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

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                         X. Xu, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track                               R. Raszuk
Expires: April 15, 2017                                     Bloomberg LP
                                                             U. Chunduri

                                                            L. Contreras
                                                          Telefonica I+D
                                                                L. Jalil
                                                                 Verizon
                                                        October 12, 2016


            Connecting MPLS-SPRING Islands over IP Networks
           draft-xu-mpls-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-00

Abstract

   MPLS-SPRING is an MPLS-based source routing paradigm in which a
   sender of a packet is allowed to partially or completely specify the
   route the packet takes through the network by imposing stacked MPLS
   labels to the packet.  To facilitate the incremental deployment of
   this new technology, this document describes a mechanism which allows
   the outermost LSP be replaced by an IP-based tunnel.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Xu, et al.               Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2016


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Packet Forwarding Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   MPLS-SPRING [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] is a MPLS-based
   source routing paradigm in which a sender of a packet is allowed to
   partially or completely specify the route the packet takes through
   the network by imposing stacked MPLS labels to the packet.  To
   facilitate the incremental deployment of this new technology, this
   document describes a mechanism which allows the outermost LSP to be
   replaced by an IP-based tunnel (e.g., MPLS-in-IP/GRE tunnel
   [RFC4023], MPLS-in-UDP tunnel [RFC7510] or MPLS-in-L2TPv3 tunnel
   [RFC4817] and etc) when the nexthop along the LSP is not MPLS-SPRING-
   enabled.  The tunnel destination address would be the address of the
   egress of the outmost LSP (e.g., the egress of the active node
   segment).

   This mechanism is much useful in the MPLS-SPRING-based Service
   Function Chainning (SFC) case [I-D.xu-sfc-using-mpls-spring] where
   only a few specific routers (e.g., Service Function Forwarders (SFF)
   and classifiers) are required to be MPLS-SPRING-capable while the
   remaining routers are just required to support IP forwarding
   capability.  In addition, this mechanism is also useful in some
   specific Traffic Engineering scenarios where only a few routers
   (e.g., the entry and exit nodes of each plane in the dual-plane
   network ) are specified as segments of explicit paths.  In this way,



Xu, et al.               Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2016


   only a few routers are required to support the MPLS-SPRING capability
   while all the other routers just need to support IP forwarding
   capability, which would significantly reduce the deployment cost of
   this new technology.  Furthermore, since there is no need to run any
   other label distribution protocol (e.g., LDP), the network
   provisioning is greatly simplified, which is one of the major claimed
   benefits of the MPLS-SPRING technology.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Terminology

   This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC3031] and
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls].

3.  Packet Forwarding Procedures

   Assume an MPLS-SPRING-enabled router X prepares to forward an MPLS
   packet to the next node segment (i.e., the node segment of MPLS-
   SPRING- enabled router Y) which is identified by the top label of the
   MPLS packet.  If the next-hop router of the best path to Y is a non-
   MPLS router, X couldn't map the packet's top label into an Next Hop
   Label Forwarding Entry (NHLFE) , even though the top label itself is
   a valid incoming label.  Acorrding to the following specification as
   quoted from Section 3.22 of [RFC3031], the MPLS packet would be
   discarded in the currenet MPLS implementations:

      "When a labeled packet is traveling along an LSP, it may
      occasionally happen that it reaches an LSR at which the ILM does
      not map the packet's incoming label into an NHLFE, even though the
      incoming label is itself valid...Unless it can be determined
      (through some means outside the scope of this document) that
      neither of these situations obtains, the only safe procedure is to
      discard the packet. "

   This document proposes an improved procedure to deal with the above
   case.  The basic idea is to set an IP tunnel towards the egress of
   topmost LSP as the NHLFE of that incoming label.  More specifically,
   if the label is not a Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) label (i.e., the
   NP-flag [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] associated with
   the corresponding prefix SID of that top label is set), X SHOULD swap
   the label to the corresponding label significant to Y and then
   encapsulate the MPLS packet into the IP-based tunnel towards Y.  The
   tunnel destination address is the IP address of Y (e.g., the /32 or



Xu, et al.               Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2016


   /128 prefix FEC associated with that top label) and the tunnel source
   address is the IP address of X.  If the label is a PHP label and not
   at the bottom of the label stack, X SHOULD pop that label before
   performing the above MPLS over IP encapsulation.  The IP encapsulated
   MPLS packet would be forwarded according to the IP routing table.
   Upon receipt of that IP encapsulated MPLS packet, Y would decapsulate
   it and then process the decapsulated MPLS packet accordingly.  As for
   which tunnel encapsulation type should be used by X, it can be
   manually specified on X or be learnt from Y's advertisement of its
   tunnel encapsulation capability.  How to advertise the tunnel
   encapsulation capability using IS-IS or OSPF are specified in
   [I-D.xu-isis-encapsulation-cap] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap]
   respectively.

4.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks Joel Halpern, Bruno Decraene and Loa Andersson for their
   insightful comments on this draft.

5.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA action is required.

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

7.  References

7.1.  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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
              Previdi, S., 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-07 (work in progress), June 2016.








Xu, et al.               Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2016


   [I-D.ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap]
              Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras,
              L., and L. Jalil, "Advertising Tunnelling Capability in
              OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00 (work in
              progress), October 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R.,
              jefftant@gmail.com, j., and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing
              with MPLS data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
              mpls-05 (work in progress), July 2016.

   [I-D.xu-isis-encapsulation-cap]
              Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras,
              L., and L. Jalil, "Advertising Tunnelling Capability in
              IS-IS", draft-xu-isis-encapsulation-cap-06 (work in
              progress), November 2015.

   [I-D.xu-sfc-using-mpls-spring]
              Xu, X., Shah, H., Contreras, L., and d.
              daniel.bernier@bell.ca, "Service Function Chaining Using
              MPLS-SPRING", draft-xu-sfc-using-mpls-spring-06 (work in
              progress), July 2016.

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

   [RFC4023]  Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, Ed.,
              "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation
              (GRE)", RFC 4023, DOI 10.17487/RFC4023, March 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4023>.

   [RFC4817]  Townsley, M., Pignataro, C., Wainner, S., Seely, T., and
              J. Young, "Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 Tunneling
              Protocol Version 3", RFC 4817, DOI 10.17487/RFC4817, March
              2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4817>.

   [RFC7510]  Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
              "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.







Xu, et al.               Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2016


Authors' Addresses

   Xiaohu Xu (editor)
   Huawei

   Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com


   Robert Raszuk
   Bloomberg LP

   Email: robert@raszuk.net


   Uma Chunduri

   Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com


   Luis M. Contreras
   Telefonica I+D

   Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com


   Luay Jalil
   Verizon

   Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com






















Xu, et al.               Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/