[Search] [txt|xml|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01                                                         
IDR WG                                                          Yao. Liu
Internet-Draft                                              Shaofu. Peng
Intended status: Standards Track                         ZTE Corporation
Expires: November 20, 2021                                  May 19, 2021


            BGP Extensions of SR Policy for Path Protection
                   draft-lp-idr-sr-path-protection-01

Abstract

   This document proposes extensions of BGP to provide protection
   information of segment lists within a candidate path when delivering
   SR policy.  And it also extends BGP-LS to provide some extra
   information of the segment list in the advertisement.

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 November 20, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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.




Liu & Peng              Expires November 20, 2021               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       BGP Extensions for Segment List            May 2021


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  BGP Extensions for Advertising Segment List . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Extensions of Segment List sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  List Identifier Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.2.1.  List Protection Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  BGP-LS Extensions for Distributing Segment List States  . . .   6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   Segment Routing [RFC8402] allows a headend node to steer a packet
   flow along any path.  [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
   details the concept of SR Policy and steering into an 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 path can be used for path protection, that is, the lower
   preference candidate path may be designated as the backup for a
   specific or all (active) candidate path(s).  Backup candidate path
   provide protection only when all the segment lists in the active CP
   are invalid.

   If a candidate path is associated with a set of Segment-Lists, each
   Segment-List is associated with weight for weighted load balancing.

   The protection mechanism for SR Policy is not flexible enough.  For
   example, there're three segment lists(SL1, SL2, SL3) in candidate
   path 1, it may be desired that SL1 and SL2 are the primary path, SL3
   are the backup path for SL1 and will be active only when SL1 fails.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] proposes extensions to PCEP to specify the
   protection relationship between segment lists in the candidate path.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] specifies BGP extensions for
   the advertisement of SR Policies and each candidate path is carried
   in an NLRI.  This document proposes extensions of BGP in order to
   provide protection information of segment lists when delivering SR
   policy.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] describes a mechanism to collect
   the SR policy information that is locally available in a node and
   advertise it into BGP Link State (BGP-LS) updates.  This document



Liu & Peng              Expires November 20, 2021               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       BGP Extensions for Segment List            May 2021


   also extends it to provide some extra information of the segment list
   in a candidate path in the BGP-LS advertisement.

2.  BGP Extensions for Advertising Segment List

2.1.  Extensions of Segment List sub-TLV

   Segment List sub-TLV is introduced in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] and it includes the elements
   of the paths (i.e., segments).

   This document introduces a one-bit flag in the RESERVED field.

       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            |B|  RESERVED   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      //                           sub-TLVs                          //
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 1: Segment List sub-TLV

   B-Flag(Backup Flag): one bit.  When set to 0, it indicates that the
   segment list acts as the active member in the candidate path.  When
   set to 1, it indicates that the segment list acts as the backup path
   in the candidate path.

   Using segment lists for path protection can be compatible with using
   candidate paths.  When a path fails, the backup segment list within
   the same candidate path is used preferentially for path protection.
   If the backup list is also invalid, then other candidate path can be
   enabled for protection.

2.2.  List Identifier Sub-TLV

   This document introduces a new sub-sub-tlv of Segment List sub-TLV,
   where,













Liu & Peng              Expires November 20, 2021               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       BGP Extensions for Segment List            May 2021


    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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      List Identifier                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      Optional sub-TLVs                            ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 2: List Identifier Sub-TLV

   Type: 1 octet.  TBD.

   Length: 1 octet, specifies the length of the value field not
   including Type and Length fields.

   RESERVED: 2 octet of reserved bits.  SHOULD be unset on transmission
   and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   List Identifier: 4 octets.  It is the identifier of the corresponding
   segment list, so that the segment list can be operated according to
   the specified Segment List identifier.

   This sub-TLV is optional and it MUST NOT appear more than once inside
   the Segment List sub-TLV.

2.2.1.  List Protection Sub-TLV

   The List Protection Info sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of List
   Identifier sub-TLV, where:

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                    Backup  List ID 1                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          ...                                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                    Backup  List ID N                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 3: List Protection Info Sub-TLV

   Type: 1 octet.  TBD.




Liu & Peng              Expires November 20, 2021               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       BGP Extensions for Segment List            May 2021


   Length: 1 octet, specifies the length of the value field not
   including Type and Length fields.

   RESERVED: 2 octet of reserved bits.  SHOULD be unset on transmission
   and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   Backup List ID: 4 octets.  It is the List Identifier of the backup
   segment list that protects this segment list.  If there're multiple
   backup paths, the list ID of each path should be included in the TLV.

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

         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
                       ...
                   Segment List
                       ...
                   ...

   The new SR Policy encoding structure with List Identifier sub-TLV is
   shown as below:


















Liu & Peng              Expires November 20, 2021               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       BGP Extensions for Segment List            May 2021


           SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
           Attributes:
          Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
            Tunnel Type: SR Policy
                Binding SID
                SRv6 Binding SID
                Preference
                Priority
                Policy Name
                Policy Candidate Path Name
                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
                Segment List
                    List Identifier
                      List Protection Info
                    Weight
                    Segment
                    Segment
                    ...
                Segment List
                    ...
                ...

3.  BGP-LS Extensions for Distributing Segment List States

   [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] describes a mechanism to collect
   the SR Policy information that is locally available in a node and
   advertise it into BGP Link State (BGP-LS) updates.  The SR Policy
   information includes status of the candidate path, e.g, whether the
   candidate path is administrative shut or not.

   SR Segment List TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]
   to to report the SID-List(s) of a candidate path.  Figure 4 shows the
   flags in SR Segment List TLV.

          0                   1
          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |D|E|C|V|R|F|A|T|M|S|B|         |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 4: Flag Field of SR Segment List TLV

   The D,E,C,V,R,F,A,M flags are defined in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].

   This document introduces two new flags, where,





Liu & Peng              Expires November 20, 2021               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       BGP Extensions for Segment List            May 2021


   S-Flag : Indicates the segment list is in administrative shut state
   when set.

   B-Flag : Indicates the segment list is the backup path within the
   candidate path when set, otherwise it is the active path.

4.  Security Considerations

   Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
   affect the security considerations discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] and
   [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].

5.  IANA Considerations

   TBD

6.  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-11 (work in progress), November 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]
              Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Dong, J., Chen, M., Gredler,
              H., and J. Tantsura, "Distribution of Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Policies and State using BGP-LS", draft-ietf-idr-te-
              lsp-distribution-14 (work in progress), October 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath]
              Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Saad, T., Beeram, V. P.,
              Bidgoli, H., Yadav, B., and S. Peng, "PCEP Extensions for
              Signaling Multipath Information", draft-ietf-pce-
              multipath-00 (work in progress), May 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
              Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
              P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
              ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-11 (work in progress),
              April 2021.

   [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>.




Liu & Peng              Expires November 20, 2021               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       BGP Extensions for Segment List            May 2021


Authors' Addresses

   Liu Yao
   ZTE Corporation
   Nanjing
   China

   Email: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn


   Peng Shaofu
   ZTE Corporation
   Nanjing
   China

   Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn



































Liu & Peng              Expires November 20, 2021               [Page 8]