draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-07.txt   draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-08.txt 
Network Working Group S. Previdi, Ed. Network Working Group S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils Internet-Draft Individual
Intended status: Standards Track K. Raza Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: January 21, 2018 D. Dukes Expires: July 24, 2018 K. Raza
D. Dukes
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Leddy J. Leddy
B. Field B. Field
Comcast Comcast
D. Voyer D. Voyer
D. Bernier D. Bernier
Bell Canada Bell Canada
S. Matsushima S. Matsushima
Softbank Softbank
I. Leung I. Leung
skipping to change at page 1, line 32 skipping to change at page 1, line 33
T. Kosugi T. Kosugi
NTT NTT
E. Vyncke E. Vyncke
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Lebrun D. Lebrun
Universite Catholique de Louvain Universite Catholique de Louvain
D. Steinberg D. Steinberg
Steinberg Consulting Steinberg Consulting
R. Raszuk R. Raszuk
Bloomberg Bloomberg
July 20, 2017 January 20, 2018
IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH) IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-07 draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-08
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet through a Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet through a
controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending an SR controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending an SR
header to the packet. A segment can represent any instruction, header to the packet. A segment can represent any instruction,
topological or service-based. SR allows to enforce a flow through topological or service-based. SR allows to enforce a flow through
any path (topological, or application/service based) while any path (topological, or application/service based) while
maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node to the SR domain. maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node to the SR domain.
skipping to change at page 2, line 19 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 http://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 January 21, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 24, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Segment Routing Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Segment Routing Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Data Planes supporting Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Data Planes supporting Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. SRv6 Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. SRv6 Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Segment Routing (SR) Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Segment Routing (SR) Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1. SR Domain in a Service Provider Network . . . . . . . 6 2.3.1. SR Domain in a Service Provider Network . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2. SR Domain in a Overlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2. SR Domain in a Overlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH) . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH) . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. SRH TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. SRH TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.1. Ingress Node TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1.1. Ingress Node TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2. Egress Node TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.2. Egress Node TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.3. Opaque Container TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1.3. Opaque Container TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.4. Padding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1.4. Padding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.5. HMAC TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.1.5. HMAC TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.6. NSH Carrier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1.6. NSH Carrier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2. SRH and RFC2460 behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2. SRH and RFC2460 behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. SRH Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. SRH Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. Endpoint Function (End) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1. Endpoint Function (End) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. End.X: Endpoint with Layer-3 cross-connect . . . . . . . 17 4.2. End.X: Endpoint with Layer-3 cross-connect . . . . . . . 18
5. SR Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. SR Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. Source SR Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.1. Source SR Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Transit Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.2. Transit Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3. SR Segment Endpoint Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.3. SR Segment Endpoint Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1. Threat model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.1. Threat model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.1. Source routing threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.1.1. Source routing threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.2. Applicability of RFC 5095 to SRH . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.1.2. Applicability of RFC 5095 to SRH . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.3. Service stealing threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.1.3. Service stealing threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.1.4. Topology disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.1.4. Topology disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.1.5. ICMP Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.1.5. ICMP Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2. Security fields in SRH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.2. Security fields in SRH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2.1. Selecting a hash algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.2.1. Selecting a hash algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2.2. Performance impact of HMAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.2.2. Performance impact of HMAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.2.3. Pre-shared key management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.2.3. Pre-shared key management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.3. Deployment Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.3. Deployment Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3.1. Nodes within the SR domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.3.1. Nodes within the SR domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3.2. Nodes outside of the SR domain . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.3.2. Nodes outside of the SR domain . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3.3. SR path exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.3.3. SR path exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3.4. Impact of BCP-38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.3.4. Impact of BCP-38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.1. Segment Routing Header TLVs Register . . . . . . . . . . 28 7.1. Segment Routing Header TLVs Register . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Segment Routing Documents 1. Segment Routing Documents
Segment Routing terminology is defined in Segment Routing terminology is defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
The network programming paradigm The network programming paradigm
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] defines the basic [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] defines the basic
functions associated to an SRv6 SID. functions associated to an SRv6 SID.
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 22
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Padding (variable) | | Type | Length | Padding (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Padding (variable) // // Padding (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
o Type: to be assigned by IANA (suggested value 4). o Type: to be assigned by IANA (suggested value 4).
o Length: 1 to 7 o Length: 0 to 7
o Padding: from 1 to 7 octets of padding. Padding bits have no o Padding: from 0 to 7 octets of padding. Padding bits have no
semantic. They SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be semantic. They SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt. ignored on receipt.
The following applies to the Padding TLV: The following applies to the Padding TLV:
o Padding TLV is optional and MAY only appear once in the SRH. If o Padding TLV is optional and MAY only appear once in the SRH.
present, it MUST have a length between 1 and 7 octets.
o The Padding TLV is used in order to align the SRH total length on o The Padding TLV is used in order to align the SRH total length on
the 8 octet boundary. the 8 octet boundary.
o When present, the Padding TLV MUST appear as the last TLV before o When present, the Padding TLV MUST appear as the last TLV before
the HMAC TLV (if HMAC TLV is present). the HMAC TLV (if HMAC TLV is present).
o When present, the Padding TLV MUST have a length from 1 to 7 in o When present, the Padding TLV MUST have a length from 0 to 7 in
order to align the SRH total lenght on a 8-octet boundary. order to align the SRH total lenght on a 8-octet boundary.
o When a router inspecting the SRH encounters the Padding TLV, it o When a router inspecting the SRH encounters the Padding TLV, it
MUST assume that no other TLV (other than the HMAC) follow the MUST assume that no other TLV (other than the HMAC) follow the
Padding TLV. Padding TLV.
3.1.5. HMAC TLV 3.1.5. HMAC TLV
HMAC TLV is optional and contains the HMAC information. The HMAC TLV HMAC TLV is optional and contains the HMAC information. The HMAC TLV
has the following format: has the following format:
skipping to change at page 29, line 18 skipping to change at page 29, line 34
[FIPS180-4] [FIPS180-4]
National Institute of Standards and Technology, "FIPS National Institute of Standards and Technology, "FIPS
180-4 Secure Hash Standard (SHS)", March 2012, 180-4 Secure Hash Standard (SHS)", March 2012,
<http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/ <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/
fips-180-4.pdf>. fips-180-4.pdf>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>. December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.
[RFC6407] Weis, B., Rowles, S., and T. Hardjono, "The Group Domain [RFC6407] Weis, B., Rowles, S., and T. Hardjono, "The Group Domain
of Interpretation", RFC 6407, DOI 10.17487/RFC6407, of Interpretation", RFC 6407, DOI 10.17487/RFC6407,
October 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6407>. October 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6407>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions] [I-D.bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Ginsberg, L., and B. Decraene, Ginsberg, L., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., and B. Decraene,
"IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 "IS-IS Extensions to Support Routing over IPv6 Dataplane",
Dataplane", draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-00 (work draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-01 (work in progress),
in progress), March 2017. September 2017.
[I-D.dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn] [I-D.dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn]
(Unknown), (., Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., (Unknown), (., Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Dukes, D.,
Brissette, P., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Brissette, P., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J.,
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d.,
Steinberg, D., Raszuk, R., Decraene, B., and S. Steinberg, D., Raszuk, R., Decraene, B., and S.
Matsushima, "BGP Signaling of IPv6-Segment-Routing-based Matsushima, "BGP Signaling of IPv6-Segment-Routing-based
VPN Networks", draft-dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn-00 (work in VPN Networks", draft-dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn-00 (work in
progress), March 2017. progress), March 2017.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Leddy, J., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Filsfils, C., Leddy, J., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Steinberg, D., Raszuk, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Steinberg, D., Raszuk, R.,
Matsushima, S., Lebrun, D., Decraene, B., Peirens, B., Matsushima, S., Lebrun, D., Decraene, B., Peirens, B.,
Salsano, S., Naik, G., Elmalky, H., Jonnalagadda, P., Salsano, S., Naik, G., Elmalky, H., Jonnalagadda, P.,
Sharif, M., Ayyangar, A., Mynam, S., Henderickx, W., Sharif, M., Ayyangar, A., Mynam, S., Henderickx, W.,
Bashandy, A., Raza, K., Dukes, D., Clad, F., and P. Bashandy, A., Raza, K., Dukes, D., Clad, F., and P.
Camarillo, "SRv6 Network Programming", draft-filsfils- Camarillo, "SRv6 Network Programming", draft-filsfils-
spring-srv6-network-programming-01 (work in progress), spring-srv6-network-programming-03 (work in progress),
June 2017. December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-isis-l2bundles] [I-D.ietf-isis-l2bundles]
Ginsberg, L., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri, M., and Ginsberg, L., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri, M., and
E. Aries, "Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in E. Aries, "Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in
IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07 (work in progress), IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07 (work in progress),
May 2017. May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com, 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-13 (work in progress), June segment-routing-extensions-15 (work in progress), December
2017. 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-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, "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-09 (work in progress), March segment-routing-extensions-10 (work in progress),
2017. September 2017.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]
Quinn, P., Elzur, U., and C. Pignataro, "Network Service Quinn, P., Elzur, U., and C. Pignataro, "Network Service
Header (NSH)", draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-16 (work in progress), Header (NSH)", draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-28 (work in progress),
July 2017. November 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases] [I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases]
Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Maglione, R., and Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Maglione, R., and
M. Townsley, "IPv6 SPRING Use Cases", draft-ietf-spring- M. Townsley, "IPv6 SPRING Use Cases", draft-ietf-spring-
ipv6-use-cases-11 (work in progress), June 2017. ipv6-use-cases-12 (work in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases] [I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir, Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir,
"Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks", draft-ietf- "Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks", draft-ietf-
spring-resiliency-use-cases-11 (work in progress), May spring-resiliency-use-cases-12 (work in progress),
2017. December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf- Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
spring-segment-routing-12 (work in progress), June 2017. Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-14 (work
in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., 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-10 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-11
(work in progress), June 2017. (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] [I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Mattes, P., Rosen, E., and S. Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Mattes, P., Rosen, E., and S.
Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP", draft- Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP", draft-
previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-07 (work in previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-07 (work in
progress), June 2017. progress), June 2017.
[RFC1940] Estrin, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., Varadhan, K., and D. [RFC1940] Estrin, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., Varadhan, K., and D.
Zappala, "Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and Zappala, "Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and
Forwarding Specification (Version 1)", RFC 1940, Forwarding Specification (Version 1)", RFC 1940,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1940, May 1996, DOI 10.17487/RFC1940, May 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1940>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1940>.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827, Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>. May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC4942] Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6 Transition/ [RFC4942] Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6 Transition/
Co-existence Security Considerations", RFC 4942, Co-existence Security Considerations", RFC 4942,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4942, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4942, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4942>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4942>.
[RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6 [RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554>.
[RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B., [RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement
and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stefano Previdi (editor) Stefano Previdi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Individual
Italy Italy
Email: stefano@previdi.net Email: stefano@previdi.net
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels Brussels
BE BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
 End of changes. 41 change blocks. 
62 lines changed or deleted 63 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/