[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Routing area                                                    S. Hegde
Internet-Draft                                                  K. Arora
Intended status: Standards Track                           M. Srivastava
Expires: May 3, 2020                                            S. Ninan
                                                   Juniper Networks Inc.
                                                        October 31, 2019


   Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR)
Egress Peer engineering Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes
                   draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-03

Abstract

   Egress Peer Engineering is an application of Segment Routing to solve
   the problem of egress peer selection.  The SR-based BGP-EPE solution
   allows a centralized (Software Defined Network, SDN)controller to
   program any egress peer.  The EPE solution requires a node to program
   PeerNodeSID, PeerAdjSID, PeerSetSID as described in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe].  This document
   provides new sub-TLVs for EPE SIDs that would be used in Target stack
   TLV (Type 1) as defined in [RFC8029] for the EPE SIDs.

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 May 3, 2020.






Hegde, et al.              Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                    October 2019


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  PeerAdjSID Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  PeerNodeSID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  PeerSetSID Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] is an effective
   mechanism to select the egress peer link based on different criteria.
   The EPE SIDs provide means to represent egress peer links.  Many
   network deployments have built their networks consisting of multiple
   Autonomous Systems either for ease of operations or as a result of
   network mergers and acquisitons.  The inter-AS links connecting the
   two Autonomous Systems could be traffic engineered using EPE-SIDs in
   this case as well.  It is important to be able to validate the
   control plane to forwarding plane synchronization for these SIDs so
   that any anomaly can be detected easily by the operator.

   This document provides Target FEC stack TLV definitions for EPE SIDs.
   Other procedures for mpls ping and traceroute as defined in [RFC8287]
   are applicable for EPE-SIDs as well.




Hegde, et al.              Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                    October 2019


2.  FEC Definitions

   As described in [RFC8287] sec 5, 3 new type of sub-TLVs for the
   Target FEC Stack TLV are defined for the Target FEC stack TLV
   corresponding to each label in the label stack.  If a malformed FEC
   sub-TLV is received, then a return code of 1, "Malformed echo request
   received" as defined in [RFC8029] SHOULD be sent.

2.1.  PeerAdjSID Sub-TLV


        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 = TBD                     |          Length               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local AS Number (4  octets)                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote As Number (4 octets)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Local BGP router ID (4 octets)                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets)                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Local Interface address (4/16 octets)            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote Interface address (4/16 octets)           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




                       Figure 1: PeerAdjSID Sub-TLV

   Type : TBD

   Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address

   Local AS Number :

   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS to
   which PeerAdjSID advertising node belongs to.

   Remote AS Number :






Hegde, et al.              Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                    October 2019


   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
   remote node for which the PeerAdjSID is advertised.

   Local BGP Router ID :

   4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

   Remote BGP Router ID :

   4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

   Local Interface Address :

   In case of PeerAdjSID Local interface address corresponding to the
   PeerAdjSID should be apecified in this field.  For IPv4,this field is
   4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.

   Remote Interface Address :

   In case of PeerAdjSID Remote interface address corresponding to the
   PeerAdjSID should be apecified in this field.  For IPv4,this field is
   4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.

2.2.  PeerNodeSID Sub-TLV
























Hegde, et al.              Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                    October 2019


        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 = TBD                     |          Length               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local AS Number (4  octets)                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote As Number (4 octets)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Local BGP router ID (4 octets)                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets)                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   No.of IPv4 interface pairs  |   No.of IPv6 interface pairs  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              ......                                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+






                       Figure 2: PeerNodeSID Sub-TLV

   Type : TBD

   Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address

   Local AS Number :

   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS to
   which PeerNodeSID advertising node belongs to.

   Remote AS Number :

   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
   remote node for which the PeerNodeSID is advertised.

   Local BGP Router ID :



Hegde, et al.              Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                    October 2019


   4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

   Remote BGP Router ID :

   4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

   Number of IPv4 interface pairs:

   Total number of IPV4 local and remote interface address pairs.

   Number of IPv6 interface pairs:

   Total number of IPV6 local and remote interface address pairs.

   There can be multiple Layer 3 interfaces on which a peerNodeSID
   loadbalances the traffic.  All such interfaces local/remote address
   MUST be included in the FEC.

   When a PeerNodeSID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only
   address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the FEC definition
   should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6 address
   pairs.

   Local Interface Address :

   In case of PeerNodeSID, the interface local address ipv4/ipv6 which
   corresponds to the PeerNodeSID MUST be specified.  For IPv4,this
   field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.

   Remote Interface Address :

   In case of PeerNodeSID, the interface remote address ipv4/ipv6 which
   corresponds to the PeerNodeSID MUST be specified.  For IPv4,this
   field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.

2.3.  PeerSetSID Sub-TLV













Hegde, et al.              Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                    October 2019


        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 = TBD                     |          Length               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Local AS Number (4  octets)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Local BGP router ID (4 octets)                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   No.of elements in set       |          Reserved             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote As Number (4 octets)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets)                  |
       ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++
       |   No.of IPv4 interface pairs  |   No.of IPv6 interface pairs  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              ......                                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




                       Figure 3: PeerSetSID Sub-TLV

   Type : TBD

   Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address and number of
   elements in the set

   Local AS Number :

   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS to
   which PeerSetSID advertising node belongs to.

   Remote AS Number :

   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
   remote node for which the PeerSetSID is advertised.




Hegde, et al.              Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                    October 2019


   Advertising BGP Router ID :

   4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

   Receiving BGP Router ID :

   4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

   No.of elements in set:

   Number of remote ASes, the set SID load-balances on.

   PeerSetSID may be associated with a number of PeerNodeSIDs and
   PeerAdjSIDs.  Link address details of all these SIDs should be
   included in the peerSetSID FEC so that the data-plane can be
   correctly verified on the remote node.

   Number of IPv4 interface pairs:

   Total number of IPV4 local and remote interface address pairs.

   Number of IPv6 interface pairs:

   Total number of IPV6 local and remote interface address pairs.

   There can be multiple Layer 3 interfaces on which a peerNodeSID
   loadbalances the traffic.  All such interfaces local/remote address
   MUST be included in the FEC.

   When a PeerSetSID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only
   address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the Link address
   TLV should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6
   address pairs.

   Local Interface Address :

   In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID, the interface local address ipv4/
   ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID MUST be
   specified.  For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is
   16 octets.

   Remote Interface Address :

   In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID, the interface remote address ipv4/
   ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID MUST be




Hegde, et al.              Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                    October 2019


   specified.  For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is
   16 octets.

3.  Security Considerations

   The EPE SIDs are advertised for egress links for Egress Peer
   Engineering purposes or for inter-As links between co-operating ASes.
   When co-operating domains are involved, they can allow the packets
   arriving on trusted interfaces to reach the control plane and get
   processed.  When EPE SIDs which are created for egress TE links where
   the neighbor AS is an independent entity, it may not allow packets
   arriving from external world to reach the control plane.  In such
   deployments mpls OAM packets will be dropped by the neighboring AS.

4.  IANA Considerations

   New Target FEC stack sub-TLV from the "sub-TLVs for TLV types 1,16
   and 21" subregistry of the "Multi-Protocol Label switching (MPLs)
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping parameters" registry

      PeerAdjSID segment ID Sub-TLV : TBD

      PeerNode segment ID Sub-TLV : TBD

      PeerSetSID segment ID Sub-TLV : TBD

5.  Acknowledgments

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D.
              Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer
              Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-
              epe-10 (work in progress), December 2017.

   [RFC8287]  Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
              N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
              Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
              IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
              Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.







Hegde, et al.              Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                    October 2019


6.2.  Informative References

   [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>.

   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.

Authors' Addresses

   Shraddha Hegde
   Juniper Networks Inc.
   Exora Business Park
   Bangalore, KA  560103
   India

   Email: shraddha@juniper.net


   Kapil Arora
   Juniper Networks Inc.

   Email: kapilaro@juniper.net


   Mukul Srivastava
   Juniper Networks Inc.

   Email: msri@juniper.net


   Samson Ninan
   Juniper Networks Inc.

   Email: samsonn@juniper.net











Hegde, et al.              Expires May 3, 2020                 [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/