[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00
L P. Shaofu
Internet-Draft C. Ran
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: May 30, 2020 G. Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
November 27, 2019
IGP Flexible Algorithm Optimazition for Netwrok Slicing
draft-peng-lsr-flex-algo-opt-slicing-00
Abstract
IGP Flex Algorithm proposes a solution that allows IGPs themselves to
compute constraint based paths over the network, and it also
specifies a way of using Segment Routing (SR) Prefix-SIDs and SRv6
locators to steer packets along the constraint-based paths. This
document extends the use of the IGP Flex Algorithm to satisfy network
slicing scenarios.
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 30, 2020.
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
Shaofu, et al. Expires May 30, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IGP FA Opt Slicing November 2019
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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. SR Policy Using Slice-based Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. SR Policy Optimaztion with IGP Flex-algo . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IGP Flex-algo Enhancement with AII . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. AII of FAD Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. ISIS AII of FAD Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. OSPF AII of FAD Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. ISIS IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. OSPF IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
IGP Flex Algorithm [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] proposes a solution that
allows IGPs themselves to compute constraint based paths over the
network, and it also specifies a way of using Segment Routing (SR)
Prefix-SIDs and SRv6 locators to steer packets along the constraint-
based paths. It specifies a set of extensions to ISIS, OSPFv2 and
OSPFv3 that enable a router to send TLVs that identify (a)
calculation-type, (b) specify a metric-type, and (c )describe a set
of constraints on the topology, that are to be used to compute the
best paths along the constrained topology. A given combination of
calculation-type, metric-type, and constraints is known as an FAD
(Flexible Algorithm Definition).
[I-D.peng-teas-network-slicing] proposes a solution to extend the
control plane of transport network to instantiate the Network Slice
Instance (NSI) in transport network. A new identifier, AII, instead
of existing TE affinity or other identifiers, is introduced to
represent a TN-slice and specify the dedicated resource for the TN-
slice.
This document extends the FAD of IGP Flex Algorithm to let IGPs
compute constraint based paths limited in specific TN-slice.
Shaofu, et al. Expires May 30, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IGP FA Opt Slicing November 2019
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. SR Policy Using Slice-based Resources
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] details the concepts of SR
Policy and steering into an SR Policy. These apply equally to the
MPLS and IPv6 (known as SRv6) data plane instantiations of Segment
Routing with their respective representations of segments as SR-MPLS
SID and SRv6 SID as described in [RFC8402]. The color of SR policy
defines a TE purpose, which includes a set of constraints such as
bandwidth, delay, TE metric, etc.
The overlay service can select underlay SR policy according to a
meaningful color value. From the perspective of service, color is
the key to get the expected SLA, and it is a global administrative
configuration or setting that could be exchangeable between two
devices for SR policy on-demand next-hop triggering. The service
never concern whether the underlay network has been partitioned as
multi-domains, or multi-topologies. That is, color has not semantic
local within one domain, or one topology. Instead, any type of
resources such as topology, computation, storage could be selected by
the color template. In this sense, TN-slices are also high-level
resouces that could be selected by color template. A simple way to
achieve this is to contain the specific AII information in the color
template, to restrict the TE path to the corresponding TN-slice.
4. SR Policy Optimaztion with IGP Flex-algo
Indeed, FA-id defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] is a short mapping
of SR policy color to optimaze segment stack depth for the IGP area
partial of the entire SR policy. The overlay service that want to be
carried over a particual SR-FA path must firstly let the SR policy
supplier know that requirement. There are two possible ways to map a
color to an FA-id. One is explicit mapping configuration within
color template, the other is dynamic to replace a long segment list
to short FA segment by headend or controller once the creterias
contained in the color-template equal to that contained in FAD.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] described that Application specific Flex-
Algorithm participation advertisements MAY be topology specific or
MAY be topology independent, and also emphasize that Segment Routing
Flex-Algorithm participation advertisement is topology independent,
Shaofu, et al. Expires May 30, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IGP FA Opt Slicing November 2019
i.e., when a router advertises participation in an SR-Algorithm, the
participation applies to all topologies in which the advertising node
participates. Here the topology means Multi-Topology Routing (MTR)
described in [RFC5120], [RFC4915], [RFC5340]. [RFC8402] also
mentioned that multiple SIDs MAY be allocated to the same prefix so
long as the tuple <prefix, topology, algorithm> is unique. In fact,
this will lead to many forwarding tables, such as table per topology,
table per each combined tuple <topology, algorithm>.
According to [I-D.peng-teas-network-slicing], we donot use MTR to
identify the TN-slice and partition the virtual topology for the TN-
slice. Instead, a slice-based identifier AII is introduced to
represent a TN-slice, and the first feature of AII is a TE criteria
for TE service just like AG/EAG. In order to make the contents of
the color template and mapping FAD consistent, AII is also necessary
put into FAD.
Although the network operator may change the AII information within
the FAD for the specific FA-id, there is only one forwarding table
with constant table ID, i.e., FA-id. Note that there are also
independent forwarding tables per AII, but not those per tuple <AII,
FA-id>. That is, FA-id has not semantic local within AII, as the
same as color.
5. IGP Flex-algo Enhancement with AII
FAD that contains AII information will enhance the capability of
Flex-algo to support network slicing. For example, Loop Free
Alternate (LFA) paths for a given Flex-Algorithm can include Prefix-
SIDs advertised specifically for the given algorithm, and especially
Adjacency-SIDs for the specific AII. When different FA planes share
the same link resouce, Adjacency-SID per AII (according to
[I-D.peng-teas-network-slicing]) can distinguish the flow of
different slices well and provide different treatment.
The following figure shows an example of Flex-algo enhancement with
AII.
[S1]--------[D]--------[S2]
| | |
| | |
| | |
[A]---------[B]--------[C]
Figure 1: Flex-algo Enhancement with AII
Shaofu, et al. Expires May 30, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IGP FA Opt Slicing November 2019
Suppose that node S1, A, B, D and their inter-connected links belongs
to FA-id 128 plane as well as AII-1, and S2, B, C, D and their inter-
connected links belongs to FA-id 129 plane as well as AII-2. The IGP
metric of link B-D is 100, and all other links have IGP metric 1. In
FA-id 128 plane, from S1 to destination D, the primary path is S1-D,
and the TI-LFA backup path is segment list {node(B), adjacency(B-D)}.
Similarly, In FA-id 129 plane, from S2 to destination D, the primary
path is S2-D, and the TI-LFA backup path is segment list {node(B),
adjacency(B-D)}. With the help of AII parameter contained in the FAD,
the above TI-LFA path of FA-id 128 plane will be translated to {node-
SID(B)@FA-id128, adjacency-SID(B-D)@AII-1}, and TI-LFA path of FA-id
129 plane will be translate to {node-SID(B)@FA-id129, adjacency-
SID(B-D)@AII-2}. So that node B can distinguish the flow of FA-id 128
and FA-id 129 with different treatment (e.g., QoS) and send to the
same outgoing link B-D.
For inter-domain case, different domain can config different FA-id
independently, but they can contain the same AII to construct an E2E
slice-based SR policy. IGP flex-algo is responsible for creating
constraint based paths within the domain according to FAD including
AII parameter, and BGP-LU or SDN controller is responsible for
selecting inter-domain links according to color template including
AII parameter. AII is easy to address the requirement of E2E Slicing
view.
6. AII of FAD Sub-TLV
6.1. ISIS AII of FAD Sub-TLV
ISIS AII of FAD Sub-TLV is used to advertise the AII information that
is used during the Flex-Algorithm path calculation. It is a Sub-TLV
of the ISIS FAD Sub-TLV. It has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: ISIS AII of FAD Sub-TLV format
where:
Type: TBD1.
Shaofu, et al. Expires May 30, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IGP FA Opt Slicing November 2019
Length: 4 octets.
AII: Administrative Instance Identifier as defined in
[I-D.peng-teas-network-slicing].
ISIS AII of FAD Sub-TLV MAY NOT appear more then once in an ISIS FAD
Sub-TLV. If it appears more then once, the ISIS FAD Sub-TLV MUST be
ignored by the receiver.
6.2. OSPF AII of FAD Sub-TLV
OSPF AII of FAD Sub-TLV is used to advertise the AII information that
is used during the Flex-Algorithm path calculation. It is a Sub-TLV
of the OSPF FAD TLV. It has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: OSPF AII of FAD Sub-TLV format
where:
Type: TBD2.
Length: 4 octets.
AII: Administrative Instance Identifier as defined in
[I-D.peng-teas-network-slicing].
OSPF AII of FAD Sub-TLV MAY NOT appear more then once in an OSPF FAD
TLV. If it appears more then once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored
by the receiver.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. ISIS IANA Considerations
This document defines the following Sub-Sub-TLVs in the "Sub-Sub-TLVs
for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV" registry:
Type: TBD1
Shaofu, et al. Expires May 30, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IGP FA Opt Slicing November 2019
Description: Administrative Instance Identifier
Reference: This document (Section 6.1)
7.2. OSPF IANA Considerations
This document registers following Sub-TLVs in the "TLVs for Flexible
Algorithm Definition TLV" registry:
Type: TBD2
Description: Administrative Instance Identifier
Reference: This document (Section 6.2)
8. Security Considerations
This specification inherits all security considerations of
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].
9. Acknowledgements
TBD
10. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
algo-05 (work in progress), November 2019.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-05 (work in progress),
November 2019.
[I-D.peng-teas-network-slicing]
Peng, S., Chen, R., Mirsky, G., and F. Qin, "Packet
Network Slicing using Segment Routing", draft-peng-teas-
network-slicing-01 (work in progress), November 2019.
[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>.
Shaofu, et al. Expires May 30, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IGP FA Opt Slicing November 2019
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Authors' Addresses
Peng Shaofu
ZTE Corporation
No.68 Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing
China
Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Chen Ran
ZTE Corporation
No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing
China
Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Shaofu, et al. Expires May 30, 2020 [Page 8]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/