Internet-Draft BGP-LS-SPF for Multi-segment SD-WAN July 2024
Sheng & Shi Expires 9 January 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
LSVR
Internet-Draft:
draft-sheng-lsvr-bgp-spf-for-sdwan-02
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
C. Sheng
Huawei
H. Shi, Ed.
Huawei

Usage of BGP-LS-SPF in Multi-segment SD-WAN

Abstract

This document introduces the usage of BGP-LS-SPF protocol in multi-segment SD-WAN scenarios. It allows SD-WAN tunnels to be published as logical links, which can cross the internet, MPLS networks, and various operator network. The BGP-LS-SPF protocol can construct an overlay network topology for logical links and physical links across these heterogeneous networks, and calculate the reachability routes of overlay network nodes based on this topology.

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 9 January 2025.

1. Introduction

As pointed out in [I-D.draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement], enterprises are migrating their workloads to cloud service. The enterprise branch interconnection and enterprise site to cloud DC connection may cross heterogeneous network such as operator networks, enterprise-owned backbone networks or direct connection lines.

For large enterprises to access the cloud service and interconnect their branches, a PoP GWs network can be built to provide multi-cloud, multi-tenant, and multi-branch interconnection. Depending on the geographical distribution of the enterprise branches, the PoP GWs network may be a cross-regional or even a global network. The PoP GW can be connected to the operator network or the enterprise-owned backbone network. The PoP GWs devices can also be directly connected through dedicated lines.

According to [I-D.draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage], SD-WAN tunnels can be established between two GWs devices connected to the operator network, MPLS VPN network, or internet network through the WAN ports of the two PoP GWs devices. All GWs are under the control of one BGP instance. [I-D.draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery] defines the mechanism for SD-WAN edges to discover each other's properties via BGP update through RR. This allows the interconnection between enterprise branches and multi-cloud to pass through multiple SD-WAN tunnels or direct connection lines, as shown in Figure 1.

This draft provides a way to use the BGP-LS-SPF protocol to collect the identification of PoP GW device node and the topology of SD-WAN tunnel and direct connection lines. In this way, each PoP GW device can learn the PoP GWs network topology, and calculate the route to any other PoP GW.

2. Terminology

This specification reuses terms defined in Section 5.2 of [I-D.draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] including BGP-LS-SPF Node NLRI, BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI, Dijkstra Algorithm.

  • PoP GW: Point of Presence Gateway

  • SD-WAN: Software Defined Wide Area Network. In this document, "SD-WAN" refers to policy-driven transporting IP packets over multiple different underlay networks to get better WAN bandwidth management, visibility and control.

  • RR: Route Reflector

  • Cloud DC: Off-Premise Data Centers that usually host applications and workload owned by different organizations or tenants.

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. Usage of BGP-LS-SPF in Multi-segment SD-WAN

   + - - - +- - - - - - - - - - - -|RR| - - - - - - - - - -+ - - - - +
   |       |                        |                      |         |
   |    +--|--+                  +--|--+                +--|--+      |
   |    | GW1 |------------------| GW2 | -Physical link-| GW3 |      |
   |    +--|--+10.1.1.1  20.1.1.1+-----+                +--|--+      |
   |       |     SD-WAN Tunnel  /                 Physical |30.1.1.1 |
   |       |    ----------------                      Link |         |
   |       |   / over Internet                             |40.1.1.1 |
   |    +--|--+                                         +--|--+      |
   |+--+| GW5 |---------SD-WAN Tunnel over MPLS---------| GW4 |+-----+
        +--|--+                                         +--|--+
           |                                               |
+ - -+   + - -+                                         + - -+   + - -+
|User|---|CPE1|                                         |CPE2|---|APPs|
+ - -+   + - -+                                         + - -+   + - -+
Figure 1: PoP GWs network

As shown in Figure 1, GW1, GW2, GW5 are connected to the same internet/ISP network. The GW2 and GW3 are connected through direct dedicated links. GW5 and GW4 are connected by MPLS VPN. BGP-SD-WAN neighbors are established between GWs through RR. BGP-LS-SPF neighbors are established between each GW and RR. SD-WAN tunnel links are established between GWs through BGP-SD-WAN neighbors reflecting SD-WAN routes(see [I-D.draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery]), as shown in the SD-WAN Tunnel between GW1 and GW2 with WAN port IP addresses of 10.1.1.1 and 20.1.1.1, respectively. GW nodes reflect the SD-WAN tunnel topology information to all GWs, including dedicated line-connected GWs, through BGP-LS-SPF neighbors with RR.

GW2-GW3-GW4 are connected through dedicated lines. BGP-LS-SPF neighbors are established between GWs through dedicated lines, and also between GWs and RR. The BGP-LS-SPF neighbors between dedicated lines are used to discover the topology information of the dedicated lines, such as the direct link with port IP addresses of 30.1.1.1 and 40.1.1.1 between GW3 and GW4 shown in the figure. The dedicated line topology information is reflected to all GWs, including SD-WAN tunnel-connected GWs, through BGP-LS-SPF neighbors with RR.

BGP-LS-SPF can be used in two scenarios in Multi-segment SD-WAN: 1. TE. When TE is used, SLA of all SD-WAN tunnels will be collected to calculate shortest path. The protocol ID of BGP-LS is BGP. The BGP-LS-SPF LINK NLRI is used to carry the two endpoint IP address of the SD-WAN tunnel or dedicated lines. The BGP-LS-SPF NODE NLRI is used to carry PoP GW device node identification. 2. BE. When BE is used, only reachability of a SD-WAN site is collected. An SD-WAN site may contains multiple GWs. There is no need to collect the SLA of every SD-WAN tunnels between two sites. In this case, a new BGP-LS Protocol-ID is used and new Node Descriptor sub-tlv is defined to carry the site ID.

In both scenarios, BGP-LS-SPF LINK NLRI and NODE NLRI are advertised to other GWs through the RR. In this way, all GW learns the topology of whole PoP GWs network and can calculate the next hop to any other GW using Dijkstra Algorithm.

4. Extensions to BGP-LS

4.1. SDWAN Protocol ID

This document specifies the advertisement of SDWAN topology information via BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI type and Node NLRI type, which requires use of a new BGP-LS Protocol-ID (value 10). The use of a new Protocol-ID allows separation and differentiation between the BGP-LS NLRIs carrying SDWAN topology information from the BGP-LS NLRIs carrying other link-state information defined in [RFC9552].

4.2. Node Descriptor Sub-tlv

This document introduces a new Node Descriptor Sub-TLV to carry the SDWAN Site ID to identify an SDWAN site. A site may contains multiple GWs. This field has the same meaning of SD-WAN-Color in Section 6.1 of [I-D.draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery], representing a group of tunnels terminated at SD-WAN GWs co-located at the site.

   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            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                          Site-id                              |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Node Descriptor Sub-TLV Format

5. Security Considerations

This document does not introduce any new security considerations.

6. IANA Considerations

6.1. BGP-LS Protocol-IDs

IANA maintains a registry called "BGP-LS Protocol-IDs" in the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" registry group.

This document requests IANA to allocate the following Protocol-ID codepoint:

Table 1
Protocol ID NLRI information source protocol Reference
10 SDWAN this document

6.2. BGP-LS TLVs

IANA maintains a registry called "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" in the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" registry group.

This document requests IANA to allocate the following TLV codepoint:

Table 2
TLV Code Point Description Reference
TBD SDWAN Node Descriptors this document
TBD Link-Type this document

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[I-D.draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage]
Dunbar, L., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Najem, B., and S. Hares, "BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-23, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-23>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery]
Dunbar, L., Majumdar, K., Hares, S., Raszuk, R., and V. Kasiviswanathan, "BGP UPDATE for SD-WAN Edge Discovery", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-13, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-13>.
[RFC2119]
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/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
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/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC9552]
Talaulikar, K., Ed., "Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP", RFC 9552, DOI 10.17487/RFC9552, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9552>.

7.2. Informative References

[I-D.draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement]
Dunbar, L., Malis, A. G., Jacquenet, C., Toy, M., and K. Majumdar, "Dynamic Networks to Hybrid Cloud DCs: Problems and Mitigation Practices", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-39, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-39>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]
Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and W. Henderickx, "BGP Link-State Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-31, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-31>.

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Donglei Pang for his contribution to the document.

Appendix B. Contributors

Shunwan Zhuang Huawei Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com

Authors' Addresses

Cheng Sheng
Huawei
Beiqing Road
Beijing
Hang Shi (editor)
Huawei
Beiqing Road
Beijing
China