BMWG G. Fioccola
Internet-Draft E. Vasilenko
Intended status: Informational P. Volpato
Expires: September 8, 2022 Huawei Technologies
L. Contreras
Telefonica
March 7, 2022
Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Segment Routing
draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth-01
Abstract
This document defines a methodology for benchmarking Segment Routing
(SR) performance for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6). It builds
upon [RFC2544], [RFC5180] and [RFC8402].
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 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 September 8, 2022.
Copyright Notice
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
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
(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. SRv6 Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Test Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. IGP and BGP Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Frame Formats and Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Protocol Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Traffic with SRH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. SRv6 Forwarding Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.1. Throughput of a Source Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.2. Throughput of a Segment Endpoint Node . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.3. Throughput of a Transit Node . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. System Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. SR Policy: protection performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR), defined in [RFC8402], leverages the source
routing paradigm. The headend node steers a packet through an SR
Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], instantiated as an
ordered list of segments. A segment, referred to by its Segment
Identifier (SID), can have a semantic local to an SR node or global
within an SR domain. SR supports per-flow explicit routing while
maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress nodes to the SR
domain.
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
However, there is no standard method defined to compare and contrast
the foundational SR packet forwarding capabilities of network
devices. This document aims to extend the efforts of [RFC1242] and
[RFC2544] to SR network.
The SR architecture can be instantiated on two data-plane: SR over
MPLS (SR-MPLS) and SR over IPv6 (SRv6). This document is limited to
SRv6.
SR can be applied to the IPv6 architecture with a new type of routing
header called the SR Header (SRH) [RFC8754]. An instruction is
associated with a segment and encoded as an IPv6 address. An SRv6
segment is also called an SRv6 SID. An SR Policy is instantiated as
an ordered list of SRv6 SIDs in the routing header. The active
segment is indicated by the Destination Address (DA) of the packet.
For Segment Routing, PUSH, NEXT, and CONTINUE are operations applied
by the forwarding plane.
PUSH consists of the insertion of a segment at the top of the segment
list. In SRv6, the top of the segment list is represented by the
first segment in the SRH.
NEXT consists of the inspection of the next segment. The active
segment is completed and the next segment becomes active. In SRv6,
NEXT is implemented as the copy of the next segment from the SRH to
the destination address of the IPv6 header.
CONTINUE happens when the active segment is not completed; hence, it
remains active. In SRv6, the CONTINUE operation is the plain IPv6
forwarding action of a regular IPv6 packet according to its
destination address.
[RFC5180] provides benchmarking methodology recommendations that
address IPv6-specific aspects, such as evaluating the forwarding
performance of traffic containing extension headers.
The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology specific to
the benchmarking of Segment Routing. The methodology described is a
complement for [RFC5180].
2. SRv6 Forwarding
In IPv6, a Prefix-SID is allocated in the form of an IPv6 address.
For the IPv6 data plane, a new type of IPv6 Routing Extension Header,
called Segment Routing Header (SRH) has been defined. The SRH
contains the Segment List as an ordered list of IPv6 addresses: each
address in the list is a SID. A dedicated field, referred to as
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
Segments Left, is used to maintain the pointer to the active SID of
the Segment List.
There are three different categories of nodes that may be involved in
segment routing networks.
The SR source node is the headend node and steers a packet into an SR
Policy. It can be a host originating an IPv6 packet or an SR domain
ingress router encapsulating a received packet into an outer IPv6
packet and inserts the SRH in the outer IPv6 header. It sets the
first SID of the SR Policy as IPv6 Destination Address of the packet.
The SR transit node forwards packets destined to a remote segment as
a normal IPv6 packet on the basis of the IPv6 destination address,
because the IPv6 destination address does not locally match with a
segment. Indeed, according to [RFC8200] the only node allowed to
inspect the Routing Extension Header (and therefore the SRH) is the
node corresponding to the destination address of the packet.
The SR segment endpoint node receives packets whose IPv6 destination
address is locally configured as a segment. It creates Forwarding
Information Base (FIB) entries for its local SIDs. For each SR
packet, it inspects the SRH and replaces the IPv6 destination address
with the new active segment.
The operations applied by the SRv6 packet processing are different at
the SR source, Transit and SR segment endpoint nodes.
The processing of the SR source node corresponds to the sequence of
the insertion of the SRH, composed of SIDs stored in reverse order,
and setting of the IPv6 Destination Address as first SID of the SR
Policy. It can be performed by encapsulating a packet into an outer
IPv6 packet with an SRH. Another possibility is to perform the
insertion of an SRH as a new header between the IPv6 header and the
Next Header (e.g. the Transport Layer Header, TCP or UDP). This
option only applies to IPv6 packets and it is especially suited in
case the source host is acting as headend node.
The processing of the SR segment endpoint node corresponds to the
detection of the new active segment, which is the next segment in the
Segment List and the related modification of the IPv6 destination
address of the outer IPv6 header. Then packets are forwarded on the
basis of the IPv6 forwarding table.
The processing of the SR transit node corresponds to normal
forwarding of the packets containing the SR header. In SRv6 the
transit nodes do not need to be SRv6 aware, as every IPv6 router can
act as an SRv6 transit node since any IPv6 node will maintain a plain
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
IPv6 FIB entry for any prefix, no matter if the prefix represents a
segment or not.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] specifies the concepts of SR
Policy and steering into an SR Policy. The header of a packet
steered in an SR Policy is augmented with the ordered list of
segments associated with that SR Policy. SR Policy state is
instantiated only on the headend node, that steers a flow into an SR
Policy. Indeed intermediate and endpoint nodes do not require any
state to be maintained. SR Policies can be instantiated on the
headend dynamically and on demand basis. Moreover, signaling can be
used in the case of a controller based deployment. For all these
reasons, SR Policies scale better than traditional TE mechanisms.
In addition to the basic SRv6 packet processing, the SRv6 Network
Programming model [RFC8986] describes a set of functions that can be
associated to segments and executed in a given SRv6 node.
Examples of such functions are described in [RFC8986], but, in
practice, any behavior and function can be associated to a local SID
in a node, in order to apply any special processing on the packet.
Obviously, the definition of a standardized set of segment routing
functions facilitates the deployment of SR domains with interoperable
equipment from multiple vendors.
According to [RFC8986], 128 bit SID can be logically split into three
fields and interpreted as LOCATOR:FUNCTION:ARGS (in short
LOC:FUNCT:ARG) where LOC includes the L most significant bits, FUNCT
the following F bits and ARG the remaining A bits, where 128=L+F+A.
The LOC corresponds to an IPv6 prefix (for example with a length of
48, 56 or 64 bits) that can be distributed by the routing protocols
and provides the reachability of a node that hosts a number of
functions. All the different functions residing in a node have a
different FUNCT code, so that their SIDs will be different. The ARG
bits are used to provide information (arguments) to a function. From
the routing point of view, the solution is scalable, as a single
prefix is distributed for a node, which implements a potentially
large number of functions and related arguments.
3. Test Methodology
3.1. Test Setup
The Device Under Test (DUT) is connected to the test ports on the
test tool according to [RFC2544].
The test topology recommended for the SRv6 performance evaluation are
the same as IPv6 and are described in [RFC5180] and [RFC2544], in
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
both single-port and multi-port scenarios. Single-port testing
measures per-interface forwarding performance, while multi-port
testing measures the scalability of forwarding performance across the
entire platform.
3.2. IGP and BGP Support
It is RECOMMENDED that all of the ports on the DUT and test tool
support a Segment Routing extensions for dynamic Interior Gateway
Protocol (IGP) for routing such as IS-IS
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] and OSPF
[I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] as well as Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services].
As specified in [RFC8402], in the context of an IGP-based distributed
control plane, two topological segments are defined: the IGP-
Adjacency segment and the IGP-Prefix segment; while, in the context
of a BGP-based distributed control plane, two topological segments
are defined: the BGP peering segment and the BGP-Prefix segment.
The distribution method that is used (e.g. OSPF, IS-IS, BGP) MUST be
reported.
3.3. Frame Formats and Sizes
The tests for SRv6 will use the Frame characteristics as described in
[RFC5180].
As specified in [RFC5180], for Ethernet, the following frame sizes
SHOULD be used for benchmarking over this media type: 64, 128, 256,
512, 1024, 1280, and 1518 bytes. Note that the recommended 1518-byte
frame size represents the maximum size of an untagged Ethernet frame.
A frame size commonly used in operational environments is 1522 bytes,
the max length for a VLAN-tagged frame.
3.4. Protocol Addresses
IANA reserved an IPv6 address block for use with IPv6 benchmark
testing (see [RFC5180]). IPv6 source and destination addresses for
the test streams SHOULD belong to the IPv6 range assigned by IANA.
3.5. Traffic with SRH
The extension header chain recommended in [RFC5180] for testing is:
Routing header (24-32 bytes), Destination options header (8 bytes),
Fragment header (8 bytes). This was considered a real-life
extension-header chain but it does not fit well for SRv6.
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
The length of the SRH is (n x 16 + 8) bytes, where n is the number of
segments. So, for most of the SRv6 application the recommendation of
[RFC5180] is not enough. In addition, it is worth mentioning that
the length of SRv6 packets is increased in Topology Independent Loop-
Free Alternate (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR), binding SID, and
microloop avoidance scenarios.
For SRv6, the extension header chain characteristics and length that
are used MUST be reported and the DUT MUST traverse the chain of
extension headers, so the impact on performance can be observed.
4. Reporting Format
There are new parameters that MUST be added to the parameters
specified in [RFC5180] and [RFC2544]:
o SRv6 types of nodes.
o Number of Segments considered in the SRH.
o Extension header chain (including SRH) characteristics and length.
o Global SIDs or Local SID forwarding behavior.
o SR Headend or Endpoint Behaviors eventually associated with a SID,
as specified in [RFC8986].
For the sake of completeness, the following Figure 1 reports all the
SR Headend or Endpoint Behaviors, as defined in [RFC8986]. But, in
most cases, it may not be necessary to test all the services and it
is possible to select a subset.
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| H.Encaps | SR Headend with Encapsulation in an SR Policy |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| H.Encaps.Red | H.Encaps with Reduced Encapsulation |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| H.Encaps.L2 | H.Encaps Applied to Received L2 Frames |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| H.Encaps.L2.Red | H.Encaps.Red Applied to Received L2 Frames |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End | Endpoint |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.X | Endpoint with L3 cross-connect |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.T | Endpoint with specific IPv6 table lookup |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.DX6 | Endpoint with decapsulation and IPv6 cross- |
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
| | connect |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.DX4 | Endpoint with decapsulation and IPv4 cross- |
| | connect |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.DT6 | Endpoint with decapsulation and specific |
| | IPv6 table lookup |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.DT4 | Endpoint with decapsulation and specific |
| | IPv4 table lookup |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.DT46 | Endpoint with decapsulation and specific IP |
| | table lookup |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.DX2 | Endpoint with decapsulation and L2 cross- |
| | connect |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.DX2V | Endpoint with decapsulation and VLAN L2 |
| | table lookup |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.DT2U | Endpoint with decapsulation and unicast MAC |
| | L2 table lookup |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.DT2M | Endpoint with decapsulation and L2 table |
| | flooding |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.B6.Encaps | Endpoint bound to an SRv6 Policy with |
| | encapsulation |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.B6.Encaps.Red | End.B6.Encaps with reduced SRH |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| End.BM | Endpoint bound to an SR-MPLS Policy |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: SR Policy Headend and Endpoint Behaviors
5. SRv6 Forwarding Benchmarking Tests
This document recommends the same benchmarking tests described in
[RFC2544] and [RFC5180] while observing the DUT setup and the traffic
setup considerations described above. Indeed, the specificities of
SRv6, for example the SRH processing, require additional benchmarking
steps.
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
5.1. Throughput
This section contains the description of the tests that are related
to the characterization of a DUT's SRv6 traffic forwarding
throughput.
The list of segments for SRv6 is represented as a list of IPv6
addresses, included in the SRH. There are three distinct types of
nodes that are involved in segment routing networks.
5.1.1. Throughput of a Source Node
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the packet
processing of a Source Node. It is when the Source SR node, which
corresponds to the headend node, encapsulates a received packet into
an outer IPv6 packet and inserts the SR Header (SRH) as a Routing
Extension Header in the outer IPv6 header. The Segment List in the
SRH is composed of SIDs and the Source SR node sets the first SID of
the SR Policy as IPv6 Destination Address of the packet.
Procedure: Same as [RFC5180].
Reporting Format: Same as [RFC5180] but adding the additional
parameters specified in Section 4.
5.1.2. Throughput of a Segment Endpoint Node
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the packet
processing of a Segment Endpoint Node. It is when the SR Segment
Endpoint node receives packets whose IPv6 destination address is
locally configured as a segment. The SR Segment Endpoint node
inspects the SR header: it detects the new active segment, i.e. the
next segment in the Segment List, modifies the IPv6 destination
address of the outer IPv6 header and forwards the packet on the basis
of the IPv6 forwarding table.
Procedure: Same as [RFC5180].
Reporting Format: Same as [RFC5180] but adding the additional
parameters specified in Section 4.
5.1.3. Throughput of a Transit Node
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the packet
processing of a Transit Node. It is when a Transit node forwards the
packet containing the SR header as a normal IPv6 packet because the
IPv6 destination address does not locally match with a segment.
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
Procedure: Same as [RFC5180].
Reporting Format: Same as [RFC5180] but adding the additional
parameters specified in Section 4.
5.2. Latency
Objective: To determine the latency as defined in [RFC5180] for each
of the SRv6 forwarding operations.
Procedure: Same as [RFC5180].
Reporting Format: Same as [RFC5180] but adding the additional
parameters specified in Section 4.
5.3. Frame Loss
Objective: To determine the frame-loss rate (as defined in [RFC5180])
for each of the SRv6 forwarding operations of a DUT throughout the
entire range of input data rates and frame sizes.
Procedure: Same as [RFC5180].
Reporting Format: Same as [RFC5180] but adding the additional
parameters specified in Section 4.
5.4. System Recovery
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an
overload condition for each of the SRv6 forwarding operations.
Procedure: Same as [RFC5180].
Reporting Format: Same as [RFC5180] but adding the additional
parameters specified in Section 4.
5.5. Reset
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a
device or software reset for each of the SRv6 forwarding operations.
Procedure: Same as [RFC5180].
Reporting Format: Same as [RFC5180] but adding the additional
parameters specified in Section 4.
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
6. SR Policy: protection performance
[RFC6414] provides common terminology and metrics for benchmarking
the performance of protection mechanisms.
An SR Policy can be used for Traffic Engineering (TE), Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM), or Fast Reroute (FRR) reasons.
Protection allows that, in the event the interface associated with
the Adj-SID is down, the packet can still be forwarded via an
alternate path. The use of protection is clearly a policy-based
decision that determines, for example, that the packet processing by
the source node is done to forward a packet over a backup path
calculated using TI-LFA. There are 2 different protection mechanisms
for SR-TE: Segment protection specified in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths] and Path protection
introduced in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
7. Security Considerations
Benchmarking methodologies are limited to technology characterization
in a laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and
constraints. Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT
specifically for benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network
security arising from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and
in production networks. The benchmarking network topology is an
independent test setup and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may
forward the test traffic into a production network or misroute
traffic to the test management network.
There are no specific security considerations within the scope of
this document.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
9. Acknowledgements
TBD
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
[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>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.
[RFC6414] Poretsky, S., Papneja, R., Karthik, J., and S. Vapiwala,
"Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance",
RFC 6414, DOI 10.17487/RFC6414, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6414>.
[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>.
[RFC8754] 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, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8986] 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, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Raszuk, R.,
Decraene, B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "SRv6 BGP based
Overlay Services", draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-12 (work
in progress), March 2022.
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]
Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over
IPv6 Dataplane", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-18
(work in progress), October 2021.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]
Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak,
"OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-lsr-
ospfv3-srv6-extensions-03 (work in progress), November
2021.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths]
Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski, S., Xu, X., and F. Xu,
"Segment Protection for SR-TE Paths", draft-ietf-spring-
segment-protection-sr-te-paths-02 (work in progress),
January 2022.
[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-19 (work in progress),
March 2022.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
Riesstrasse, 25
Munich 80992
Germany
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Eduard Vasilenko
Huawei Technologies
17/4 Krylatskaya str.
Moscow 121614
Russia
Email: vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 March 2022
Paolo Volpato
Huawei Technologies
Via Lorenteggio, 240
Milan 20147
Italy
Email: paolo.volpato@huawei.com
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
Telefonica
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Fioccola, et al. Expires September 8, 2022 [Page 14]