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

Versions: (draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

Network Working Group                                   C. Filsfils, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: July 29, 2018                                       L. Ginsberg
                                                      Cisco Systems, Inc
                                                             B. Decraene
                                                            S. Litkowski
                                                                  Orange
                                                               R. Shakir
                                                            Google, Inc.
                                                        January 25, 2018


                      Segment Routing Architecture
                  draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15

Abstract

   Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm.  A node
   steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called
   segments.  A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
   service-based.  A segment can have a semantic local to an SR node or
   global within an SR domain.  SR allows to enforce a flow through any
   topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress
   nodes to the SR domain.

   Segment Routing can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with
   no change on the forwarding plane.  A segment is encoded as an MPLS
   label.  An ordered list of segments is encoded as a stack of labels.
   The segment to process is on the top of the stack.  Upon completion
   of a segment, the related label is popped from the stack.

   Segment Routing can be applied to the IPv6 architecture, with a new
   type of routing header.  A segment is encoded as an IPv6 address.  An
   ordered list of segments is encoded as an ordered list of IPv6
   addresses in the routing header.  The active segment is indicated by
   the Destination Address of the packet.  The next active segment is
   indicated by a pointer in the new routing header.

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].







Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


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 July 29, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Link-State IGP Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  IGP-Prefix Segment, Prefix-SID  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.1.  Prefix-SID Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.1.2.  SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.1.3.  SRv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.2.  IGP-Node Segment, Node-SID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.3.  IGP-Anycast Segment, Anycast SID  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.3.1.  Anycast SID in SR-MPLS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.4.  IGP-Adjacency Segment, Adj-SID  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.4.1.  Parallel Adjacencies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       3.4.2.  LAN Adjacency Segments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     3.5.  Inter-Area Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18



Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   4.  BGP Peering Segments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.1.  BGP Prefix Segment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.2.  BGP Peering Segments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   5.  Binding Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     5.1.  IGP Mirroring Context Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   6.  Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.1.  SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.2.  SRv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.3.  Congestion Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   9.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   10. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30

1.  Introduction

   Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm.  A node
   steers a packet through an SR Policy instantiated as an ordered list
   of instructions called segments.  A segment can represent any
   instruction, topological or service-based.  A segment 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.

   A segment is often referred to by its Segment Identifier (SID).

   A segment may be associated with a topological instruction.  A
   topological local segment may instruct a node to forward the packet
   via a specific outgoing interface.  A topological global segment may
   instruct an SR domain to forward the packet via a specific path to a
   destination.  Different segments may exist for the same destination,
   each with different path objectives (e.g., which metric is minimized,
   what constraints are specified).

   A segment may be associated with a service instruction (e.g. the
   packet should be processed by a container or VM associated with the
   segment).  A segment may be associated with a QoS treatment (e.g.,
   shape the packets received with this segment at x Mbps).

   The SR architecture supports any type of instruction associated with
   a segment.





Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   The SR architecture supports any type of control-plane: distributed,
   centralized or hybrid.

   In a distributed scenario, the segments are allocated and signaled by
   IS-IS or OSPF or BGP.  A node individually decides to steer packets
   on a source-routed policy (e.g., pre-computed local protection
   [I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases] ) . A node individually
   computes the source-routed policy.

   In a centralized scenario, the segments are allocated and
   instantiated by an SR controller.  The SR controller decides which
   nodes need to steer which packets on which source-routed policies.
   The SR controller computes the source-routed policies.  The SR
   architecture does not restrict how the controller programs the
   network.  Likely options are NETCONF, PCEP and BGP.  The SR
   architecture does not restrict the number of SR controllers.
   Specifically multiple SR controllers may program the same SR domain.
   The SR architecture allows these SR controllers to discover which
   SID's are instantiated at which nodes and which sets of local (SRLB)
   and global labels (SRGB) are available at which node.

   A hybrid scenario complements a base distributed control-plane with a
   centralized controller.  For example, when the destination is outside
   the IGP domain, the SR controller may compute a source-routed policy
   on behalf of an IGP node.  The SR architecture does not restrict how
   the nodes which are part of the distributed control-plane interact
   with the SR controller.  Likely options are PCEP and BGP.

   Hosts MAY be part of an SR Domain.  A centralized controller can
   inform hosts about policies either by pushing these policies to hosts
   or responding to requests from hosts.

   The SR architecture can be instantiated on various dataplanes.  This
   document introduces two dataplane instantiations of SR: SR over MPLS
   (SR-MPLS) and SR over IPv6 (SRv6).

   Segment Routing can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with
   no change on the forwarding plane
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] A segment is encoded as an
   MPLS label.  An SR Policy is instantiated as a stack of labels.  The
   segment to process (the active segment) is on the top of the stack.
   Upon completion of a segment, the related label is popped from the
   stack.

   Segment Routing can be applied to the IPv6 architecture with a new
   type of routing header called the SR header (SRH)
   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] . An instruction is associated
   with a segment and encoded as an IPv6 address.  An SRv6 segment is



Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   also called an SRv6 SID.  An SR Policy is instantiated as an ordered
   list of SRv6 SID's in the routing header.  The active segment is
   indicated by the Destination Address(DA) of the packet.  The next
   active segment is indicated by the SegmentsLeft (SL) pointer in the
   SRH.  When an SRv6 SID is completed, the SL is decremented and the
   next segment is copied to the DA.  When a packet is steered on an SR
   policy, the related SRH is added to the packet.

   In the context of an IGP-based distributed control-plane, two
   topological segments are defined: the IGP adjacency segment and the
   IGP prefix segment.

   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 headend of an SR Policy binds a SID (called Binding segment or
   BSID) to its policy.  When the headend receives a packet with active
   segment matching the BSID of a local SR Policy, the headend steers
   the packet into the associated SR Policy.

   This document defines the IGP, BGP and Binding segments for the SR-
   MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes.

   Note: This document defines the architecture for Segment Routing,
   including definitions of basic objects and functions and a
   description of the overall design.  It does NOT define the means of
   implementing the architecture - that is contained in numerous
   referencing documents, some of which are mentioned in this document
   as a convenience to the reader.

2.  Terminology

   SR-MPLS: the instantiation of SR on the MPLS dataplane

   SRv6: the instantiation of SR on the IPv6 dataplane.

   Segment: an instruction a node executes on the incoming packet (e.g.,
   forward packet according to shortest path to destination, or, forward
   packet through a specific interface, or, deliver the packet to a
   given application/service instance).

   SID: a segment identifier.  Note that the term SID is commonly used
   in place of the term Segment, though this is technically imprecise as
   it overlooks any necessary translation.

   SR-MPLS SID: an MPLS label or an index value into an MPLS label space
   explicitly associated with the segment.



Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   SRv6 SID: an IPv6 address explicitly associated with the segment.

   Segment Routing Domain (SR Domain): the set of nodes participating in
   the source based routing model.  These nodes may be connected to the
   same physical infrastructure (e.g., a Service Provider's network).
   They may as well be remotely connected to each other (e.g., an
   enterprise VPN or an overlay).  If multiple protocol instances are
   deployed, the SR domain most commonly includes all of the protocol
   instances in a network.  However, some deployments may wish to sub-
   divide the network into multiple SR domains, each of which includes
   one or more protocol instances.  It is expected that all nodes in an
   SR Domain are managed by the same administrative entity.

   Active Segment: the segment that is used by the receiving router to
   process the packet.  In the MPLS dataplane it is the top label.  In
   the IPv6 dataplane it is the destination address.
   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].

   PUSH: the instruction consisting of the insertion of a segment at the
   top of the segment list.  In SR-MPLS the top of the segment list is
   the topmost (outer) label of the label stack.  In SRv6, the top of
   the segment list is represented by the first segment in the Segment
   Routing Header as defined in [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].

   NEXT: when the active segment is completed, NEXT is the instruction
   consisting of the inspection of the next segment.  The next segment
   becomes active.  In SR-MPLS, NEXT is implemented as a POP of the top
   label.  In SRv6, NEXT is implemented as the copy of the next segment
   from the SRH to the Destination Address of the IPv6 header.

   CONTINUE: the active segment is not completed and hence remains
   active.  In SR-MPLS, CONTINUE instruction is implemented as a SWAP of
   the top label.  [RFC3031] In SRv6, this is the plain IPv6 forwarding
   action of a regular IPv6 packet according to its Destination Address.

   SR Global Block (SRGB): the set of global segments in the SR Domain.
   If a node participates in multiple SR domains, there is one SRGB for
   each SR domain.  In SR-MPLS, SRGB is a local property of a node and
   identifies the set of local labels reserved for global segments.  In
   SR-MPLS, using identical SRGBs on all nodes within the SR Domain is
   strongly recommended.  Doing so eases operations and troubleshooting
   as the same label represents the same global segment at each node.
   In SRv6, the SRGB is the set of global SRv6 SIDs in the SR Domain.

   SR Local Block (SRLB): local property of an SR node.  If a node
   participates in multiple SR domains, there is one SRLB for each SR
   domain.  In SR-MPLS, SRLB is a set of local labels reserved for local
   segments.  In SRv6, SRLB is a set of local IPv6 addresses reserved



Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   for local SRv6 SID's.  In a controller-driven network, some
   controllers or applications may use the control plane to discover the
   available set of local segments.

   Global Segment: a segment which is part of the SRGB of the domain.
   The instruction associated to the segment is defined at the SR Domain
   level.  A topological shortest-path segment to a given destination
   within an SR domain is a typical example of a global segment.

   Local Segment: In SR-MPLS, this is a local label outside the SRGB.
   It may be part of the explicitly advertised SRLB.  In SRv6, this can
   be any IPv6 address i.e., the address may be part of the SRGB but
   used such that it has local significance.  The instruction associated
   to the segment is defined at the node level.

   IGP Segment: the generic name for a segment attached to a piece of
   information advertised by a link-state IGP, e.g. an IGP prefix or an
   IGP adjacency.

   IGP-Prefix Segment: an IGP-Prefix Segment is an IGP Segment
   representing an IGP prefix.  When an IGP-Prefix Segment is global
   within the SR IGP instance/topology it identifies an instruction to
   forward the packet along the path computed using the routing
   algorithm specified in the algorithm field, in the topology and the
   IGP instance where it is advertised.  Also referred to as Prefix
   Segment.

   Prefix SID: the SID of the IGP-Prefix Segment.

   IGP-Anycast Segment: an IGP-Anycast Segment is an IGP-Prefix Segment
   which identify an anycast prefix advertised by a set of routers.

   Anycast-SID: the SID of the IGP-Anycast Segment.

   IGP-Adjacency Segment: an IGP-Adjacency Segment is an IGP Segment
   attached to a unidirectional adjacency or a set of unidirectional
   adjacencies.  By default, an IGP-Adjacency Segment is local (unless
   explicitly advertised otherwise) to the node that advertises it.
   Also referred to as Adjacency Segment.

   Adj-SID: the SID of the IGP-Adjacency Segment.

   IGP-Node Segment: an IGP-Node Segment is an IGP-Prefix Segment which
   identifies a specific router (e.g., a loopback).  Also referred to as
   Node Segment.

   Node-SID: the SID of the IGP-Node Segment.




Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   SR Policy: an ordered list of segments.  The headend of an SR Policy
   steers packets onto the SR policy.  The list of segments can be
   specified explicitly in SR-MPLS as a stack of labels and in SRv6 as
   an ordered list of SRv6 SID's.  Alternatively, the list of segments
   is computed based on a destination and a set of optimization
   objective and constraints (e.g., latency, affinity, SRLG, ...).  The
   computation can be local or delegated to a PCE server.  An SR policy
   can be configured by the operator, provisioned via NETCONF [RFC6241]
   or provisioned via PCEP [RFC5440] . An SR policy can be used for
   traffic-engineering, OAM or FRR reasons.

   Segment List Depth: the number of segments of an SR policy.  The
   entity instantiating an SR Policy at a node N should be able to
   discover the depth insertion capability of the node N.  For example,
   the PCEP SR capability advertisement described in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] is one means of discovering this
   capability.

   Forwarding Information Base (FIB): the forwarding table of a node

3.  Link-State IGP Segments

   Within an SR domain, an SR-capable IGP node advertises segments for
   its attached prefixes and adjacencies.  These segments are called IGP
   segments or IGP SIDs.  They play a key role in Segment Routing and
   use-cases as they enable the expression of any path throughout the SR
   domain.  Such a path is either expressed as a single IGP segment or a
   list of multiple IGP segments.

   Advertisement of IGP segments requires extensions in link-state IGP
   protocols.  These extensions are defined in
   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]

3.1.  IGP-Prefix Segment, Prefix-SID

   An IGP-Prefix segment is an IGP segment attached to an IGP prefix.
   An IGP-Prefix segment is global (unless explicitly advertised
   otherwise) within the SR domain.  The context for an IGP-Prefix
   segment includes the prefix, topology, and algorithm.  Multiple SIDs
   MAY be allocated to the same prefix so long as the tuple <prefix,
   topology, algorithm> is unique.

   Multiple instances and topologies are defined in IS-IS and OSPF in:
   [RFC5120], [RFC8202], [RFC6549] and [RFC4915].





Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


3.1.1.  Prefix-SID Algorithm

   Segment Routing supports the use of multiple routing algorithms i.e,
   different constraint based shortest path calculations can be
   supported.  An algorithm identifier is included as part of a Prefix-
   SID advertisement.  Specification of how an algorithm specific path
   calculation is done is required in the document defining the
   algorithm.

   This document defines two algorithms:

   o  "Shortest Path": this algorithm is the default behavior.  The
      packet is forwarded along the well known ECMP-aware SPF algorithm
      employed by the IGPs.  However it is explicitly allowed for a
      midpoint to implement another forwarding based on local policy.
      The "Shortest Path" algorithm is in fact the default and current
      behavior of most of the networks where local policies may override
      the SPF decision.

   o  "Strict Shortest Path (Strict-SPF)": This algorithm mandates that
      the packet is forwarded according to ECMP-aware SPF algorithm and
      instructs any router in the path to ignore any possible local
      policy overriding the SPF decision.  The SID advertised with
      Strict-SPF algorithm ensures that the path the packet is going to
      take is the expected, and not altered, SPF path.  Note that Fast
      Reroute (FRR) [RFC5714] mechanisms are still compliant with the
      Strict Shortest Path.  In other words, a packet received with a
      Strict-SPF SID may be rerouted through a FRR mechanism.  Strict-
      SPF uses the same topology used by "Shortest Path".  Obviously,
      nodes which do not support Strict-SPF will not install forwarding
      entries for this algorithm.  Restricting the topology only to
      those nodes which support this algorithm will not produce the
      desired forwarding paths since the desired behavior is to follow
      the path calculated by "Shortest Path".  Therefore, a source SR
      node MUST NOT use a source-routing policy containing a strict SPF
      segment if the path crosses a node not supporting the strict-SPF
      algorithm.

   An IGP-Prefix Segment identifies the path, to the related prefix,
   computed as per the associated algorithm.  A packet injected anywhere
   within the SR domain with an active Prefix-SID is expected to be
   forwarded along a path computed using the specified algorithm.  For
   this to be possible, a fully connected topology of routers supporting
   the specified algorithm is required.







Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


3.1.2.  SR-MPLS

   When SR is used over the MPLS dataplane SIDs are an MPLS label or an
   index into an MPLS label space (either SRGB or SRLB).

   Where possible, it is recommended that identical SRGBs be configured
   on all nodes in an SR Domain.  This simplifies troubleshooting as the
   same label will be associated with the same prefix on all nodes.  In
   addition, it simplifies support for anycast as detailed in
   Section 3.3.

   The following behaviors are associated with SR operating over the
   MPLS dataplane:

   o  the IGP signaling extension for IGP-Prefix segment includes a flag
      to indicate whether directly connected neighbors of the node on
      which the prefix is attached should perform the NEXT operation or
      the CONTINUE operation when processing the SID.  This behavior is
      equivalent to Penultimate Hop Popping (NEXT) or Ultimate Hop
      Popping (CONTINUE) in MPLS.

   o  A Prefix-SID is allocated in the form of an MPLS label (or an
      index in the SRGB) according to a process similar to IP address
      allocation.  Typically, the Prefix-SID is allocated by policy by
      the operator (or NMS) and the SID very rarely changes.

   o  While SR allows to attach a local segment to an IGP prefix, it is
      specifically assumed that when the terms "IGP-Prefix Segment" and
      "Prefix-SID" are used, the segment is global (the SID is allocated
      from the SRGB or as an index into the advertised SRGB).  This is
      consistent with all the described use-cases that require global
      segments attached to IGP prefixes.

   o  The allocation process MUST NOT allocate the same Prefix-SID to
      different IP prefixes.

   o  If a node learns a Prefix-SID having a value that falls outside
      the locally configured SRGB range, then the node MUST NOT use the
      Prefix-SID and SHOULD issue an error log reporting a
      misconfiguration.

   o  If a node N advertises Prefix-SID SID-R for a prefix R that is
      attached to N, if N specifies CONTINUE as the operation to be
      performed by directly connected neighbors, N MUST maintain the
      following FIB entry:






Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


      Incoming Active Segment: SID-R
      Ingress Operation: NEXT
      Egress interface: NULL

   o  A remote node M MUST maintain the following FIB entry for any
      learned Prefix-SID SID-R attached to IP prefix R:

     Incoming Active Segment: SID-R
     Ingress Operation:
        If the next-hop of R is the originator of R
        and instructed to remove the active segment: NEXT
        Else: CONTINUE
     Egress interface: the interface towards the next-hop along the
                       path computed using the algorithm advertised with
                       the SID toward prefix R.

   As Prefix-SIDs are specific to a given algorithm, if traffic
   associated with an algorithm arrives at a node which does not support
   that algorithm the traffic will be dropped as there will be no
   forwarding entry matching the incoming label.

3.1.3.  SRv6

   When SR is used over the IPv6 dataplane:

   o  A Prefix-SID is an IPv6 address.

   o  An operator MUST explicitly instantiate an SRv6 SID.  IPv6 node
      addresses are not SRv6 SIDs by default.

   A node N advertising an IPv6 address R usable as a segment identifier
   MUST maintain the following FIB entry:

      Incoming Active Segment: R
      Ingress Operation: NEXT
      Egress interface: NULL

   Note that forwarding to R does not require an entry in the FIBs of
   all other routers for R.  Forwarding can be and most often will be
   achieved by a shorter mask prefix which covers R.

   Independent of Segment Routing support, any remote IPv6 node will
   maintain a plain IPv6 FIB entry for any prefix, no matter if the
   prefix represents a segment or not.  This allows forwarding of
   packets to the node which owns the SID even by nodes which do not
   support Segment Routing.





Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   Support of multiple algorithms applies to SRv6.  Since algorithm
   specific SIDs are simply IPv6 addresses, algorithm specific
   forwarding entries can be achieved by assigning algorithm specific
   subnets to the (set of) algorithm specific SIDs which a node
   allocates.

   Nodes which do not support a given algorithm may still have a FIB
   entry covering an algorithm specific address even though an algorithm
   specific path has not been calculated by that node.  This is
   mitigated by the fact that nodes which do not support a given
   algorithm will not be included in the topology associated with that
   algorithm specific SPF and so traffic using the algorithm specific
   destination will normally not flow via the excluded node.  If such
   traffic were to arrive and be forwarded by such a node, it will still
   progress towards the destination node.  The nexthop will either be a
   node which supports the algorithm - in which case the packet will be
   forwarded along algorithm specific paths (or be dropped if none are
   available) - or the nexthop will be a node which does NOT support the
   algorithm - in which case the packet will continue to be forwarded
   along Algorithm 0 paths towards the destination node.

3.2.  IGP-Node Segment, Node-SID

   An IGP Node-SID MUST NOT be associated with a prefix that is owned by
   more than one router within the same routing domain.

3.3.  IGP-Anycast Segment, Anycast SID

   An "Anycast Segment" or "Anycast SID" enforces the ECMP-aware
   shortest-path forwarding towards the closest node of the anycast set.
   This is useful to express macro-engineering policies or protection
   mechanisms.

   An IGP-Anycast segment MUST NOT reference a particular node.

   Within an anycast group, all routers in an SR domain MUST advertise
   the same prefix with the same SID value.

3.3.1.  Anycast SID in SR-MPLS












Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


                               +--------------+
                               |   Group A    |
                               |192.0.2.10/32 |
                               |    SID:100   |
                               |              |
                        +-----------A1---A3----------+
                        |      |    | \ / |   |      |
             SID:10     |      |    |  /  |   |      |     SID:30
       203.0.113.1/32   |      |    | / \ |   |      |  203.0.113.3/32
               PE1------R1----------A2---A4---------R3------PE3
                 \     /|      |              |      |\     /
                  \   / |      +--------------+      | \   /
                   \ /  |                            |  \ /
                    /   |                            |   /
                   / \  |                            |  / \
                  /   \ |      +--------------+      | /   \
                 /     \|      |              |      |/     \
               PE2------R2----------B1---B3---------R4------PE4
       203.0.113.2/32   |      |    | \ / |   |      | 203.0.113.4/32
             SID:20     |      |    |  /  |   |      |     SID:40
                        |      |    | / \ |   |      |
                        +-----------B2---B4----------+
                               |              |
                               |   Group B    |
                               | 192.0.2.1/32 |
                               |    SID:200   |
                               +--------------+

                      Figure 1: Transit device groups

   The figure above describes a network example with two groups of
   transit devices.  Group A consists of devices {A1, A2, A3 and A4}.
   They are all provisioned with the anycast address 192.0.2.10/32 and
   the anycast SID 100.

   Similarly, group B consists of devices {B1, B2, B3 and B4} and are
   all provisioned with the anycast address 192.0.2.1/32, anycast SID
   200.  In the above network topology, each PE device has a path to
   each of the groups A and B.

   PE1 can choose a particular transit device group when sending traffic
   to PE3 or PE4.  This will be done by pushing the anycast SID of the
   group in the stack.

   Processing the anycast, and subsequent segments, requires special
   care.





Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


                         +-------------------------+
                         |       Group A           |
                         |     192.0.2.10/32       |
                         |        SID:100          |
                         |-------------------------|
                         |                         |
                         |   SRGB:         SRGB:   |
      SID:10             |(1000-2000)   (3000-4000)|             SID:30
        PE1---+       +-------A1-------------A3-------+       +---PE3
               \     /   |    | \           / |    |   \     /
                \   /    |    |  +-----+   /  |    |    \   /
         SRGB:   \ /     |    |         \ /   |    |     \ /   SRGB:
      (7000-8000) R1     |    |          \    |    |      R3 (6000-7000)
                 / \     |    |         / \   |    |     / \
                /   \    |    |  +-----+   \  |    |    /   \
               /     \   |    | /           \ |    |   /     \
        PE2---+       +-------A2-------------A4-------+       +---PE4
      SID:20             |   SRGB:         SRGB:   |             SID:40
                         |(2000-3000)   (4000-5000)|
                         |                         |
                         +-------------------------+

                Figure 2: Transit paths via anycast group A

   Considering an MPLS deployment, in the above topology, if device PE1
   (or PE2) requires to send a packet to the device PE3 (or PE4) it
   needs to encapsulate the packet in an MPLS payload with the following
   stack of labels.

   o  Label allocated by R1 for anycast SID 100 (outer label).

   o  Label allocated by the nearest router in group A for SID 30 (for
      destination PE3).

   While the first label is easy to compute, in this case since there
   are more than one topologically nearest devices (A1 and A2), unless
   A1 and A2 allocated the same label value to the same prefix,
   determining the second label is impossible.  Devices A1 and A2 may be
   devices from different hardware vendors.  If both don't allocate the
   same label value for SID 30, it is impossible to use the anycast
   group "A" as a transit anycast group towards PE3.  Hence, PE1 (or
   PE2) cannot compute an appropriate label stack to steer the packet
   exclusively through the group A devices.  Same holds true for devices
   PE3 and PE4 when trying to send a packet to PE1 or PE2.

   To ease the use of anycast segment, it is recommended to configure
   identical SRGBs on all nodes of a particular anycast group.  Using




Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   this method, as mentioned above, computation of the label following
   the anycast segment is straightforward.

   Using anycast segment without configuring identical SRGBs on all
   nodes belonging to the same device group may lead to misrouting (in
   an MPLS VPN deployment, some traffic may leak between VPNs).

3.4.  IGP-Adjacency Segment, Adj-SID

   The adjacency is formed by the local node (i.e., the node advertising
   the adjacency in the IGP) and the remote node (i.e., the other end of
   the adjacency).  The local node MUST be an IGP node.  The remote node
   may be an adjacent IGP neighbor or a non-adjacent neighbor (e.g., a
   Forwarding Adjacency, [RFC4206]).

   A packet injected anywhere within the SR domain with a segment list
   {SN, SNL}, where SN is the Node-SID of node N and SNL is an Adj-SID
   attached by node N to its adjacency over link L, will be forwarded
   along the shortest-path to N and then be switched by N, without any
   IP shortest-path consideration, towards link L.  If the Adj-SID
   identifies a set of adjacencies, then the node N load-balances the
   traffic among the various members of the set.

   Similarly, when using a global Adj-SID, a packet injected anywhere
   within the SR domain with a segment list {SNL}, where SNL is a global
   Adj-SID attached by node N to its adjacency over link L, will be
   forwarded along the shortest-path to N and then be switched by N,
   without any IP shortest-path consideration, towards link L.  If the
   Adj-SID identifies a set of adjacencies, then the node N does load-
   balance the traffic among the various members of the set.  The use of
   global Adj-SID allows to reduce the size of the segment list when
   expressing a path at the cost of additional state (i.e.: the global
   Adj-SID will be inserted by all routers within the area in their
   forwarding table).

   An "IGP Adjacency Segment" or "Adj-SID" enforces the switching of the
   packet from a node towards a defined interface or set of interfaces.
   This is key to theoretically prove that any path can be expressed as
   a list of segments.

   The encodings of the Adj-SID include a set of flags supporting the
   following functionalities:

   o  Eligible for Protection (e.g., using IPFRR or MPLS-FRR).
      Protection allows that in the event the interface(s) associated
      with the Adj-SID are down, that the packet can still be forwarded
      via an alternate path.  The use of protection is clearly a policy




Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


      based decision i.e., for a given policy protection may or may not
      be desirable.

   o  Indication whether the Adj-SID has local or global scope.  Default
      scope SHOULD be Local.

   o  Indication whether the Adj-SID is persistent across control plane
      restarts.  Persistence is a key attribute in ensuring that an SR
      Policy does not temporarily result in misforwarding due to
      reassignment of an Adj-SID.

   A weight (as described below) is also associated with the Adj-SID
   advertisement.

   A node SHOULD allocate one Adj-SID for each of its adjacencies.

   A node MAY allocate multiple Adj-SIDs for the same adjacency.  An
   example is to support an Adj-SID which is eligible for protection and
   an Adj-SID which is NOT eligible for protection.

   A node MAY associate the same Adj-SID to multiple adjacencies.

   In order to be able to advertise in the IGP all the Adj-SIDs
   representing the IGP adjacencies between two nodes, parallel
   adjacency suppression MUST NOT be performed by the IGP.

   When a node binds an Adj-SID to a local data-link L, the node MUST
   install the following FIB entry:

      Incoming Active Segment: V
      Ingress Operation: NEXT
      Egress Interface: L

   The Adj-SID implies, from the router advertising it, the forwarding
   of the packet through the adjacency(ies) identified by the Adj-SID,
   regardless of its IGP/SPF cost.  In other words, the use of adjacency
   segments overrides the routing decision made by the SPF algorithm.

3.4.1.  Parallel Adjacencies

   Adj-SIDs can be used in order to represent a set of parallel
   interfaces between two adjacent routers.

   A node MUST install a FIB entry for any locally originated adjacency
   segment (Adj-SID) of value W attached to a set of links B with:






Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


      Incoming Active Segment: W
      Ingress Operation: NEXT
      Egress interface: load-balance between any data-link within set B

   When parallel adjacencies are used and associated to the same Adj-
   SID, and in order to optimize the load balancing function, a "weight"
   factor can be associated to the Adj-SID advertised with each
   adjacency.  The weight tells the ingress (or an SDN/orchestration
   system) about the load-balancing factor over the parallel
   adjacencies.  As shown in Figure 3, A and B are connected through two
   parallel adjacencies

                                  link-1
                                +--------+
                                |        |
                            S---A        B---C
                                |        |
                                +--------+
                                  link-2

                   Figure 3: Parallel Links and Adj-SIDs

   Node A advertises following Adj-SIDs and weights:

   o  Link-1: Adj-SID 1000, weight: 1

   o  Link-2: Adj-SID 1000, weight: 2

   Node S receives the advertisements of the parallel adjacencies and
   understands that by using Adj-SID 1000 node A will load-balance the
   traffic across the parallel links (link-1 and link-2) according to a
   1:2 ratio i.e., twice as many packets will flow over Link-2 as
   compared to Link-1.

3.4.2.  LAN Adjacency Segments

   In LAN subnetworks, link-state protocols define the concept of
   Designated Router (DR, in OSPF) or Designated Intermediate System
   (DIS, in IS-IS) that conduct flooding in broadcast subnetworks and
   that describe the LAN topology in a special routing update (OSPF
   Type2 LSA or IS-IS Pseudonode LSP).

   The difficulty with LANs is that each router only advertises its
   connectivity to the DR/DIS and not to each of the individual nodes in
   the LAN.  Therefore, additional protocol mechanisms (IS-IS and OSPF)
   are necessary in order for each router in the LAN to advertise an
   Adj-SID associated to each neighbor in the LAN.




Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


3.5.  Inter-Area Considerations

   In the following example diagram it is assumed that the all areas are
   part of a single SR Domain.

   The example here below assumes the IPv6 control plane with the MPLS
   dataplane.

               !          !
               !          !
        B------C-----F----G-----K
       /       |          |     |
 S---A/        |          |     |
      \        |          |     |
       \D------I----------J-----L----Z (2001:DB8::2:1/128, Node-SID 150)
               !          !
       Area-1  ! Backbone ! Area 2
               !   area   !

                   Figure 4: Inter-Area Topology Example

   In area 2, node Z allocates Node-SID 150 to his local IPv6 prefix
   2001:DB8::2:1/128.

   Area Border Routers (ABR) G and J will propagate the prefix and its
   SIDs into the backbone area by creating a new instance of the prefix
   according to normal inter-area/level IGP propagation rules.

   Nodes C and I will apply the same behavior when leaking prefixes from
   the backbone area down to area 1.  Therefore, node S will see prefix
   2001:DB8::2:1/128 with Prefix-SID 150 and advertised by nodes C and
   I.

   It therefore results that a Prefix-SID remains attached to its
   related IGP Prefix through the inter-area process, which is the
   expected behavior in a single SR Domain.

   When node S sends traffic to 2001:DB8::2:1/128, it pushes Node-
   SID(150) as active segment and forward it to A.

   When packet arrives at ABR I (or C), the ABR forwards the packet
   according to the active segment (Node-SID(150)).  Forwarding
   continues across area borders, using the same Node-SID(150), until
   the packet reaches its destination.







Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


4.  BGP Peering Segments

   BGP segments may be allocated and distributed by BGP.

4.1.  BGP Prefix Segment

   A BGP-Prefix segment is a BGP segment attached to a BGP prefix.

   A BGP-Prefix segment is global (unless explicitly advertised
   otherwise) within the SR domain.

   The BGP Prefix SID is the BGP equivalent to the IGP Prefix Segment.

   A likely use-case for the BGP Prefix Segment is an IGP-free hyper-
   scale spine-leaf topology where connectivity is learned solely via
   BGP [RFC7938]

4.2.  BGP Peering Segments

   In the context of BGP Egress Peer Engineering (EPE), as described in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe], an EPE enabled Egress
   PE node MAY advertise segments corresponding to its attached peers.
   These segments are called BGP peering segments or BGP peering SIDs.
   They enable the expression of source-routed inter-domain paths.

   An ingress border router of an AS may compose a list of segments to
   steer a flow along a selected path within the AS, towards a selected
   egress border router C of the AS and through a specific peer.  At
   minimum, a BGP peering Engineering policy applied at an ingress PE
   involves two segments: the Node SID of the chosen egress PE and then
   the BGP peering segment for the chosen egress PE peer or peering
   interface.

   Three types of BGP peering segments/SIDs are defined: PeerNode SID,
   PeerAdj SID and PeerSet SID.

   o  PeerNode SID: a BGP PeerNode segment/SID is a local segment.  At
      the BGP node advertising it, its semantics is:

      *  SR header operation: NEXT.

      *  Next-Hop: the connected peering node to which the segment is
         related.

   o  PeerAdj SID: a BGP PeerAdj segment/SID is a local segment.  At the
      BGP node advertising it, the semantic is:

      *  SR header operation: NEXT.



Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


      *  Next-Hop: the peer connected through the interface to which the
         segment is related.

   o  PeerSet SID. a BGP PeerSet segment/SID is a local segment.  At the
      BGP node advertising it, the semantic is:

      *  SR header operation: NEXT.

      *  Next-Hop: load-balance across any connected interface to any
         peer in the related group.

      A peer set could be all the connected peers from the same AS or a
      subset of these.  A group could also span across AS.  The group
      definition is a policy set by the operator.

   The BGP extensions necessary in order to signal these BGP peering
   segments are defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]

5.  Binding Segment

   In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service
   independence, SR utilizes a Binding SID (BSID).  The BSID is bound to
   an SR policy, instantiation of which may involve a list of SIDs.  Any
   packets received with active segment = BSID are steered onto the
   bound SR Policy.

   A BSID may either be a local or a global SID.  If local, a BSID
   SHOULD be allocated from the SRLB.  If global, a BSID MUST be
   allocated from the SRGB.

   Use of a BSID allows the instantiation of the policy (the SID list)
   to be stored only on the node(s) which need to impose the policy.
   Direction of traffic to a node supporting the policy then only
   requires imposition of the BSID.  If the policy changes, this also
   means that only the nodes imposing the policy need to be updated.
   Users of the policy are not impacted.

5.1.  IGP Mirroring Context Segment

   One use case for a Binding Segment is to provide support for an IGP
   node to advertise its ability to process traffic originally destined
   to another IGP node, called the Mirrored node and identified by an IP
   address or a Node-SID, provided that a "Mirroring Context" segment be
   inserted in the segment list prior to any service segment local to
   the mirrored node.






Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   When a given node B wants to provide egress node A protection, it
   advertises a segment identifying node's A context.  Such segment is
   called "Mirror Context Segment" and identified by the Mirror SID.

   The Mirror SID is advertised using the binding segment defined in SR
   IGP protocol extensions [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] .

   In the event of a failure, a point of local repair (PLR) diverting
   traffic from A to B does a PUSH of the Mirror SID on the protected
   traffic.  B, when receiving the traffic with the Mirror SID as the
   active segment, uses that segment and processes underlying segments
   in the context of A.

6.  Multicast

   Segment Routing is defined for unicast.  The application of the
   source-route concept to Multicast is not in the scope of this
   document.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any action from IANA.

8.  Security Considerations

   Segment Routing is applicable to both MPLS and IPv6 data planes.

   Segment Routing adds some meta-data (instructions) to the packet,
   with the list of forwarding path elements (e.g., nodes, links,
   services, etc.) that the packet must traverse.  It has to be noted
   that the complete source routed path may be represented by a single
   segment.  This is the case of the Binding SID.

   SR by default operates within a trusted domain.  Traffic MUST be
   filtered at the domain boundaries.

   The use of best practices to reduce the risk of tampering within the
   trusted domain is important.  Such practices are discussed in
   [RFC4381] and are applicable to both SR-MPLS and SRv6.

8.1.  SR-MPLS

   When applied to the MPLS data plane, Segment Routing does not
   introduce any new behavior or any change in the way MPLS data plane
   works.  Therefore, from a security standpoint, this document does not
   define any additional mechanism in the MPLS data plane.





Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   SR allows the expression of a source routed path using a single
   segment (the Binding SID).  Compared to RSVP-TE which also provides
   explicit routing capability, there are no fundamental differences in
   term of information provided.  Both RSVP-TE and Segment Routing may
   express a source routed path using a single segment.

   When a path is expressed using a single label, the syntax of the
   meta-data is equivalent between RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and SR.

   When a source routed path is expressed with a list of segments
   additional meta-data is added to the packet consisting of the source
   routed path the packet must follow expressed as a segment list.

   When a path is expressed using a label stack, if one has access to
   the meaning (i.e.: the Forwarding Equivalence Class) of the labels,
   one has the knowledge of the explicit path.  For the MPLS data plane,
   as no data plane modification is required, there is no fundamental
   change of capability.  Yet, the occurrence of label stacking will
   increase.

   SR domain boundary routers MUST filter any external traffic destined
   to a label associated with a segment within the trusted domain.  This
   includes labels within the SRGB of the trusted domain, labels within
   the SRLB of the specific boundary router, and labels outside either
   of these blocks.  External traffic is any traffic received from an
   interface connected to a node outside the domain of trust.

   From a network protection standpoint, there is an assumed trust model
   such that any node imposing a label stack on a packet is assumed to
   be allowed to do so.  This is a significant change compared to plain
   IP offering shortest path routing but not fundamentally different
   compared to existing techniques providing explicit routing capability
   such as RSVP-TE.  By default, the explicit routing information MUST
   NOT be leaked through the boundaries of the administered domain.
   Segment Routing extensions that have been defined in various
   protocols, leverage the security mechanisms of these protocols such
   as encryption, authentication, filtering, etc.

   In the general case, a segment routing capable router accepts and
   install labels only if these labels have been previously advertised
   by a trusted source.  The received information is validated using
   existing control plane protocols providing authentication and
   security mechanisms.  Segment Routing does not define any additional
   security mechanism in existing control plane protocols.

   Segment Routing does not introduce signaling between the source and
   the mid points of a source routed path.  With SR, the source routed
   path is computed using SIDs previously advertised in the IP control



Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   plane.  Therefore, in addition to filtering and controlled
   advertisement of SIDs at the boundaries of the SR domain, filtering
   in the data plane is also required.  Filtering MUST be performed on
   the forwarding plane at the boundaries of the SR domain and may
   require looking at multiple labels/instruction.

   For the MPLS data plane, there are no new requirements as the
   existing MPLS architecture already allows such source routing by
   stacking multiple labels.  And for security protection, [RFC4381] and
   [RFC5920] already call for the filtering of MPLS packets on trust
   boundaries.

8.2.  SRv6

   When applied to the IPv6 data plane, Segment Routing does introduce
   the Segment Routing Header (SRH,
   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]) which is a type of Routing
   Extension header as defined in [RFC8200].

   The SRH adds some meta-data to the IPv6 packet, with the list of
   forwarding path elements (e.g., nodes, links, services, etc.) that
   the packet must traverse and that are represented by IPv6 addresses.
   A complete source routed path may be encoded in the packet using a
   single segment (single IPv6 address).

   SR domain boundary routers MUST filter any external traffic destined
   to an address within the SRGB of the trusted domain or the SRLB of
   the specific boundary router.  External traffic is any traffic
   received from an interface connected to a node outside the domain of
   trust.

   From a network protection standpoint, there is an assumed trust model
   such that any node adding an SRH to the packet is assumed to be
   allowed to do so.  Therefore, by default, the explicit routing
   information MUST NOT be leaked through the boundaries of the
   administered domain.  Segment Routing extensions that have been
   defined in various protocols, leverage the security mechanisms of
   these protocols such as encryption, authentication, filtering, etc.

   In the general case, an SR IPv6 router accepts and install segments
   identifiers (in the form of IPv6 addresses), only if these SIDs are
   advertised by a trusted source.  The received information is
   validated using existing control plane protocols providing
   authentication and security mechanisms.  Segment Routing does not
   define any additional security mechanism in existing control plane
   protocols.





Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   Problems which may arise when the above behaviors are not implemented
   or when the assumed trust model is violated (e.g., through a security
   breach) include:

   o  Malicious looping

   o  Evasion of access controls

   o  Hiding the source of DOS attacks

   Security concerns with source routing at the IPv6 data plane are more
   completely discussed in [RFC5095].  The new IPv6-based segment
   routing header is defined in [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
   This document also discusses the above security concerns.

8.3.  Congestion Control

   SR does not introduce new requirements for congestion control.  By
   default, traffic delivery is assumed to be best effort.  Congestion
   control may be implemented at endpoints.  Where SR policies are in
   use bandwidth allocation may be managed by monitoring incoming
   traffic associated with the binding SID identifying the SR policy.
   Other solutions such as [RFC8084] may be applicable.

9.  Manageability Considerations

   In SR enabled networks, the path the packet takes is encoded in the
   header.  As the path is not signaled through a protocol, OAM
   mechanisms are necessary in order for the network operator to
   validate the effectiveness of a path as well as to check and monitor
   its liveness and performance.  However, it has to be noted that SR
   allows to reduce substantially the number of states in transit nodes
   and hence the number of elements that a transit node has to manage is
   smaller.

   SR OAM use cases for the MPLS data plane are defined in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase].  SR OAM procedures for the MPLS data
   plane are defined in [RFC8287].

   SR routers receive advertisements of SIDs (index, label or IPv6
   address) from the different routing protocols being extended for SR.
   Each of these protocols have monitoring and troubleshooting
   mechanisms to provide operation and management functions for IP
   addresses that must be extended in order to include troubleshooting
   and monitoring functions of the SID.

   SR architecture introduces the usage of global segments.  Each global
   segment MUST be bound to a unique index or address within an SR



Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   domain.  The management of the allocation of such index or address by
   the operator is critical for the network behavior to avoid situations
   like mis-routing.  In addition to the allocation policy/tooling that
   the operator will have in place, an implementation SHOULD protect the
   network in case of conflict detection by providing a deterministic
   resolution approach.

   When a path is expressed using a label stack, the occurrence of label
   stacking will increase.  A node may want to signal in the control
   plane its ability in terms of size of the label stack it can support.

   A YANG data model [RFC6020] for segment routing configuration and
   operations has been defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-yang].

   When Segment Routing is applied to the IPv6 data plane, segments are
   identified through IPv6 addresses.  The allocation, management and
   troubleshooting of segment identifiers is no different than the
   existing mechanisms applied to the allocation and management of IPv6
   addresses.

   The DA of the packet gives the active segment address.  The segment
   list in the SRH gives the entire path of the packet.  The validation
   of the source routed path is done through inspection of DA and SRH
   present in the packet header matched to the equivalent routing table
   entries.

   In the context of SR over the IPv6 data plane, the source routed path
   is encoded in the SRH as described in
   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].  The SR IPv6 source routed
   path is instantiated into the SRH as a list of IPv6 address where the
   active segment is in the Destination Address (DA) field of the IPv6
   packet header.  Typically, by inspecting in any node the packet
   header, it is possible to derive the source routed path it belongs
   to.  Similar to the context of SR over MPLS data plane, an
   implementation may originate path control and monitoring packets
   where the source routed path is inserted in the SRH and where each
   segment of the path inserts in the packet the relevant data in order
   to measure the end to end path and performance.

10.  Contributors

   The following people have substantially contributed to the definition
   of the Segment Routing architecture and to the editing of this
   document:

   Ahmed Bashandy
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Email: bashandy@cisco.com



Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   Martin Horneffer
   Deutsche Telekom
   Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de

   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia
   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

   Jeff Tantsura
   Email: jefftant@gmail.com

   Edward Crabbe
   Email: edward.crabbe@gmail.com

   Igor Milojevic
   Email: milojevicigor@gmail.com

   Saku Ytti
   TDC
   Email: saku@ytti.fi

11.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Dave Ward, Peter Psenak, Dan Frost, Stewart
   Bryant, Pierre Francois, Thomas Telkamp, Ruediger Geib, Hannes
   Gredler, Pushpasis Sarkar, Eric Rosen, Chris Bowers and Alvaro Retana
   for their comments and review of this document.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative 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>.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.

   [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>.





Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., Dukes, D., Leddy, J.,
              Field, B., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
              daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., Leung, I.,
              Linkova, J., Aries, E., Kosugi, T., Vyncke, E., Lebrun,
              D., Steinberg, D., and R. Raszuk, "IPv6 Segment Routing
              Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-08
              (work in progress), January 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, S., and J.
              Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress
              Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-
              epe-14 (work in progress), December 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
              Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
              Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura,
              "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
              segment-routing-extensions-15 (work in progress), December
              2017.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
              Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
              Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
              Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
              segment-routing-extensions-10 (work in progress),
              September 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
              Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
              Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
              Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
              routing-extensions-24 (work in progress), December 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
              Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
              and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
              draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11 (work in progress),
              November 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase]
              Geib, R., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., and N. Kumar, "A
              Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Dataplane Monitoring
              System", draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-10 (work in
              progress), December 2017.



Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   [I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir,
              "Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks", draft-ietf-
              spring-resiliency-use-cases-12 (work in progress),
              December 2017.

   [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.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
              data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-11
              (work in progress), October 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-yang]
              Litkowski, S., Qu, Y., Sarkar, P., and J. Tantsura, "YANG
              Data Model for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-spring-sr-
              yang-08 (work in progress), December 2017.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC4206]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
              Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.

   [RFC4381]  Behringer, M., "Analysis of the Security of BGP/MPLS IP
              Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4381,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4381, February 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4381>.

   [RFC4915]  Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
              Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
              RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.

   [RFC5095]  Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
              of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.



Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   [RFC5120]  Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
              Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
              Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

   [RFC5714]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
              RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC6549]  Lindem, A., Roy, A., and S. Mirtorabi, "OSPFv2 Multi-
              Instance Extensions", RFC 6549, DOI 10.17487/RFC6549,
              March 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6549>.

   [RFC7938]  Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
              BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.

   [RFC8084]  Fairhurst, G., "Network Transport Circuit Breakers",
              BCP 208, RFC 8084, DOI 10.17487/RFC8084, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8084>.

   [RFC8202]  Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and W. Henderickx, "IS-IS
              Multi-Instance", RFC 8202, DOI 10.17487/RFC8202, June
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8202>.






Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Clarence Filsfils (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Brussels
   BE

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com


   Stefano Previdi (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Italy

   Email: stefano@previdi.net


   Les Ginsberg
   Cisco Systems, Inc

   Email: ginsberg@cisco.com


   Bruno Decraene
   Orange
   FR

   Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com


   Stephane Litkowski
   Orange
   FR

   Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com









Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft               Segment Routing                January 2018


   Rob Shakir
   Google, Inc.
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   US

   Email: robjs@google.com












































Filsfils, et al.          Expires July 29, 2018                [Page 31]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/