Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft P. Psenak
Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi
Expires: November 25, 2017 Cisco Systems
M. Pilka
May 24, 2017
Segment Routing MPLS Conflict Resolution
draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-04.txt
Abstract
In support of Segment Routing (SR) for an MPLS data plane routing
protocols advertise a variety of identifiers used to define the
segments which direct forwarding of packets. In cases where the
information advertised by a given protocol instance is either
internally inconsistent or conflicts with advertisements from another
protocol instance a means of achieving consistent forwarding behavior
in the network is required. This document defines the policies used
to resolve these occurrences.
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 http://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 November 25, 2017.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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. SR Global Block Inconsistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. SR-MPLS Segment Identifier Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. SID Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Conflict Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Prefix Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. SID Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Preference rule for resolving conflicts . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Conflict Resolution Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5. Example Behavior - Single Topology/Address
Family/Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.6. Example Behavior - Multiple Topologies . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7. Guaranteeing Database Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.8. Minimizing the occurence of conflicts . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Scope of SR-MPLS SID Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Conflict Resolution and non-forwarding nodes . . . . . . . . 16
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Alternative SID Conflict Resolution Policy
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.1. Policy: Ignore conflicting entries . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.2. Policy: Preference Algorithm/Quarantine . . . . . . . . . 18
A.3. Policy: Preference algorithm/ignore overlap only . . . . 18
A.4. Example Behavior - Single Topology/Address
Family/Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.5. Evaluation of Policy Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) as defined in [SR-ARCH] utilizes forwarding
instructions called "segments" to direct packets through the network.
Depending on the forwarding plane architecture in use, routing
protocols advertise various identifiers which define the permissible
values which can be used as segments, which values are assigned to
specific prefixes, etc. Where segments have global scope it is
necessary to have non-conflicting assignments - but given that the
advertisements may originate from multiple nodes the possibility
exists that advertisements may be received which are either
internally inconsistent or conflicting with advertisements originated
by other nodes. In such cases it is necessary to have consistent
resolution of conflicts network-wide in order to avoid forwarding
loops.
This document is limited to discussion of conflict resolution for
identifiers used in an MPLS data plane.
The problem to be addressed is protocol independent i.e., segment
related advertisements may be originated by multiple nodes using
different protocols and yet the conflict resolution MUST be the same
on all nodes regardless of the protocol used to transport the
advertisements.
The remainder of this document defines conflict resolution policies
which meet these requirements. All protocols which support SR MUST
adhere to the policies defined in this document.
2. SR Global Block Inconsistency
In support of an MPLS dataplane [SR-MPLS] routing protocols advertise
an SR Global Block (SRGB) which defines a set of label ranges
reserved for use by the advertising node in support of SR. The
details of how protocols advertise this information can be found in
the protocol specific drafts e.g., [SR-OSPF], [SR-OSPFv3], [SR-IS-
IS], and [SR-BGP]. However the protocol independent semantics are
illustrated by the following example:
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
The originating router advertises the following ranges:
Range 1: (100, 199)
Range 2: (1000, 1099)
Range 3: (500, 599)
The receiving routers concatenate the ranges and build the Segment
Routing Global Block (SRGB) as follows:
SRGB = (100, 199)
(1000, 1099)
(500, 599)
The indeces span multiple ranges:
index=0 means label 100
...
index 99 means label 199
index 100 means label 1000
index 199 means label 1099
...
index 200 means label 500
...
Note that the ranges are an ordered set - what labels are mapped to a
given index depends on the placement of a given label range in the
set of ranges advertised.
For the set of ranges to be usable the ranges MUST be disjoint.
Sender behavior is defined in various SR protocol drafts such as [SR-
IS-IS] which specify that senders MUST NOT advertise overlapping
ranges.
Receivers of SRGB ranges MUST validate the SRGB ranges advertised by
other nodes. If the advertised ranges do not conform to the
restrictions defined in the respective protocol specification
receivers MUST ignore all advertised SRGB ranges from that node.
Operationally the node is treated as though it did not advertise any
SRGB ranges. [SR-MPLS] defines the procedures for mapping global
SIDs to outgoing labels.
Note that utilization of local SIDs (e.g. adjacency SIDs) advertised
by a node is not affected by the state of the advertised SRGB.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
3. SR-MPLS Segment Identifier Conflicts
In support of an MPLS dataplane Segment Identifiers (SIDs) are
advertised and associated with a given prefix. SIDs may be
advertised in the prefix reachability advertisements originated by a
routing protocol (PFX) . SIDs may also be advertised by a Segment
Routing Mapping Server (SRMS). How this is done is defined in the
protocol specific drafts e.g., [SR-OSPF], [SR-OSPFv3], [SR-IS-IS],
and [SR-BGP]
Information in a SID advertisement is used to construct a mapping
entry. A generalized mapping entry can be represented using the
following definitions:
Prf - Preference Value (See Section 3.1)
Pi - Initial prefix
Pe - End prefix
L - Prefix length
Lx - Maximum prefix length (32 for IPv4, 128 for IPv6)
Si - Initial SID value
Se - End SID value
R - Range value (See Note 1)
T - Topology
A - Algorithm (see [SR-ARCH])
A Mapping Entry is then the tuple: (Prf, Pi/L, Si, R, T, A)
Pe = (Pi + ((R-1) << (Lx-L))
Se = Si + (R-1)
NOTE 1: The SID advertised in a prefix reachability advertisement
always has an implicit range of 1.
Note: Topology is a locally scoped identifier assigned by each
router. Although it may have an association with Multitopology
Identifiers (MTID) advertised by routing protocols it is NOT
equivalent to these identifiers. MTIDs are scoped by a given routing
protocol. MTID ranges are protocol specific and there may be
standardized protocol specific MTID assignments for topologies of a
specific type (e.g., an AFI specific topology). As mapping entries
can be sourced from multiple protocols it is not possible to use a
network scoped identifier for a topology when storing mapping entries
in the local datbase.
Conflicts in SID advertisements may occur as a result of
misconfiguration. When conflicts occur, it is not possible for
routers to know which of the conflicting advertisements is "correct".
In order to avoid forwarding loops and/or blackholes, there is a need
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
for all nodes to resolve the conflicts in a consistent manner. This
in turn requires that all routers have identical sets of
advertisements and that they all use the same selection algorithm.
This document defines procedures to achieve these goals.
3.1. SID Preference
If a node acts as an SRMS, it MAY advertise a preference to be
associated with all SRMS SID advertisements sent by that node. The
means of advertising the preference is defined in the protocol
specific drafts e.g., [SR-OSPF], [SR-OSPFv3], and [SR-IS-IS]. The
preference value is an unsigned 8 bit integer with the following
properties:
0 - Reserved value indicating advertisements from that node
MUST NOT be used.
1 - 255 Preference value
Advertisement of a preference value is optional. Nodes which do not
advertise a preference value are assigned a preference value of 128.
All SIDs advertised in prefix reachability advertisements originated
by an IGP implicitly have a preference value of 192.
All SIDs advertised in prefix reachability advertisements originated
by BGP implicitly have a preference value of 64.
These preference values are deliberately chosen to favor SID
advertisements originated within a domain (IGP and SRMS) over SID
advertisements which may have been imported from other domains (BGP).
In addition, as BGP originated advertisements may not be known on all
nodes within a domain (because not every node will be a BGP speaker),
the presence of a BGP originated mapping entry MUST NOT cause a
mapping entry originated within the domain to become unusable as this
would introduce inconsistency in the set of SIDs considered usable by
a node which has the BGP originated mapping entries and the set
considered usable by nodes without the BGP originated mapping
entries.
3.2. Conflict Types
Two types of conflicts may occur - Prefix Conflicts and SID
Conflicts. Examples are provided in this section to illustrate these
conflict types.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
3.2.1. Prefix Conflict
When different SIDs are assigned to the same prefix we have a "prefix
conflict". Prefix conflicts are limited to mapping entries sharing
the same topology and algorithm.
Example PC1
(192, 192.0.2.120/32, 200, 1, 0, 0)
(192, 192.0.2.120/32, 30, 1, 0, 0)
The prefix 192.0.2.120/32 has been assigned two different SIDs:
200 by the first advertisement
30 by the second advertisement
Example PC2
(192, 2001:DB8::1/128, 400, 1, 2, 0)
(192, 2001:DB8::1/128, 50, 1, 2, 0)
The prefix 2001:DB8::1/128 has been assigned two different SIDs:
400 by the first advertisement
50 by the second advertisement
Prefix conflicts may also occur as a result of overlapping prefix
ranges.
Example PC3
(128, 192.0.2.1/32, 200, 200, 0, 0)
(128, 192.0.2.121/32, 30, 10, 0, 0)
Prefixes 192.0.2.121/32 - 192.0.2.130/32 are assigned two
different SIDs:
320 through 329 by the first advertisement
30 through 39 by the second advertisement
Example PC4
(128, 2001:DB8::1/128, 400, 200, 2, 0)
(128, 2001:DB8::121/128, 50, 10, 2, 0)
Prefixes 2001:DB8::121/128 - 2001:DB8::130/128 are assigned
two different SIDs:
420 through 429 by the first advertisement
50 through 59 by the second advertisement
Examples PC3 and PC4 illustrate a complication - only part of the
range advertised in the first advertisement is in conflict. It is
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
logically possible to consider the sub-range(s) which are in conflict
as unusable while considering the sub-range(s) not in conflict as
usable.
A variant of the overlapping prefix range is a case where we have
overlapping prefix ranges but no actual prefix conflict.
Example PC5
(128, 192.0.2.1/32, 200, 200, 0, 0)
(128, 192.0.2.121/32, 320, 10, 0, 0)
(128, 2001:DB8::1/128, 400, 200, 2, 0)
(128, 2001:DB8::121/128, 520, 10, 2, 0)
Although there is prefix overlap between the two IPv4 entries (and
the two IPv6 entries) the same SID is assigned to all of the shared
prefixes by the two entries.
Given two mapping entries:
(Prf, P1/L1, S1, R1, T1, A1) and
(Prf, P2/L2, S2, R2, T2, A2)
where P1 <= P2
a prefix conflict exists if all of the following are true:
1)(T1 == T2) && (A1 == A2) && (L1 == L2)
2)The prefixes are in the same address family.
3)(P1e >= P2) && ((S1 + (P2 - P1)) != S2)
Prefixes in the following range are in conflict:
P2 through MIN(P1e,P2e)
3.2.2. SID Conflict
When the same SID has been assigned to multiple prefixes we have a
"SID conflict". SID conflicts are independent of address-family,
independent of prefix len, independent of topology, and independent
of algorithm.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
Example SC1
(192, 192.0.2.1/32, 200, 1, 0, 0)
(192, 192.0.2.222/32, 200, 1, 0, 0)
SID 200 has been assigned to 192.0.2.1/32 by the
first advertisement.
The second advertisement assigns SID 200 to 192.0.2.222/32.
Example SC2
(192, 2001:DB8::1/128, 400, 1, 2, 0)
(192, 2001:DB8::222/128, 400, 1, 2, 0)
SID 400 has been assigned to 2001:DB8::1/128 by the
first advertisement.
The second advertisement assigns SID 400 to 2001:DB8::222/128
SID conflicts may also occur as a result of overlapping SID ranges.
Example SC3
(128, 192.0.2.1/32, 200, 200, 0, 0)
(128, 198.51.100.1/32, 300, 10, 0, 0)
SIDs 300 - 309 have been assigned to two different prefixes.
The first advertisement assigns these SIDs
to 192.0.2.101/32 - 192.0.2.110/32.
The second advertisement assigns these SIDs to
198.51.100.1/32 - 198.51.100.10/32.
Example SC4
(128, 2001:DB8::1/128, 400, 200, 2, 0)
(128, 2001:DB8:1::1/128, 500, 10, 2, 0)
SIDs 500 - 509 have been assigned to two different prefixes.
The first advertisement assigns these SIDs to
2001:DB8::101/128 - 2001:DB8::10A/128.
The second advertisement assigns these SIDs to
2001:DB8:1::1/128 - 2001:DB8:1::A/128.
Examples SC3 and SC4 illustrate a complication - only part of the
range advertised in the first advertisement is in conflict.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
Given two mapping entries:
(Prf, P1/L1, S1, R1, T1, A1) and
(Prf, P2/L2, S2, R2, T2, A2)
where S1 <= S2
a SID conflict exists if all of the following are true:
1)S1e >= S2
2)P1 and P2 are NOT in the same address family OR
L1 != L2 OR
(P1 + ((S1e-S2) << (L1x-L1))) != P2
SIDs in the following range are in conflict:
S2 through MIN(S1e,S2e)
3.3. Preference rule for resolving conflicts
When a conflict is detected the following algorithm is used to select
the preferred mapping entry. Evaluation is made in the order
specified. Prefix conflicts are evaluated first. SID conflicts are
then evaluated on the Active entries remaining after Prefix Conflicts
have been resolved.
1. Higher preference value wins
2. Smaller range wins
3. IPv6 entry wins over IPv4 entry
4. Longer prefix length wins
5. Smaller starting address (considered as an unsigned integer
value) wins
6. Smaller algorithm wins
7. Smaller starting SID wins
8. If topology IDs are NOT identical both entries MUST be ignored
When applying the preference rule to prefix/SID pairs associated with
an advertised mapping entry with a range greater than one, each
prefix/SID pair in the range is considered as having the range
associated with the advertised mapping entry. For example:
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
Advertised mapping entry: (128, 192.0.2.1/32, 200, 200, 0, 0)
The advertisement covers 200 prefix/SID pairs:
192.0.2.1/32 200
192.0.2.2/32 201
...
192.0.2.200/32 399
Each of these prefix/SID pairs is considered as having a range of 200
when applying Rule #2 above.
As SIDs associated with prefix reachability advertisements have a
preference of 192 and an implied range of 1 while by default SRMS
preference is 128, the default behavior is then to prefer SIDs
advertised in prefix reachability advertisements over SIDs advertised
by SRMSs, but an operator can choose to override this behavior by
setting SRMS preference higher than 192.
Preferring advertisements with smaller range has the nice property
that a single misconfiguration of an SRMS entry with a large range
will not be preferred over a large number of advertisements with
smaller ranges.
Since topology identifiers are locally scoped, it is not possible to
make a consistent choice network wide when all elements of a mapping
entry are identical except for the topology. This is why both
entries MUST be ignored in such cases (Rule #8 above). Note that
Rule #8 only applies when considering SID conflicts since Prefix
conflicts are restricted to a single topology.
3.4. Conflict Resolution Algorithm
The following logical steps MUST be followed in the order specified
when resolving conflicts.
Step 1: Resolve Prefix Conflicts (same topology/address family/
algorithm)
For each supported topology/address family/algorithm examine all
qualifying mapping entries in the following order:
1)Preference (start w highest)
2)Range (start w smallest)
3)Prefix length (start w longest)
4)Address (start w smallest)
5)SID (start w smallest)
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
At each step if a prefix conflict is detected the losing prefix/SID
pair is declared Inactive and is not considered in any subsequent
steps. The remaining prefix/SID pairs are Active.
Mapping entries with Active prefix/SID pairs after completion of Step
1 are fed into ...
Step 2: SID Conflicts (across all topologies/address families/
algorithms)
Examine all Active prefix/SID pairs from Step #1 in the following
order:
1)Preference (start w highest)
2)Range (start w smallest)
3)IPv6 entries
a)Prefix length (start w longest)
b)Address (start w smallest)
4)IPv4 entries
a)Prefix Length (start w longest)
b)Address (start w smallest)
5)Algorithm (start w smallest)
6)SID (start w smallest)
Prefix/SID pairs which are identical and are associated with the
same topology are duplicates - both entries MUST be considered as
Active.
Prefix/SID pairs which are identical and are associated with
different topologies MUST both be considered Inactive.
Active Entries in the database may be used in forwarding. Inactive
entries MUST NOT be used in forwarding.
Note that when the database of mapping entries changes the full set
of logical steps MUST be reapplied to the entire database as conflict
resolution is NOT transitive.
NOTE: Clever implementors may realize optimizations when rerunning
the algorithm by evaluating changed entries as to whether they have
potential conflicts with any of the existing entries in the database
(both active and inactive). Such optimizations are outside the scope
of this specification. The normative behavior is defined by the
logical algorithm above.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
3.5. Example Behavior - Single Topology/Address Family/Algorithm
The following mapping entries exist in the database. For brevity,
Topology/Algorithm is omitted and assumed to be (0,0) in all entries.
1. (192, 192.0.2.1/32, 100, 1)
2. (192, 192.0.2.101/32, 200, 1)
3. (128, 192.0.2.1/32, 400, 255) !Prefix conflict with entries 1 and
2
4. (128, 198.51.100.40/32, 200,1) !SID conflict with entry 2
The table below shows what mapping entries will be used in the
forwarding plane (Active) and which ones will not be used (Inactive)
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Active Entries | Inactive Entries |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| (192,192.0.2.1/32,100,1) | (128,198.51.100.40/32,200,1)|
| (192,192.0.2.101/32,200,1) |*(128,192.0.2.1/32,400,1) |
|*(128,192.0.2.2/32,401,99) |*(128,192.0.2.101/32,500,1) |
|*(128,192.0.2.102/32,501,154) | |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
* Derived from (128,192.0.2.1/32,400,255)
3.6. Example Behavior - Multiple Topologies
When using a preference rule the order in which conflict resolution
is applied has an impact on what entries are Active when entries for
multiple topologies (or algorithms) are present. The following
mapping entries exist in the database:
1. (192, 192.0.2.1/32, 100, 1, 0, 0) !Topology 0
2. (192, 192.0.2.1/32, 200, 1, 0, 0) !Topology 0, Prefix Conflict
with entry #1
3. (192, 198.51.100.40/32, 200,1,1,0) ! Topology 1, SID conflict
with entry 2
The table below shows what mapping entries will be used in the
forwarding plane (Active) and which ones will not be used (Inactive)
based on the order in which conflict resolution is applied.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Order | Active Entries | Inactive Entries |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Prefix- |(192,192.0.2.1/32,100,1,0,0)|(192,192.0.2.101/32,200,1,0)|
|Conflict|(192,198.51.100.40/32,200,1,| |
|First | 1,0) | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|SID- |(192,192.0.2.1/32,100,1,0,0)|(192,192.0.2.101/32,200,1,0)|
|Conflict| |(192,198.51.100.40/32,200,1,|
|First | | 1,0) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
This illustrates the advantage of evaluating prefix conflicts within
a given topology (or algorithm) before evaluating topology (or
algorithm) independent SID conflicts. It insures that entries which
will be excluded based on intratopology preference will not prevent a
SID assigned in another topology from being considered Active.
3.7. Guaranteeing Database Consistency
In order to obtain consistent active entries all nodes in a network
MUST have the same mapping entry database. Mapping entries can be
obtained from a variety of sources.
o SIDs can be configured locally for prefixes assigned to interfaces
on the router itself. Only SIDs which are advertised to protocol
peers can be considered as part of the mapping entry database.
o SIDs can be received in prefix reachability advertisements from
protocol peers. These advertisements may originate from peers
local to the area or be leaked from other areas and/or
redistributed from other routing protocols.
o SIDs can be received from SRMS advertisements - these
advertisements can originate from routers local to the area or
leaked from other areas
o In cases where multiple routing protocols are in use mapping
entries advertised by all routing protocols MUST be included.
3.8. Minimizing the occurence of conflicts
Conflicts in SID advertisements are always the result of a
misconfiguration. Conflicts may occur either in the set of
advertisements originated by a single node or between advertisements
originated by different nodes.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
Conflicts which occur within the set of advertisements (PFX and SRMS)
originated by a single node SHOULD be prevented by configuration
validation on the originating node.
It is possible to minimize the occurrence of conflicts between
advertisements originated by different routers if new configuration
is validated against the current state of the conflict resolution
database before the configuration is advertised. How this is done is
an implementation issue which is out of scope of this document.
4. Scope of SR-MPLS SID Conflicts
The previous section defines the types of SID conflicts and
procedures to resolve such conflicts when using an MPLS dataplane.
The mapping entry database used MUST be populated with entries for
destinations for which the associated SID will be used to derive the
labels installed in the forwarding plane of routers in the network.
This consists of entries associated with intra-domain routes.
There are cases where destinations which are external to the domain
are advertised by protocol speakers running within that network - and
it is possible that those advertisements have SIDs associated with
those destinations. However, if reachability to a destination is
topologically outside the forwarding domain of the protocol instance
then the SIDs for such destinations will never be installed in the
forwarding plane of any router within the domain - so such
advertisements cannot create a SID conflict within the domain. Such
entries therefore MUST NOT be installed in the database used for
intra-domain conflict resolution.
Consider the case of two sites "A and B" associated with a given
[RFC4364] VPN. Connectivity between the sites is via a provider
backbone. SIDs associated with destinations in Site A will never be
installed in the forwarding plane of routers in Site B. Reachability
between the sites (assuming SR is being used across the backbone)
only requires using a SID associated with a gateway PE. So a
destination in Site A MAY use the same SID as a destination in Site B
without introducing any conflict in the forwarding plane of routers
in Site A.
Such cases are handled by insuring that the mapping entries in the
database used by the procedures defined in the previous section only
include entries associated with advertisements within the site.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
5. Conflict Resolution and non-forwarding nodes
The previous sections define conflict resolution behavior required of
nodes which perform forwarding. But conflict resolution also impacts
other entities e.g., controllers. If a controller were to define an
explicit path using a SID in a way that is inconsistent with the set
of Active entries produced by conflict resolution procedures used by
the forwarding nodes then traffic following the explicit path may be
misdelivered.
To prevent this such an entity MUST either implement the conflict
resolution procedures defined above or implement an alternate form of
conflict resolution which produces a subset of the Active entries
which result from the conflict resolution procedures defined above.
One such alternate form is to consider Inactive any mapping entry
which has either a prefix conflict or a SID conflict with any other
mapping entry.
6. Security Considerations
The ability to introduce SID conflicts into a deployment may
compromise traffic forwarding. Protocol specific security mechanisms
SHOULD be used to insure that all SID advertisements originate from
trusted sources.
7. IANA Consideration
This document has no actions for IANA.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jeff Tantsura, Wim Henderickx, Bruno
Decraene, and Stephane Litkowski for their careful review and content
suggestions.
9. References
9.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
[SR-BGP] "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for BGP, draft-
ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-05(work in progress)", April 2017.
[SR-IS-IS]
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing, draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-12(work in progress)", April
2017.
[SR-MPLS] "Segment Routing with MPLS dataplane, draft-ietf-spring-
segment-routing-mpls-08(work in progress)", March 2017.
[SR-OSPF] "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, draft-ietf-ospf-
segment-routing-extensions-16(work in progress)", May
2017.
[SR-OSPFv3]
"OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing, draft-ietf-ospf-
ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-09(work in progress)",
March 2017.
9.2. Informational References
[SR-ARCH] "Segment Routing Architecture, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
routing-11(work in progress)", February 2017.
Appendix A. Alternative SID Conflict Resolution Policy Discussion
A number of approaches to resolving SID conflicts were considered
during the writing of this document. Two general approaches with a
total of three policy alternatives were considered. This
Appendix documents the alternatives considered. All content in this
section is non-normative.
Two general approaches can be used to process conflicting entries.
1. Conflicting entries can be ignored
2. A standard preference algorithm can be used to choose which of
the conflicting entries will be used
The following sections discuss these two approaches in more detail.
A.1. Policy: Ignore conflicting entries
In cases where entries are in conflict none of the conflicting
entries are used i.e., the network operates as if the conflicting
advertisements were not present.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
Implementations are required to identify the conflicting entries and
ensure that they are not used.
A.2. Policy: Preference Algorithm/Quarantine
For entries which are in conflict properties of the conflicting
advertisements are used to determine which of the conflicting entries
are used in forwarding and which are "quarantined" and not used.
Losing mapping entries with ranges greater than 1 are quarantined in
their entirety.
This approach requires that conflicting entries first be identified
and then evaluated based on a preference rule. Based on which entry
is preferred this in turn may impact what other entries are
considered in conflict i.e. if A conflicts with B and B conflicts
with C - it is possible that A does NOT conflict with C. Hence if as
a result of the evaluation of the conflict between A and B, entry B
is not used the conflict between B and C will not be detected.
A.3. Policy: Preference algorithm/ignore overlap only
A variation of the preference algorithm approach when applied to
mapping entries with ranges greater than 1 is to quarantine only the
portions of the less preferred entry which actually conflict. The
original entry is logically considered as a set of entries with a
range of 1, each of which inherits the range value of the original
entry for purposes of applying the preference rule.
A.4. Example Behavior - Single Topology/Address Family/Algorithm
The following mapping entries exist in the database. For brevity,
Topology/Algorithm is omitted and assumed to be (0,0) in all entries.
1. (192, 192.0.2.1/32, 100, 1)
2. (192, 192.0.2.101/32, 200, 1)
3. (128, 192.0.2.1/32, 400, 255) !Prefix conflict with entries 1 and
2
4. (128, 198.51.100.40/32, 200,1) !SID conflict with entry 2
The table below shows what mapping entries will be used in the
forwarding plane (Active) and which ones will not be used (Inactive)
under the three candidate policies:
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Policy | Active Entries | Inactive Entries |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Ignore | |(192,192.0.2.1/32,100,1) |
| | |(192,192.0.2.101/32,200,1) |
| | |(128,192.0.2.1/32,400,255) |
| | |(128,198.51.100.40/32,200,1) |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Quarantine|(192,192.0.1.1/32,100,1) |(128,192.0.2.1/32,400,255) |
| |(192,192.0.2.101/32,200,1) |(128,198.51.100.40/32,200,1) |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Ignore- |(192,192.0.2.1/32,100,1) |(128,198.51.100.40/32,200,1) |
|Overlap- |(192,192.0.2.101/32,200,1) |*(128,192.0.2.1/32,400,1) |
| Only |*(128,192.0.2.2/32,401,99) |*(128,192.0.2.101/32,500,1) |
| |*(128,192.0.2.102/32, |
| | 501,153) | |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
* Derived from (128,192.0.2.1/32,400,300)
A.5. Evaluation of Policy Alternatives
The previous sections have defined three alternatives for resolving
conflicts - ignore, quarantine, and ignore overlap-only.
The ignore policy impacts the greatest number of mapping entriesas
all prefix/SID pairs contained in an advertisement which has a
conflict are considered Inactive.
Quarantine allows forwarding for some destinations which have a
conflict to be supported - but losing mapping entries with ranges
greater than 1 are declared Inactive in their entirety. This may
result in not using individual prefix/SID entries contained within
the quarantined advertisement which do not have a conflict.
Ignore-overlap-only maximizes the entries which may be Active as each
prefix/SID pair contained within an advertised mapping entry with
range greater than 1 is evaluated independent of the other entries
within the same advertisement. To implement this alternative
advertised mapping entries with a range greater than 1 which have a
conflict with other advertised mapping entries have to logically be
split into 2 or more "derived mapping entries". The derived mapping
entries then fall into two categories - those that are in conflict
with other mapping entries and have lost based on the preference rule
and those which are either NOT in conflict or have won based on the
preference rule. The former are considered Inactive while the latter
are considered Active. Each time the underived mapping database is
updated the derived entries have to be recomputed based on the
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft sr-conflict-resolution May 2017
updated database. Internal data structures have to be maintained
which maintain the relationship between the advertised mapping entry
and the set of derived mapping entries. All nodes in the network
have to achieve the same behavior regardless of implementation
internals.
There is then a tradeoff between a goal of maximizing advertised
mapping entry usage and the risks associated with increased
implementation complexity.
Consensus of the working group is that maximizing the use of the
advertised prefix/SID pairs is the most important deployment
consideration - therefore ignore-overlap-only has been specified as
the standard policy which MUST be implemented by all nodes which
support SR-MPLS.
Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
821 Alder Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
USA
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems
Apollo Business Center Mlynske nivy 43
Bratislava 821 09
Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems
Via Del Serafico 200
Rome 0144
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Martin Pilka
Email: martin@infobox.sk
Ginsberg, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 20]
