|Internet-Draft||Resource-Aware SR Segments||October 2022|
|Dong, et al.||Expires 14 April 2023||[Page]|
- SPRING Working Group
- Intended Status:
- Standards Track
Introducing Resource Awareness to SR Segments
This document describes the mechanism to associate network resources to Segment Routing Identifiers (SIDs). Such SIDs are referred to as resource-aware SIDs in this document. The resource-aware SIDs retain their original forwarding semantics, but with the additional semantics to identify the set of network resources available for the packet processing and forwarding action. The resource-aware SIDs can therefore be used to build SR paths or virtual networks with a set of reserved network resources. The proposed mechanism is applicable to both segment routing with MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS) and segment routing with IPv6 data plane (SRv6).¶
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 14 April 2023.¶
Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] specifies a mechanism to steer packets through an ordered list of segments. A segment is referred to by its Segment Identifier (SID). With SR, explicit source routing can be achieved without introducing per-path state into the network. Compared with RSVP-TE [RFC3209], the base SR specifications do not have the capability of reserving network resources or identifying a set of network resources reserved for an individual or a group of services or customers. Although a centralized controller can have a global view of network state and can provision different services using different SR paths, in data packet forwarding it still relies on the DiffServ QoS mechanism [RFC2474] [RFC2475] to provide coarse-grained traffic differentiation in the network. While such a mechanism may be sufficient for some types of services, some customers or services may require to have a set of dedicated network resources allocated in the network to achieve resource isolation from other customers/services in the same network. Also note the number of such customers or services could be larger than the number of traffic classes available with DiffServ QoS.¶
Without needing to define new SID types, this document extends the SR paradigm by associating SIDs with network resource attributes. These resource-aware SIDs retain their original functionality, with the additional semantics of identifying the set of network resources available for the packet processing action. Typical types of network resources include link bandwidth, buffers, and queues that are associated with class of service, scheduling weights or time cycles, and it is also possible to associate SR SIDs with other types of resources (e.g., the processing and storage resources). On a particular segment, multiple resource-aware SIDs can be allocated, each of which represents a subset of network resources allocated in the network to meet the requirements of an individual or a group of customers or services. The allocation of network resources on segments can be done either via local configuration or via a centralized controller. Other approaches are possible such as use of a control plane signaling protocol, but they are out of the scope of this document. Each set of network resources can be associated with one or multiple resource-aware SIDs. The resource-aware SIDs can be used to build SR paths with a set of reserved network resources, which can be used to carry service traffic which requires dedicated network resources along the path. The resource-aware SIDs can also be used to build SR-based virtual networks with the required network topology and resource attributes. The mechanism is applicable to SR with both MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 data plane (SRv6).¶
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 BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
In Segment Routing architecture [RFC8402], several types of segments are defined to represent either topological or service instructions. A topological segment can be a node segment or an adjacency segment. A service segment may be associated with specific service functions for service chaining purpose. This document introduces additional resource semantics to these existing types of SIDs, so that the resource-aware SIDs can be used to identify not only the topology or service functions, but also the set of network resources allocated on the segments for packet processing.¶
This section describes the mechanisms of using SR SIDs to identify the additional resource information associated with the SR paths or virtual networks based on the two SR data plane instantiations: SR-MPLS and SRv6. The mechanisms to identify the forwarding path or network topology with SIDs as defined in [RFC8402] can be reused, and the control plane can be based on [RFC4915], [RFC5120] and [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].¶
The MPLS instantiation of Segment Routing is specified in [RFC8660]. As specified in [RFC8402], an IGP Adjacency Segment (Adj-SID) is an SR segment attached to a unidirectional adjacency or a set of unidirectional adjacencies. An IGP Prefix Segment (Prefix-SID) is an SR segment attached to an IGP prefix, which identifies an instruction to forward the packet along the path computed using the routing algorithm in the associated topology. An IGP node segment is an IGP-Prefix segment that identifies a specific router (e.g., a loopback). As described in [RFC9086] and [RFC9087], a BGP PeerAdj SID is used as an instruction to steer over a local interface towards a specific peer node in a peering Autonomous System (AS). These types of SID can be extended to represent both the topological instructions and the set of network resources allocated for packet processing following the instruction.¶
A resource-aware Adj-SID represents a subset of the resources (e.g., bandwidth, buffer and queuing resources) of a given link, thus each resource-aware Adj-SID is associated with a subset of the link's traffic engineering (TE) capabilities and resources (known as TE attributes [RFC2702]).¶
For one IGP link, multiple resource-aware Adj-SIDs can be allocated, each of which is associated with a subset of the link resources allocated on the link. For one inter-domain link, multiple BGP PeerAdj SIDs may be allocated, each of which is associated with a subset of the link resources allocated on the inter-domain link. The resource-aware Adj-SIDs may be associated with a specific network topology and/or algorithm, so that it is used only for resource-aware SR paths computed within the topology and/or algorithm.¶
Note this per-segment resource allocation complies with the SR paradigm, which avoids introducing per-path state into the network. Several approaches can be used to partition and reserve the link resources, such as [FLEXE], Layer-2 logical sub-interfaces, dedicated queues, etc. The detailed mechanism of link resource partitioning is out of scope of this document.¶
A resource-aware Prefix-SID is associated with a network topology and/or algorithm in which the attached node participates, and in addition, a resource-aware prefix-SID is associated with a set of network resources (e.g., bandwidth, buffer and queuing resources) allocated on each node and link participating in the same topology and/or algorithm. Such set of network resources can be used for forwarding packets which are encapsulated with this resource-aware prefix-SID along the paths computed in the associated topology and/or algorithm.¶
Although it is possible that each resource-aware prefix-SID is associated with a set of dedicated resources in the network, this implies the overhead with per-prefix resource reservation in both control plane signaling and data plane states, and if network resources are allocated for one prefix on all the possible paths, it is likely some resources will be wasted. A practical approach is that a common set of network resources are allocated by each network node and link participating in a topology and/or algorithm, and are associated with a group of resource-aware prefix-SIDs of the same topology and/or algorithm. Such common set of network resources constitutes a network resource group. For a given <topology, algorithm> tuple, there can be one or multiple network resource groups, the resource-aware prefix-SIDs which are associated with the same <topology, algorithm> tuple share the path computation result.¶
This helps to reduce the dynamics in per-prefix resource allocation and adjustment, so that the network resource can be allocated based on planning and does not have to rely on dynamic signaling. When the set of nodes and links participate in a <topology, algorithm> tuple changes, the set of network resources allocated on specific nodes and links may need to be adjusted. This means that the resources allocated to resource-aware Adj-SIDs on those links may have to be adjusted and new TE attributes for the associated Adj-SIDs re-advertised.¶
For one IGP prefix, multiple resource-aware prefix-SIDs can be allocated. Each resource-aware prefix-SID may be associated with a unique <topology, algorithm> tuple, in this case different <topology, algorithm> tuples can be used to distinguish the resource-aware prefix-SIDs of the same prefix. In another case, for one IGP prefix, multiple resource-aware prefix-SIDs may be associated with the same <topology, algorithm> tuple, then an additional control plane distinguisher needs to be introduced to distinguish different resource-aware prefix-SIDs associated with the same <topology, algorithm> but different groups of network resources.¶
A group of resource-aware Adj-SID and resource-aware Prefix-SIDs can be used to construct the SID lists, which are used to steer the traffic to be forwarded along the explicit paths (either strict or loose) and processed using the set of network resources identified by the resource-aware SIDs.¶
In data packet forwarding, each resource-aware Adj-SID identifies both the next-hop and the set of resources used for packet processing on the outgoing interface. Each resource-aware Prefix-SID identifies the path to the node which the prefix is attached to, and the common set of network resources used for packet forwarding on network nodes along the path. The transit nodes use the resource-aware prefix-SIDs to determine the next-hop of the packet and the set of associated local resources, then forward the packet to the next-hop using the set of local resources.¶
When the set of network resources allocated on the egress node also needs to be determined, it is RECOMMENDED that Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) [RFC3031] be disabled, otherwise the inner service label needs to be used to infer the set of resources to be used for packet processing on the egress node of the SR path.¶
This mechanism requires the allocation of additional prefix-SIDs or adj-SIDs for network segments to identify different sets of network resources. As the number of resource groups increases, the number of SIDs would increase accordingly, while it should be noted that there is still no per-path state introduced into the network.¶
As specified in [RFC8986], an SRv6 Segment Identifier (SID) is a 128-bit value which consists of a locator (LOC) and a function (FUNCT), optionally it may also contain additional arguments (ARG) immediately after the FUNCT. The Locator part of the SID is routable and leads to the node which instantiates that SID, which means the Locator can be parsed by all nodes in the network. The FUNCT part of the SID is an opaque identification of a local function bound to the SID, and the ARG bits of the SID can be used to encode additional information for the processing of the behavior bound to the SID. Thus the FUNCT and ARG parts can only be parsed by the node which instantiates the SRv6 SID.¶
For one SRv6 node, multiple resource-aware SRv6 LOCs can be allocated. A resource-aware LOC is associated with a network topology and/or algorithm in which the node participates, and in addition, a resource-aware LOC is associated with a set of local resources (e.g., bandwidth, buffer, and queueing resources) on each node participating in the same topology and/or algorithm. Such a set of network resources are used to forward the packets with SIDs which have the resource-aware LOC as its prefix, along the path computed with the associated topology and/or algorithm. Similar to the resource-aware prefix-SIDs in SR-MPLS, a practical approach is that a common set of network resources are allocated by each network node and link participating in a topology and/or algorithm, and are associated with a group of resource-aware LOCs of the same topology and/or algorithm.¶
For one IGP link, multiple resource-aware SRv6 End.X SIDs can be allocated to identify different set of link resources. Each resource-aware End.X SID SHOULD use a resource-aware LOC as its prefix. SRv6 SIDs for other types of functions MAY also be assigned as resource-aware SIDs, which can identify the set of network resources allocated by the node for executing the behavior.¶
A group of resource-aware SRv6 SIDs can be used to construct the SID lists, which are used to steer the traffic to be forwarded along the explicit paths (either strict or loose) and processed using the set of network resources identified by the resource-aware SIDs and Locators.¶
In data packet forwarding, each resource-aware End.X SID identifies both the next-hop and the set of resources used for packet processing on the outgoing interface. Each resource-aware Locator identifies the path to the node which the Locator is assigned to, and the set of network resources used for packet forwarding on network nodes along the path. The transit nodes use the resource-aware Locators to determine the next-hop of the packet and the set of associated local resources, then forward the packet to the next-hop using the set of local resources.¶
This mechanism requires the allocation of additional SRv6 Locators and SIDs for network segments to identify different set of network resources. As the number of resource groups increases, the number of SRv6 Locators and SIDs would increase accordingly, while it should be noted that there is still no per-path state introduced into the network.¶
The mechanism described in this document makes use of a centralized controller to collect the information about the network (configuration, state, routing databases, etc.) as well as the service information (traffic matrix, performance statistics, etc.) for the planning of network resources based on the service requirement. Then the centralized controller instructs the network nodes to allocate the network resources and associate the resources with the resource-aware SIDs. The resource-aware SIDs can be either explicitly provisioned by the controller, or dynamically allocated by network nodes then reported to the controller. The controller is also responsible for the centralized computation and optimization of the SR paths taking the topology, algorithm and network resource constraints into consideration. The interaction between the controller and the network nodes can be based on Netconf/YANG [RFC6241] [RFC7950], BGP-LS [RFC7752], BGP SR Policy [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] or PCEP [RFC5440]. In some scenarios, extensions to some of these protocols are needed, which are out of the scope of this document. In some cases, a centralized controller may not be used, but this would complicate the operations and planning therefore is not suggested.¶
On network nodes, the support for a resource group and the information to associate packets with that resource group needs to be advertised in the control plane, so that all the nodes have a consistent view of the resource group. Given that resource management is a central function, the knowledge of the exact resources provided to a resource group needs to be known accurately by the relevant central control components (e.g., PCE) and the network nodes. This may be done by configuration, alternative protocols, or by advertisements in the IGP for collection by BGP-LS. If there are related link advertisements, then consistency MUST be assured across that set of advertisements. To advertise its support for a given resource group, a node needs to advertise the identifier of the resource group, the associated topology and algorithm, the resource-aware SIDs and potentially a set of TE attributes representing the resources allocated to it.¶
The distributed control plane is complementary to the centralized controller. A distributed control plane can be used for the collection and distribution of the network topology and resource information associated with the resource-aware SIDs among network nodes, then some of the nodes can distribute the collected information to the centralized controller. Distributed route computation for services with topology and/or resource constraints may also be performed by network nodes. The distributed control plane may be based on [RFC4915], [RFC5120], [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] with necessary extensions.¶
When a network node is instructed to associate a SID with specific resources, its actions will depend on the operational configuration of the network. In some cases the association between SIDs and resources is configured on the individual network nodes, and the control plane (the IGPs) is used to distribute the information and resource availability to the controller and the ingress nodes for TE constraint-based path computation. In hybrid cases with SR and other TE mechanisms co-existing in the network, the IGP advertisements of available resources will need to be updated to indicate that there has been a change to the available resources resulting from the instantiation of a new SID: such updates would be rate-limited in the normal way. In still other cases the association between SIDs and network resources is known by the central controller which is responsible for all TE management, and the control plane does not need to take any additional action.¶
This document makes no request of IANA.¶
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an RFC.¶
The resource-aware SIDs may be used for provisioning of SR paths or virtual networks to carry traffic with latency as one of the SLA parameters. By disrupting the latency of such traffic an attack can be directly targeted at the customer application, or can be targeted at the network operator by causing them to violate their SLA, triggering commercial consequences. Dynamic attacks of this sort are not something that networks have traditionally guarded against, and networking techniques need to be developed to defend against this type of attack. By rigorously policing ingress traffic and carefully provisioning the resources provided to such services, this type of attack can be prevented. However care needs to be taken when providing shared resources, and when the network needs to be reconfigured as part of ongoing maintenance or in response to a failure.¶
The details of the underlay network MUST NOT be exposed to third parties, to prevent attacks aimed at exploiting shared network resources.¶
Zhenbin Li Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Zhibo Hu Email: email@example.com Joel Halpern Email: firstname.lastname@example.org¶
The authors would like to thank Mach Chen, Stefano Previdi, Charlie Perkins, Bruno Decraene, Loa Andersson, Alexander Vainshtein and John Drake for the valuable discussion and suggestions to this document.¶
- Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
- Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
- Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
- Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
- Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
- Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer, D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986, DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
- "Flex Ethernet Implementation Agreement", , <http://www.oiforum.com/wp-content/uploads/OIF-FLEXE-01.0.pdf>.
- Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20.txt>.
- Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-25, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-25.txt>.
- Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
- Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
- Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J. McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", RFC 2702, DOI 10.17487/RFC2702, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2702>.
- Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
- 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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
- Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF", RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
- Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
- Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
- Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
- Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
- Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
- Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, S., and J. Dong, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering", RFC 9086, DOI 10.17487/RFC9086, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9086>.
- Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Ed., Aries, E., and D. Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer Engineering", RFC 9087, DOI 10.17487/RFC9087, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9087>.