< draft-dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-01.txt   draft-dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-02.txt >
Inter-Domain Routing G. Dawra, Ed. Inter-Domain Routing G. Dawra, Ed.
Internet-Draft LinkedIn Internet-Draft LinkedIn
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: July 20, 2019 Cisco Systems Expires: January 9, 2020 Cisco Systems
D. Bernier D. Bernier
Bell Canada Bell Canada
J. Uttaro J. Uttaro
AT&T AT&T
B. Decraene B. Decraene
Orange Orange
H. Elmalky H. Elmalky
Ericsson Ericsson
X. Xu X. Xu
Alibaba Alibaba
F. Clad F. Clad
K. Talaulikar K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
January 16, 2019 July 8, 2019
BGP-LS Advertisement of Segment Routing Service Segments BGP-LS Advertisement of Segment Routing Service Segments
draft-dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-01 draft-dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-02
Abstract Abstract
BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) enables distribution of topology information BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) enables distribution of topology information
from the network to a Path Computation Engine (PCE) or any from the network to a Path Computation Engine (PCE) or any
controller/application in general so it can learn the network controller/application in general so it can learn the network
topology. Service functions are deployed as virtualized elements topology. Service functions are deployed as virtualized elements
along with network elements or on servers in data centers. The along with network elements or on servers in data centers. The
advertisement of such attached service capabilities along with the advertisement of such attached service capabilities along with the
network nodes that they are attached to or associated with enable network nodes that they are attached to or associated with enable
their discovery and for programming of service paths that use these their discovery and for programming of service paths that use these
service functions. Segment Routing (SR) bring in the concept of service functions. Segment Routing (SR) bring in the concept of
segments which can be topological or service instructions. SR segments which can be topological or service instructions. SR
Policies enable setup of paths which are a mix of topological and Policies enable setup of paths which are a mix of topological and
service segments. service segments.
This document specifies the extensions to BGP-LS for discovery and This document specifies the extensions to BGP-LS for discovery and
advertisement of service segments so as to enable setup of service advertisement of service segments so as to enable setup of service
programming paths using Segment Routing. programming paths using Segment Routing.
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.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 20, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 49 skipping to change at page 3, line 8
4.2. Segment routing function Identifier(SFI) . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Segment routing function Identifier(SFI) . . . . . . . . 8
5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Segments are introduced in the SR architecture Segments are introduced in the SR architecture
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. Segment Routing based Service [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. Segment Routing based Service
chaining is well described in Section 6 of chaining is well described in Section 6 of
[I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming] document with an example [I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming] document with an example
network and services. network and services.
This document extend the example to add a Segment Routing Controller This document extend the example to add a Segment Routing Controller
(SR-C) to the network, for the purpose of service discovery and SR (SR-C) to the network, for the purpose of service discovery and SR
policy instantiation. policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] instantiation.
Consider the network represented in Figure 1 below where: Consider the network represented in Figure 1 below where:
o A and B are two end hosts using IPv4. o A and B are two end hosts using IPv4.
o S1 is an SR-aware firewall Service. o S1 is an SR-aware firewall Service.
o S2 is an SR-unaware DPI Service. o S2 is an SR-unaware DPI Service.
SR-C --3-- SR-C --3--
skipping to change at page 4, line 12 skipping to change at page 4, line 18
are outside of scope of this document. There are no extensions are outside of scope of this document. There are no extensions
required in SR-TE Policy SAFI. required in SR-TE Policy SAFI.
2. BGP-LS Extensions for Service Chaining 2. BGP-LS Extensions for Service Chaining
For an attached service, following data needs to be shared with SR-C: For an attached service, following data needs to be shared with SR-C:
o Service SID value (e.g. MPLS label or IPv6 address). Service SID o Service SID value (e.g. MPLS label or IPv6 address). Service SID
MAY only be encoded as LOC:FUNCT, where LOC is the L most MAY only be encoded as LOC:FUNCT, where LOC is the L most
significant bits and FUNCT is the 128-L least significant significant bits and FUNCT is the 128-L least significant
bits[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. ARGs bits, if bits[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]. ARGs bits, if
any, MAY be set to 0 in the advertised service SID. any, MAY be set to 0 in the advertised service SID.
o Function Identifier (Static Proxy, Dynamic Proxy, Shared Memory o Function Identifier (Static Proxy, Dynamic Proxy, Shared Memory
Proxy, Masquerading Proxy, SR Aware Service etc). Proxy, Masquerading Proxy, SR Aware Service etc).
o Service Type (DPI, Firewall, Classifier, LB etc). o Service Type (DPI, Firewall, Classifier, LB etc).
o Traffic Type (IPv4 OR IPv6 OR Ethernet) o Traffic Type (IPv4 OR IPv6 OR Ethernet)
o Opaque Data (Such as brand and version, other extra information) o Opaque Data (Such as brand and version, other extra information)
[I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming]defines SR-aware and SR- [I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming] defines SR-aware and SR-
unaware services. This document will reuse these definitions. Per unaware services. This document will reuse these definitions. Per
[RFC7752] Node Attributes are ONLY associated with the Node NLRI. [RFC7752] Node Attributes are ONLY associated with the Node NLRI.
All non-VPN information SHALL be encoded using AFI 16388 / SAFI 71. All non-VPN information SHALL be encoded using AFI 16388 / SAFI 71.
VPN information SHALL be encoded using AFI 16388 / SAFI 72 with VPN information SHALL be encoded using AFI 16388 / SAFI 72 with
associated RTs. associated RTs.
This document extends SRv6 Node SID TLV This document introduces new TLVs for the SRv6 SID NLRI
[I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] and SR-MPLS SID/Label TLV [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] and SR-MPLS SID/Label TLV
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] to associate the Service [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] to associate the Service
SID Value with Service-related Information using Service Chaining(SC) SID Value with Service-related Information using Service Chaining(SC)
Sub-TLV. Sub-TLV.
Function Sub-TLV [I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] of Node SID TLV SRv6 SID Information TLV [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] encodes
encodes Identifier(Function ID) along with associated Function Flags. behavior along with associated SID Flags.
A Service Chaining (SC) Sub-TLV in Figure 2 is defined as: A Service Chaining (SC) TLV in Figure 2 is defined as:
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Type (2 octet) | | Type (2 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Length (2 octet) | | Length (2 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Service Type(ST) (2 octet | | Service Type(ST) (2 octet |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) | | Flags (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Traffic Type(1 octet) | | Traffic Type(1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| RESERVED (2 octet) | | RESERVED (2 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Service Chaining(SC) Sub-TLV Figure 2: Service Chaining (SC) TLV
Where: Where:
Type: 16 bit field. TBD Type: 16 bit field. TBD
Length: 16 bit field. The total length of the value portion of Length: 16 bit field. The total length of the value portion of
the TLV. the TLV.
Service Type(ST): 16bit field. Service Type: categorizes the Service Type(ST): 16bit field. Service Type: categorizes the
Service: (such as "Firewall", "Classifier" etc). Service: (such as "Firewall", "Classifier" etc).
skipping to change at page 5, line 46 skipping to change at page 5, line 46
Bit 0(LSB): Set to 1 if Service is IPv4 Capable Bit 0(LSB): Set to 1 if Service is IPv4 Capable
Bit 1: Set to 1 if Service is IPv6 Capable Bit 1: Set to 1 if Service is IPv6 Capable
Bit 2: Set to 1 if Service is Ethernet Capable Bit 2: Set to 1 if Service is Ethernet Capable
RESERVED: 16bit field. SHOULD be 0 on transmission and MUST be RESERVED: 16bit field. SHOULD be 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on reception. ignored on reception.
Service Type(ST) MUST be encoded as part of SC Sub-TLV. Service Type(ST) MUST be encoded as part of SC TLV.
There may be multiple instances of similar Services that needs to be There may be multiple instances of similar Services that needs to be
distinguished. For example, firewalls made by different vendors A distinguished. For example, firewalls made by different vendors A
and B may need to be identified differently because, while they have and B may need to be identified differently because, while they have
similar functionality, their behavior is not identical. similar functionality, their behavior is not identical.
In order for SDN Controller to identify the categories of Services In order for SDN Controller to identify the categories of Services
and their associated SIDs, this section defines the BGP-LS extensions and their associated SIDs, this section defines the BGP-LS extensions
required to encode these characteristics and other relevant required to encode these characteristics and other relevant
information about these Services. information about these Services.
Another Optional Opaque Metadata(OM) Sub-TLV of Node SID TLV may Another Optional Opaque Metadata(OM) TLV of SRv6 SID NLRI may encode
encode vendor specific information. Multiple of OM Sub-TLVs may be vendor specific information. Multiple of OM TLVs may be encoded.
encoded.
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Type (2 octet) | | Type (2 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Length (2 octet) | | Length (2 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Opaque Type (2 octet) | | Opaque Type (2 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) | | Flags (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Value (variable) | | Value (variable) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Opaque Metadata(OM) Sub-TLV Figure 3: Opaque Metadata(OM) TLV
o Type: 16 bit field. TBD. o Type: 16 bit field. TBD.
o Length: 16 bit field. The total length of the value portion of o Length: 16 bit field. The total length of the value portion of
the TLV. the TLV.
o Opaque Type: 8-bit field. Only publishers and consumers of the o Opaque Type: 8-bit field. Only publishers and consumers of the
opaque data are supposed to understand the data. opaque data are supposed to understand the data.
o Flags: 8 bit field. Bits SHOULD be 0 on transmission and MUST be o Flags: 8 bit field. Bits SHOULD be 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on reception. ignored on reception.
o Value: Variable Length. Based on the data being encoded and o Value: Variable Length. Based on the data being encoded and
length is recorded in length field. length is recorded in length field.
Opaque Metadata(OM) Sub-TLV defined in Figure 3 may encode propriety Opaque Metadata(OM) TLV defined in Figure 3 may encode propriety or
or Service Opaque information such as: Service Opaque information such as:
o Vendor specific Service Information. o Vendor specific Service Information.
o Traffic Limiting Information to particular Service Type. o Traffic Limiting Information to particular Service Type.
o Opaque Information unique to the Service o Opaque Information unique to the Service
o Propriety Enterprise Service specific Information. o Propriety Enterprise Service specific Information.
3. Illustration 3. Illustration
In our SRv6 example above Figure 1 , Node 5 is configured with an In our SRv6 example above Figure 1 , Node 5 is configured with an
SRv6 dynamic proxy segments (End.AD) C5::AD:F2 for S2. SRv6 dynamic proxy segments (End.AD) C5::AD:F2 for S2.
The BGP-LS advertisement MUST contain and Node SID TLV: The BGP-LS advertisement MUST include SRv6 SID NLRI with SRv6 SID
Information TLV in the BGP-LS Attribute:
o Service SID: C5::AD:F2 SID o Service SID: C5::AD:F2 SID
o Function ID: END.AD o Endpoint Behavior: END.AD
The BGP-LS advertisement MUST contain a SC Sub-TLV with: The BGP-LS Attribute MUST contain a SC TLV with:
o Service Type: Deep Packet Inspection(DPI) o Service Type: Deep Packet Inspection(DPI)
o Traffic Type: IPv4 Capable. o Traffic Type: IPv4 Capable.
The BGP-LS advertisement MAY contain a OM Sub-TLV with: The BGP-LS Attribute MAY contain a OM TLV with:
o Opaque Type: Cisco DPI Version o Opaque Type: Cisco DPI Version
o Value: 3.5 o Value: 3.5
In our example in Figure 1, using BGP SR-TE SAFI Update In our example in Figure 1, using BGP SR-TE SAFI Update
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], SR Controller computes the [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], SR Controller computes the
candidate path and pushes the Policy. candidate path and pushes the Policy.
SRv6 encapsulation policy < CF1::, C3::, C5::AD:F2, C6::D4:B > is SRv6 encapsulation policy < CF1::, C3::, C5::AD:F2, C6::D4:B > is
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP- This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP-
LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
TLVs". TLVs".
4.1. Service Type Table 4.1. Service Type Table
IANA is request to create a new top-level registry called "Service IANA is request to create a new top-level registry called "Service
Type Table (STT)". Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535. Values Type Table (STT)". Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535. Values
0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be allocated". 0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be allocated".
+--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ +------------+-----------------------+------------+-------------+
| Service | Service | Reference | Date | | Service | Service | Reference | Date |
| Value(TBD) | | | | | Value(TBD) | | | |
+--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ +------------+-----------------------+------------+-------------+
| 32 | Classifier | ref-to-set | date-to-set | | 32 | Classifier | ref-to-set | date-to-set |
+--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ +------------+-----------------------+------------+-------------+
| 33 | Firewall | ref-to-set | date-to-set | | 33 | Firewall | ref-to-set | date-to-set |
+--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ +------------+-----------------------+------------+-------------+
| 34 | Load Balancer | ref-to-set | date-to-set | | 34 | Load Balancer | ref-to-set | date-to-set |
+--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ +------------+-----------------------+------------+-------------+
| 35 | DPI | ref-to-set | date-to-set | | 35 | DPI | ref-to-set | date-to-set |
+--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ +------------+-----------------------+------------+-------------+
Figure 4 Figure 4
4.2. Segment routing function Identifier(SFI) 4.2. Segment routing function Identifier(SFI)
IANA is request to extend a top-level registry called "Segment IANA is request to extend a top-level registry called "Segment
Routing Function Identifier(SFI)" with new code points. This Routing Function Identifier(SFI)" with new code points. This
document extends the SFI values defined in document extends the SFI values defined in
[I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]. Details about the Service functions [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]. Details about the Service functions
are defined in[I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming]. are defined in[I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming].
+--------------------------+---------------------------+ +--------------------------+---------------------------+
| Function | Function Identifier | | Function | Function Identifier |
| | | | | |
+--------------------------+---------------------------+ +--------------------------+---------------------------+
| Static Proxy | 8 | | Static Proxy | 8 |
+--------------------------+---------------------------+ +--------------------------+---------------------------+
| Dynamic Proxy | 9 | | Dynamic Proxy | 9 |
+--------------------------+---------------------------+ +--------------------------+---------------------------+
skipping to change at page 9, line 13 skipping to change at page 9, line 13
6. Operational Considerations 6. Operational Considerations
6.1. Operations 6.1. Operations
Existing BGP and BGP-LS operational procedures apply. No additional Existing BGP and BGP-LS operational procedures apply. No additional
operation procedures are defined in this document. operation procedures are defined in this document.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations' affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations'
section of [RFC4271]for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer
to[RFC4272]and[RFC6952]for analysis of security issues for BGP. to[RFC4272] and[RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.
8. Conclusions 8. Conclusions
This document proposes extensions to the BGP-LS to allow discovery of This document proposes extensions to the BGP-LS to allow discovery of
Services using Segment Routing. Services using Segment Routing.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Krishnaswamy Ananthamurthy for his The authors would like to thank Krishnaswamy Ananthamurthy for his
review of this document. review of this document.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
(work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M., Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M.,
daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Uttaro, J., Decraene, B., and daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link
H. Elmalky, "BGP Link State extensions for IPv6 Segment State Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
Routing(SRv6)", draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04 (work in srv6-ext-01 (work in progress), July 2019.
progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J.,
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6
Network Programming", draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-
programming-01 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming] [I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming]
Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., daniel.bernier@bell.ca,
d., Li, C., Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C., d., Li, C., Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C.,
Henderickx, W., and S. Salsano, "Service Programming with Henderickx, W., and S. Salsano, "Service Programming with
Segment Routing", draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service- Segment Routing", draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-
programming-01 (work in progress), October 2018. programming-02 (work in progress), April 2019.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
10.2. Informative References [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
[I-D.dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn] May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
(Unknown), (., Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Dukes, D.,
Brissette, P., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J.,
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d.,
Steinberg, D., Raszuk, R., Decraene, B., and S.
Matsushima, "BGP Signaling of IPv6-Segment-Routing-based
VPN Networks", draft-dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn-00 (work in
progress), March 2017.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J.,
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6
Network Programming", draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-
programming-06 (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and
d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-15 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement]
Rabadan, J., Henderickx, W., Drake, J., Lin, W., and A.
Sajassi, "IP Prefix Advertisement in EVPN", draft-ietf-
bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11 (work in progress), May
2018.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-11
(work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid] 10.2. Informative References
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A.,
and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for
BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress),
June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Jain, D., Mattes, P., Rosen, Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Mattes, P., Rosen, E., Jain,
E., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in
BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05 (work in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-07 (work in
progress), November 2018. progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for
Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
extensions-22 (work in progress), December 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing
Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
policy-02 (work in progress), October 2018. policy-03 (work in progress), May 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>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur, [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4659>.
[RFC5549] Le Faucheur, F. and E. Rosen, "Advertising IPv4 Network [RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop", Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
RFC 5549, DOI 10.17487/RFC5549, May 2009, RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5549>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Gaurav Dawra (editor) Gaurav Dawra (editor)
LinkedIn LinkedIn
USA USA
Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
133 lines changed or deleted 97 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/