< draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-00.txt   draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-01.txt >
Network G. Mirsky Network G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track P. Shaofu Intended status: Standards Track P. Shaofu
Expires: August 30, 2018 ZTE Corporation Expires: April 13, 2019 ZTE Corporation
February 26, 2018 October 10, 2018
Unified Identifier in IPv6 Segment Routing Networks Unified Identifier in IPv6 Segment Routing Networks
draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-00 draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-01
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing architecture leverages the paradigm of source Segment Routing architecture leverages the paradigm of source
routing. It can be realized in a network data plane by prepending routing. It can be realized in a network data plane by prepending
the packet with a list of instructions, a.k.a. segments. A segment the packet with a list of instructions, a.k.a. segments. A segment
can be encoded as an Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) label, can be encoded as a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) label, IPv4
IPv4 address or IPv6 address. Segment Routing can be applied in MPLS address or IPv6 address. Segment Routing can be applied in MPLS data
data plane by encoding segments in MPLS label stack. It also can be plane by encoding segments in MPLS label stack. It also can be
applied to IPv6 data plane by encoding list of segment identifiers in applied to IPv6 data plane by encoding list of segment identifiers in
IPv6 Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH). This document extends IPv6 Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH). This document extends
the use of the SRH to segment identifiers encoded as MPLS label and the use of the SRH to segment identifiers encoded as MPLS label and
IPv4 address. IPv4 address.
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 August 30, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Egress SR Tunnel Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Egress SR Tunnel Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Segment Routing architecture [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] Segment Routing architecture [RFC8402] leverages the paradigm of
leverages the paradigm of source routing. It can be realized in a source routing. It can be realized in a network data plane by
network data plane by prepending the packet with a list of prepending the packet with a list of instructions, a.k.a. segment
instructions, a.k.a. segment identifiers (SIDs). A segment can be identifiers (SIDs). A segment can be encoded as a Multi-Protocol
encoded as an Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) label, IPv4 Label Switching (MPLS) label, IPv4 address or IPv6 address. Segment
address or IPv6 address. Segment Routing can be applied in MPLS data Routing can be applied in MPLS data plane by encoding 20-bits SIDs in
plane by encoding 20-bits SIDs in MPLS label stack MPLS label stack [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]. It also can
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]. It also can be applied to be applied to IPv6 data plane by encoding list of 128-bits SIDs in
IPv6 data plane by encoding list of 128-bits SIDs in IPv6 Segment IPv6 Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH)
Routing Extension Header (SRH) [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. Applicability of 32-bits SID
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. Applicability of 32-bits that may represent an IPv4 address has not been defined.
SID, that may represent IPv4 address, has not been defined.
SR extensions to Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP), IS-IS SR extensions to Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP), IS-IS
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], OSPF [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], OSPF
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], and OSPFv3 [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], and OSPFv3
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions], defined how [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions], defined how
20-bits and 32-bits SIDs advertised and bound to SR objects and/or 20-bits and 32-bits SIDs advertised and bound to SR objects and/or
instructions. Extensions to BGP link-state address family instructions. Extensions to BGP link-state address family
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] enabled propagation of [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] enabled propagation of
segment information of variable length via BGP. segment information of variable length via BGP.
skipping to change at page 3, line 49 skipping to change at page 3, line 49
2. Segment Routing Extension Header: Benefits and Challenges 2. Segment Routing Extension Header: Benefits and Challenges
Many functions related to Operation, Administration and Maintenance Many functions related to Operation, Administration and Maintenance
(OAM) require identification of the SR tunnel ingress and the path, (OAM) require identification of the SR tunnel ingress and the path,
constructed by segments, between the ingress and the egress SR nodes. constructed by segments, between the ingress and the egress SR nodes.
Combination of IPv6 encapsulation [RFC8200] and SRH Combination of IPv6 encapsulation [RFC8200] and SRH
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header], referred to as SRv6, comply [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header], referred to as SRv6, comply
with this requirements while it is challenging when applying SR in with this requirements while it is challenging when applying SR in
MPLS networks, also referred to as MPLS-SR. MPLS networks, also referred to as MPLS-SR.
On the other hand, size of IPv6 SID presents scaling challenge to use On the other hand, the size of IPv6 SID presents a scaling challenge
topological instructions that define strict explicit traffic to use topological instructions that define strict explicit traffic
engineered (TE) path in combination with service-based instructions. engineered (TE) path in combination with service-based instructions.
At the same time, that is where MPLS-SR approach provides better At the same time, that is where MPLS-SR approach provides better
results due to smaller SID length. results due to smaller SID length.
[I-D.bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr] addresses the scaling challenge by [I-D.bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr] addresses the scaling challenge by
using more compact SID encoding of MPLS-SR. Ability to address OAM using more compact SID encoding of MPLS-SR. Ability to address OAM
challenge characteristic to MPLS-SR is open for investigation. challenge characteristic to MPLS-SR is open for investigation.
3. Support of Multiple SID Lengths in IPv6 Segment Routing Extension 3. Support of Multiple SID Lengths in IPv6 Segment Routing Extension
skipping to change at page 4, line 49 skipping to change at page 4, line 49
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// // // //
// Optional Type Length Value objects (variable) // // Optional Type Length Value objects (variable) //
// // // //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: SRH format Figure 1: SRH format
This document defines the new field Size in the Flags field, This document defines the new field Size in the Flags field,
presented in Figure 2, as two-bits field with the following values: presented in Figure 2, as a two-bits field with the following values:
0b00 - 128-bits SID; 0b00 - 128-bits SID;
0b01 - 20-bits SID; 0b01 - 20-bits SID;
0b10 - 32-bits SID 0b10 - 32-bits SID
0b11 - reserved for future use. 0b11 - reserved for future use.
When the value of the S field is 0b01, the 20-bit SID is encoded in When the value of the S field is 0b01, the 20-bit SID is encoded in
four octets and occupies the 20 rightmost bits. four octets and occupies the 20 rightmost bits.
skipping to change at page 5, line 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
4.1. Egress SR Tunnel Node 4.1. Egress SR Tunnel Node
TBD TBD
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
TBD TBD
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This specification inherits all security considerations of This specification inherits all security considerations of [RFC8402]
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] and and [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
TBD TBD
8. Normative References 8. Normative References
[I-D.bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr] [I-D.bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr]
Bryant, S., Farrel, A., Drake, J., and J. Tantsura, "MPLS Bryant, S., Farrel, A., Drake, J., and J. Tantsura, "MPLS
Segment Routing in IP Networks", draft-bryant-mpls- Segment Routing in IP Networks", draft-bryant-mpls-
unified-ip-sr-03 (work in progress), October 2017. unified-ip-sr-03 (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., Dukes, D., Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and
Field, B., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., Leung, I., (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-14 (work in
Linkova, J., Aries, E., Kosugi, T., Vyncke, E., Lebrun, progress), June 2018.
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-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-08
(work in progress), January 2018. (work in progress), May 2018.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis- "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-15 (work in progress), December segment-routing-extensions-19 (work in progress), July
2017. 2018.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3 Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
segment-routing-extensions-11 (work in progress), January segment-routing-extensions-15 (work in progress), August
2018. 2018.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-24 (work in progress), December 2017. routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 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-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-12 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14
(work in progress), February 2018. (work in progress), June 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[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 Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Peng Shaofu Peng Shaofu
ZTE Corporation ZTE Corporation
No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
46 lines changed or deleted 40 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/