Network Working Group X. Xu
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational S. Sivabalan
Expires: February 5, 2015 Cisco
R. Raszuk
Individual
U. Chunduri
Ericsson
V. Lopezalvarez
Telefonica
August 4, 2014
Connecting MPLS-SPRING Islands over IP Networks
draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-01
Abstract
MPLS-SPRING is a source routing paradigm in which a sender of a
packet is allowed to partially or completely specify the route the
packet takes through the network by using stacked MPLS labels. The
current MPLS-SRPING architecture requires an end-to-end MPLS Label
Switched Path (LSP) between any two MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers
(e.g., two adjacent hops of a given explicit path). In order to
enable MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers to be deployed even when there are
non-MPLS routers along the path between two MPLS-SPRING-enabled
routers, it is desirable to have an alternative, which allows the use
of IP-based tunnels (e.g., GRE tunnels) to connect two MPLS-SPRING-
enabled routers. This document describes a mechanism for such usage.
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 February 5, 2015.
Xu, et al. Expires February 5, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft August 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Packet Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
MPLS-SPRING [I-D.gredler-spring-mpls]
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls] is a source routing
paradigm in which a sender of a packet is allowed to partially or
completely specify the route the packet takes through the network by
using stacked MPLS labels. The current MPLS-SRPING architecture
requires an end-to-end MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) between any two
MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers (e.g., two adjacent hops of a given
explicit path). In order to enable MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers to be
deployed even when there are non-MPLS routers along the path between
two MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers, it is desirable to have an
alternative, which allows the use of IP-based tunnels (e.g., GRE
tunnels [RFC4023] or UDP tunnels [I-D.ietf-mpls-in-udp]) to connect
two MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers which are specified as adjacent hops
of a given explicit path. The tunnel destination address would be
the address of next-hop MPLS-SPRING-enabled router along the explicit
path, and this would cause the packet to be delivered to the next
explicit hop. In this procedure, the ingress and egress of the IP-
Xu, et al. Expires February 5, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft August 2014
based tunnel MUST support MPLS-SPRING features including the MPLS
forwarding capability, whereas those transit routers along the path
between them don't need to support any MPLS-SPRING features including
the MPLS forwarding capability. The above mechanism is much useful
for incrementally deployment of the MPLS-SPRING technology,
especially in the MPLS-SPRING-based Service Function Chainning (SFC)
case where only a few specific routers (e.g., service nodes and
classifiers) are actually required to be MPLS-SPRING-capable.
1.1. 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].
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [I-D.gredler-spring-mpls]
and [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls].
3. Packet Forwarding Procedures
Assume an MPLS-SPRING-enabled router X prepares to forward an MPLS
packet to the next explicit hop Y which is identified by the top
label of the MPLS packet, if the next-hop router Z which is
physically adjacent to X is a non-MPLS-SPRING router, X would
encapsulate the MPLS packet into an IP-based tunnel (e.g., GRE tunnel
or UDP tunnel) where the tunnel destination is an IP address of Y
(i.e., the /32 or /128 IGP prefix FEC corresponding to that top
label) and the tunnel source is an IP address of X. If the top label
is a Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) label, X SHOULD pop that top label
before performing the encapsulation. The IP encapsulated packet
would be forwarded according to the IP forwarding table. Upon
receipt of that IP encapsulated packet, Y would decapsulate it and
then process the decapsulated MPLS packet accordingly.
As for which tunnel encapsulation type should be used by X, it can be
manually specified on X or dynamically learnt from Y's advertisement
of its tunnel encapsulation capability. How to advertise the tunnel
encapsulation capability is outside of the scope of this document.
4. Acknowledgements
Thanks Joel Halpern for his insightful comments on this draft.
Xu, et al. Expires February 5, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft August 2014
5. IANA Considerations
No action is required for IANA.
6. Security Considerations
TBD.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing with MPLS data plane", draft-filsfils-
spring-segment-routing-mpls-03 (work in progress), August
2014.
[I-D.gredler-spring-mpls]
Gredler, H., Rekhter, Y., Jalil, L., Kini, S., and X. Xu,
"Supporting Source/Explicitly Routed Tunnels via Stacked
LSPs", draft-gredler-spring-mpls-06 (work in progress),
May 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-in-udp]
Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Pignataro, C., and F.
Yongbing, "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", draft-ietf-mpls-in-
udp-05 (work in progress), January 2014.
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating
MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC
4023, March 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu
Huawei
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
Xu, et al. Expires February 5, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft August 2014
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco
Email: msiva@cisco.com
Robert Raszuk
Individual
Email: robert@raszuk.net
Uma Chunduri
Ericsson
Email: uma.chunduri@ericsson.com
Victor Lopezalvarez
Telefonica
Email: victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com
Xu, et al. Expires February 5, 2015 [Page 5]