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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 draft-xu-mpls-sr-over-ip

Network Working Group                                         X. Xu, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                            S. Bryant, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: December 15, 2017                                     R. Raszuk
                                                            Bloomberg LP
                                                             U. Chunduri
                                                                  Huawei
                                                            L. Contreras
                                                          Telefonica I+D
                                                                L. Jalil
                                                                 Verizon
                                                            H. Assarpour
                                                                Broadcom
                                                               V. Gunter
                                                                   Nokia
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                              Individual
                                                                   S. Ma
                                                                 Juniper
                                                           June 13, 2017


       Unified Source Routing Instruction using MPLS Label Stack
          draft-xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction-01

Abstract

   MPLS-SPRING is an MPLS data plane-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.  MPLS-SPRING could be leveraged to
   realize a unified source routing mechanism across MPLS, IPv4 and IPv6
   data planes by using a unified source routing instruction set while
   preserving backward compatibility with MPLS-SPRING.

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




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


Internet-Draft                                                 June 2017


   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 December 15, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Packet Forwarding Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   MPLS-SPRING [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] is an MPLS data
   plane-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.
   MPLS-SPRING could be leveraged to realize a unified source routing
   mechanism across MPLS, IPv4 and IPv6 data planes by using a unified
   source routing instruction set while preserving backward
   compatibility with MPLS-SPRING.  More specifically, the source
   routing instruction set information contained in a source routed
   packet could be uniformly encoded as an MPLS label stack no matter
   the underlay is IPv4, IPv6 or MPLS.



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


Internet-Draft                                                 June 2017


   The traditional IPv4 and IPv6 source routing mechanisms by use of
   IPv4 Source Routing Options and IPv6 Route Header Type 0 Extension
   respectively have been deprecated due to their obvious security
   vulnerabilities.  IPv6 SPRING (a.k.a., SRv6)
   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] is a newly proposed IPv6
   source routing mechanism in which the source route instruction
   information is encoded as an ordered list of 128-bit long IPv6
   addresses and contained in the Source Routing Header (SRH).  Although
   it has overcome the security vulnerability issues associated with the
   traditional IPv6 source routing mechanism as claimed in
   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header], it still has the following
   obvious drawbacks which need to be addressed: 1) the encapsulation
   overhead is significant especially when the list of the explicit
   routing hops is very long; 2) for those transit IPv6 routers that
   don't support the flow label-based load-balancing mechanism yet, the
   ECMP load-balancing effect may be impacted seriously if they could
   not recognize the SRH and therefore could not obtain the five tuple
   of the source routed IPv6 packet; 3) it requires a totally new
   forwarding logic on basis of the SRH and the forwarding performance
   associated with the IPv6 SRH may still be a big concern for some
   hardware platforms.

   Section 3 describes various use cases for the unified source routing
   instruction mechanism and Section 4 describes a typical application
   scenario and how the packet forwarding happens.

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.  Use Cases

   The unified source routing mechanism across IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS is
   useful at least in the following use cases:

   o  Incremental deployment of the MPLS-SPRING technology.  Since there
      is no need to run any other label distribution protocol (e.g.,
      LDP, see [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] for more
      details.) on those non-MPLS-SPRING routers for incremental
      deployment purposes, the network provisioning is greatly
      simplified, which is one of the major claimed benefits of the



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


Internet-Draft                                                 June 2017


      MPLS-SPRING technology (i.e., running a single protocol).  In
      fact, this unified source routing mechanism is even useful in a
      fully upgraded MPLS-SPRING network since the headache associated
      with the MPLS-SPRING load-balancing as described in
      [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] can now be avoided by using
      the source port of the UDP tunnel header as an entropy field
      instead.

   o  A poor man's light-weight alternative to SRv6
      [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].  At least, it could be
      deployed as an interim until full featured SRv6 is available on
      more platforms.  Since the Source Routing Header (SRH)
      [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] consisting of an ordered
      list of 128-bit long IPv6 addresses is now replaced by an ordered
      list of 32-bit long label entries (i.e., label stack), the
      encapsulation overhead and forwarding performance issues
      associated with SRv6 are eliminated.

   o  A new IPv4 source routing mechanism which has overcome the
      security vulnerability issues associated with the traditional IPv4
      source routing mechanism.

   o  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, 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.

   o  MPLS-based Service Function Chaining (SFC)
      [I-D.xu-mpls-service-chaining].  Based on the unified source
      routing mechanism as described in this document, only SFC-related
      nodes including Service Function Forwarders (SFF), Service
      Functions (SF) and classifiers are required to recognize the SFC
      encapsulation header in the MPLS label stack form, while the
      intermediate routers just need to support vanilla IP forwarding
      (either IPv4 or IPv6).  In other words, it undoubtedly complies
      with the transport-independence requirement as listed in the SFC
      architecture document [RFC7665].

4.  Packet Forwarding Procedures









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


Internet-Draft                                                 June 2017


     +-----+       +-----+       +-----+        +-----+        +-----+
     |  A  +-------+  B  +-------+  C  +--------+  D  +--------+  H  |
     +-----+       +--+--+       +--+--+        +--+--+        +-----+
                      |             |              |
                      |             |              |
                   +--+--+       +--+--+        +--+--+
                   |  E  +-------+  F  +--------+  G  |
                   +-----+       +-----+        +-----+

          +--------+
          |IP(A->E)|
          +--------+                 +--------+
          |  L(G)  |                 |IP(E->G)|
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          |  L(H)  |                 |  L(H)  |        |IP(G->H)|
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          | Packet |     --->        | Packet |  --->  | Packet |
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
                             Figure 1

   As shown in Figure 1, Assume Router A, E, G and H are MPLS-SPRING-
   capable routers while the remaining are only capable of forwarding IP
   packets.  Router A, E, G and H advertise their Segment Routing
   related information via IS-IS or OSPF.  Now assume router A wants to
   send a given IP or MPLS packet via an explicit path of {E->G->H},
   router A would impose an MPLS label stack corresponding to that
   explicit path on the received IP packet.  Since there is no Label
   Switching Path (LSP) towards router E, router A would replace the top
   label indicating router E with an IP-based tunnel for MPLS (e.g.,
   MPLS-over-UDP [RFC7510] or MPLS-over-GRE [RFC4023]) towards router E
   and then send it out.  In other words, router A would pop the top
   label and then encapsulate the MPLS packet with an IP-based tunnel
   towards router E.  When the IP-encapsulated MPLS packet arrives at
   router E, router E would strip the IP-based tunnel header and then
   process the decapsulated MPLS packet accordingly.  Since there is no
   LSP towards router G which is indicated by the current top label of
   the decapsulated MPLS packet, router E would replace the current top
   label with an IP-based tunnel towards router G and send it out.  When
   the packet arrives at router G, router G would strip the IP-based
   tunnel header and then process the decapsulated MPLS packet.  Since
   there is no LSP towards router H, router G would replace the current
   top label with an IP-based tunnel towards router H.  Now the packet
   encapsulated with the IP-based tunnel towards router H is exactly the
   original packet that router A had intended to send towards router H.
   If the packet is an MPLS packet, router G could use any IP-based
   tunnel for MPLS (e.g., MPLS-over-UDP [RFC7510] or MPLS-over-GRE
   [RFC4023]).  If the packet is an IP packet, router G could use any IP
   tunnel for IP (e.g., IP-in-UDP [I-D.xu-intarea-ip-in-udp] or GRE



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


Internet-Draft                                                 June 2017


   [RFC2784]).  That original IP or MPLS packet would be forwarded
   towards router H via an IP-based tunnel.  When the encapsulated
   packet arrives at router H, router H would decapsulate it into the
   original packet and then process it accordingly.

   Note that in the above description, it's assumed that the label
   associated with each prefix-SID advertised by the owner of the
   prefix-SID is a Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) label (e.g., the NP-
   flag [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] associated with the
   corresponding prefix SID is not set).  Figure 2 demostrates the
   packet walk in the case where the label associated with each prefix-
   SID advertised by the owner of the prefix-SID is not a Penultimate
   Hop Popping (PHP) label (e.g., the NP-flag
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] associated with the
   corresponding prefix SID is set).  Although the above description is
   based on the use of prefix-SIDs, the unified source routing
   instruction approach is actually applicable to the use of adj-SIDs as
   well.  For instance, when the top label of a received MPLS packet
   indicates an given adj-SID and the corresponding adjacent node to
   that adj-SID is not MPLS-capable, the top label would be replaced by
   an IP-based tunnel towards that adjacent node and then forwarded over
   the correponding link indicated by that adj-SID.

     +-----+       +-----+       +-----+        +-----+        +-----+
     |  A  +-------+  B  +-------+  C  +--------+  D  +--------+  H  |
     +-----+       +--+--+       +--+--+        +--+--+        +-----+
                      |             |              |
                      |             |              |
                   +--+--+       +--+--+        +--+--+
                   |  E  +-------+  F  +--------+  G  |
                   +-----+       +-----+        +-----+

          +--------+
          |IP(A->E)|
          +--------+                 +--------+
          |  L(E)  |                 |IP(E->G)|
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          |  L(G)  |                 |  L(G)  |        |IP(G->H)|
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          |  L(H)  |                 |  L(H)  |        |  L(H)  |
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          | Packet |     --->        | Packet |  --->  | Packet |
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
                             Figure 2

   Note that as for which tunnel encapsulation type should be used, it
   could be manually specified on tunnel ingress routers or be learnt
   from the tunnel egress routers' advertisements of its tunnel



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


Internet-Draft                                                 June 2017


   encapsulation capability.  How to advertise the tunnel encapsulation
   capability using IS-IS or OSPF are specified in
   [I-D.ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap] and
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap] respectively.

5.  Acknowledgements

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

6.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA action is required.

7.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

8.  References

8.1.  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>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., 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-06 (work in progress), March 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap]
              Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras,
              L., and L. Jalil, "Advertising Tunnelling Capability in
              IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap-01 (work in
              progress), April 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]
              Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
              Shakir, R., and j. jefftant@gmail.com, "Entropy label for
              SPRING tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-06
              (work in progress), May 2017.



Xu, et al.              Expires December 15, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                                                 June 2017


   [I-D.ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap]
              Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Contreras, L., and L.
              Jalil, "Advertising Tunneling Capability in OSPF", draft-
              ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03 (work in progress), May
              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-16 (work in progress), May 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
              S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",
              draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-07 (work in
              progress), May 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-08
              (work in progress), March 2017.

   [I-D.xu-intarea-ip-in-udp]
              Xu, X., Lee, Y., and F. Yongbing, "Encapsulating IP in
              UDP", draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-04 (work in progress),
              December 2016.

   [I-D.xu-mpls-service-chaining]
              Xu, X., Bryant, S., Assarpour, H., Shah, H., Contreras,
              L., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., jefftant@gmail.com, j.,
              and S. Ma, "Service Chaining using an Unified Source
              Routing Instruction", draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining-02
              (work in progress), May 2017.

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.

   [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>.






Xu, et al.              Expires December 15, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                                                 June 2017


   [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>.

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

Authors' Addresses

   Xiaohu Xu (editor)
   Huawei

   Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com


   Stewart Bryant (editor)
   Huawei

   Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com


   Robert Raszuk
   Bloomberg LP

   Email: robert@raszuk.net


   Uma Chunduri
   Huawei

   Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com







Xu, et al.              Expires December 15, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                                                 June 2017


   Luis M. Contreras
   Telefonica I+D

   Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com


   Luay Jalil
   Verizon

   Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com


   Hamid Assarpour
   Broadcom

   Email: hamid.assarpour@broadcom.com


   Van De Velde, Gunter
   Nokia

   Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com


   Jeff Tantsura
   Individual

   Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com


   Shaowen Ma
   Juniper

   Email: mashao@juniper.net

















Xu, et al.              Expires December 15, 2017              [Page 10]


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