Segment Routing Path MTU in BGP
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-01

Interdomain Routing Working Group                                  C. Li
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Y. Zhu
Expires: October 30, 2020                                  China Telecom
                                                                A. Sawaf
                                                   Saudi Telecom Company
                                                                   Z. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                          April 28, 2020


                    Segment Routing Path MTU in BGP
                  draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-01

Abstract

   Segment Routing is a source routing paradigm that explicitly
   indicates the forwarding path for packets at the ingress node.  An SR
   policy is a set of candidate SR paths consisting of one or more
   segment lists with necessary path attributes.  However, the path
   maximum transmission unit (MTU) information for SR path is not
   available in the SR policy since the SR does not require signaling.
   This document defines extensions to BGP to distribute path MTU
   information within SR policies.

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 October 30, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Li, et al.              Expires October 30, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             SR Path MTU in BGP                 April 2020


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  SR Policy for Path MTU  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Path MTU Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Huawei's Commercial Delivery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Segment routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a source routing paradigm that
   explicitly indicates the forwarding path for packets at the ingress
   node.  The ingress node steers packets into a specific path according
   to the Segment Routing Policy ( SR Policy) as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].  In order to distribute SR
   policies to the headend, [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
   specifies a mechanism by using BGP.

   The maximum transmission unit (MTU) is the largest size packet or
   frame, in bytes, that can be sent in a network.  An MTU that is too
   large might cause retransmissions.  Too small an MTU might cause the
   router to send and handle relatively more header overhead and
   acknowledgments.

   When an LSP is created across a set of links with different MTU
   sizes, the ingress router needs to know what the smallest MTU is on
   the LSP path.  If this MTU is larger than the MTU of one of the



Li, et al.              Expires October 30, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             SR Path MTU in BGP                 April 2020


   intermediate links, traffic might be dropped, because MPLS packets
   cannot be fragmented.  Also, the ingress router may not be aware of
   this type of traffic loss, because the control plane for the LSP
   would still function normally.  [RFC3209] specify the mechanism of
   MTU signaling in RSVP.  Likewise, SRv6 pakcets will be dropped if the
   packet size is larger than path MTU, since IPv6 packet can not be
   fragmented on transmission [RFC8200] .

   The host may discover the PMTU by Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD)
   [RFC8201] or other mechanisms.  But the ingress still needs to
   examine the packet size for dropping too large packets to avoid
   malicious traffic or error traffic.  Also, the packet size may
   exceeds the PMTU because of the new encapsulation of SR-MPLS or SRv6
   packet at the ingress.

   In order to check whether the Packet size exceeds the PMTU or not,
   the ingress node needs to know the Path MTU associated to the
   forwarding path.  However, the path maximum transmission unit (MTU)
   information for SR path is not available since the SR does not
   require signaling.

   This document defines extensions to BGP to distribute path MTU
   information within SR policies.  The Link MTU information can be
   obtained via BGP-LS [I-D.zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu] or some other
   means.  With the Link MTU, the controller can compute the PMTU and
   convey the information via the BGP SR policy.

2.  Terminology

   This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8402] and [RFC3209].

2.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  SR Policy for Path MTU

   As defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] , the SR
   policy encoding structure is as follows:








Li, et al.              Expires October 30, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             SR Path MTU in BGP                 April 2020


      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
                    ...
                ...

   As introduced in Section 1, each SR path has it's path MTU.  SR
   policy with SR path MTU information is expressed as below:


      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
                    Path MTU
                    Segment
                    Segment
                    ...
                ...


3.1.  Path MTU Sub-TLV

   A Path MTU sub-TLV is an Optional sub-TLV.  When it appears, it must
   appear only once at most within a Segment List sub-TLV.  If multiple
   Path MTU sub-TLVs appear within a Segment List sub-TLV, the NLRI MUST
   be treated as a malformed NLRI.

   As per [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], when the error
   determined allows for the router to skip the malformed NLRI(s) and
   continue processing of the rest of the update message, then it MUST



Li, et al.              Expires October 30, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             SR Path MTU in BGP                 April 2020


   handle such malformed NLRIs as 'Treat-as-withdraw'.  This document
   does not define new error handling rules for Path MTU sub-TLV, and
   the error handling rules defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] apply to this document.

   A Path MTU sub-TLV is associated with an SR path specified by a
   segment list sub-TLV or a path segment
   [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]
   [I-D.li-spring-srv6-path-segment].  The Path MTU 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     |               RESERVED        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                            Path MTU                           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                         Figure 1. Path MTU sub-TLV

   Where:

   Type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and
   Length fields.

   Reserved: 16 bits reserved and MUST be set to 0 on transmission and
   MUST be ignored on receipt.

   Path MTU: 4 bytes value of path MTU in octets.  The value can be
   calculated by a central controller or other devices based on the
   information that learned via IGP of BGP-LS or other means.

   Whenever the path MTU of a physical or logical interface is changed,
   a new SR policy with new path MTU information should be updated
   accordingly by BGP.

4.  Operations

   The document does not bring new operation beyond the description of
   operations defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].  The
   existing operations defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] can apply to this document
   directly.

   Typically but not limit to, the SR policies carrying path MTU
   infomation are configured by a controller.



Li, et al.              Expires October 30, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             SR Path MTU in BGP                 April 2020


   After configuration, the SR policies carrying path MTU infomation
   will be advertised by BGP update messages.  The operation of
   advertisement is the same as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], as well as the receiption.

   The consumer of the SR policies is not the BGP process.  The
   operation of sending information to consumers is out of scope of this
   document.

5.  Implementation Status

   [Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
   well as remove the reference to [RFC7942].

   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".

5.1.  Huawei's Commercial Delivery

   The feature has been implemented on Huawei VRP8.

   o  Organization: Huawei

   o  Implementation: Huawei's Commercial Delivery implementation based
      on VRP8.

   o  Description: The implementation has been done.

   o  Maturity Level: Product

   o  Contact: guokeqiang@huawei.com



Li, et al.              Expires October 30, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             SR Path MTU in BGP                 April 2020


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new Sub-TLV in registries "SR Policy List
   Sub- TLVs" [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]:

   Value    Description                                  Reference
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    TBA     Path MTU sub-TLV                            This document



7.  Security Considerations

   TBA

8.  Contributors

   Jun Qiu

   Huawei Technologies

   China

   Email: qiujun8@huawei.com

9.  Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thank Ketan Talaulikar, Aijun Wang, Weiqiang
   Cheng, Huanan Chen, Chongfeng Xie, Stefano Previdi, Taishan Tang,
   Keqiang Guo, Chen Zhang, Susan Hares, Weiguo Hao, Gong Xia, Bing
   Yang, Linda Dunbar, Shunwan Zhuang, Huaimo Chen, Mach Chen, Jingring
   Xie, Zhibo Hu, Jimmy Dong and Jianwei Mao for their proprefessional
   comments and help.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,
              Rosen, E., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment
              Routing Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-
              te-policy-08 (work in progress), November 2019.








Li, et al.              Expires October 30, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             SR Path MTU in BGP                 April 2020


   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
              Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
              P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
              ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-06 (work in progress),
              December 2019.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [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>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]
              Cheng, W., Li, H., Chen, M., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler,
              "Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network",
              draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-02 (work in progress),
              February 2020.

   [I-D.li-spring-srv6-path-segment]
              Li, C., Cheng, W., Chen, M., Dhody, D., and R. Gandhi,
              "Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6)", draft-
              li-spring-srv6-path-segment-05 (work in progress), March
              2020.

   [I-D.zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu]
              Zhu, Y., Hu, Z., Yan, G., and J. Yao, "BGP-LS Extensions
              for Advertising Path MTU", draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-
              mtu-02 (work in progress), January 2020.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [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>.



Li, et al.              Expires October 30, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             SR Path MTU in BGP                 April 2020


   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8201]  McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
              "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.

Authors' Addresses

   Cheng Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: chengli13@huawei.com


   YongQing Zhu
   China Telecom
   109, West Zhongshan Road, Tianhe District.
   Guangzhou
   China

   Email: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn


   Ahmed El Sawaf
   Saudi Telecom Company
   Riyadh
   Saudi Arabia

   Email: aelsawaf.c@stc.com.sa


   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com






Li, et al.              Expires October 30, 2020                [Page 9]