for SRv6 sub-TLV This document
11 IPv6 Node, index for remote and local pair This document
and SID for SRv6 sub-TLV
12 IPv6 Local/Remote addresses and SID for This document
SRv6 sub-TLV
8.5. New Registry: SR Policy Binding SID Flags
This document defines a new registry called "SR Policy Binding SID
Flags". The allocation policy of this registry is "First Come First
Served (FCFS)" according to [RFC8126].
Following Flags are defined:
Bit Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Drop Upon Invalid Flag (I-Flag) This document
1 Specified-BSID-Only Flag (S-Flag) This document
2-7 Unassigned
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
8.6. New Registry: SR Policy Segment Flags
This document defines a new registry called "SR Policy Segment
Flags". The allocation policy of this registry is "First Come First
Served (FCFS)" according to [RFC8126].
Following Flags are defined:
Bit Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Segment Verification Flag (V-Flag) This document
1 SR Algorithm Flag (A-Flag) This document
2-7 Unassigned
9. Security Considerations
TBD.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-09
(work in progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-12 (work in progress), June
2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), January 2018.
[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.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
10.2. Informational References
[I-D.filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Krol, P., Horneffer, M., and
P. Mattes, "SR Policy Implementation and Deployment
Considerations", draft-filsfils-spring-sr-policy-
considerations-01 (work in progress), June 2018.
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
[]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and
d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-14 (work in
progress), June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip]
Uttaro, J., Haas, J., Texier, M., Andy, A., Ray, S.,
Simpson, A., and W. Henderickx, "BGP Flow-Spec Redirect to
IP Action", draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 (work
in progress), February 2015.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.
[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
IT
Email: stefano@previdi.net
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Dhanendra Jain (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
San Jose
USA
Email: dhjain@cisco.com
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing Policies in BGP July 2018
Paul Mattes
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
Email: pamattes@microsoft.com
Eric Rosen
Juniper Networks
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
US
Email: erosen@juniper.net
Steven Lin
Google
Email: stevenlin@google.com
Previdi, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 40]
