draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-00.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-01.txt 
Inter-Domain Routing S. Previdi, Ed. Inter-Domain Routing S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft P. Psenak Internet-Draft P. Psenak
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: May 18, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: August 13, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc.
H. Gredler H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Individual Individual
November 14, 2016 February 9, 2017
BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-00 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-01
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of
topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are
advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and
OSPFv3). OSPFv3).
This draft defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in This draft defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 http://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 May 18, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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 (http://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
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1. Advertisement of a IS-IS Prefix SID TLV . . . . . . . . . 25 3.1. Advertisement of a IS-IS Prefix SID TLV . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2. Advertisement of a OSPF/OSPFv3 Prefix-SID TLV . . . . . . 25 3.2. Advertisement of a OSPF/OSPFv3 Prefix-SID TLV . . . . . . 25
3.3. Advertisement of a range of prefix-to-SID mappings in 3.3. Advertisement of a range of prefix-to-SID mappings in
OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4. Advertisement of a range of IS-IS SR bindings . . . . . . 26 3.4. Advertisement of a range of IS-IS SR bindings . . . . . . 26
3.5. Advertisement of a path and its attributes from IS-IS 3.5. Advertisement of a path and its attributes from IS-IS
protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.6. Advertisement of a path and its attributes from 3.6. Advertisement of a path and its attributes from
OSPFv2/OSPFv3 protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 OSPFv2/OSPFv3 protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.1.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 10.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
paths by combining sub-paths called "segments". A segment can paths by combining sub-paths called "segments". A segment can
represent any instruction, topological or service-based. A segment represent any instruction, topological or service-based. A segment
can have a local semantic to an SR node or global within a domain. can have a local semantic to an SR node or global within a domain.
Within IGP topologies an SR path is encoded as a sequence of Within IGP topologies an SR path is encoded as a sequence of
topological sub-paths, called "IGP segments". These segments are topological sub-paths, called "IGP segments". These segments are
advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and
skipping to change at page 6, line 8 skipping to change at page 6, line 8
These TLVs can ONLY be added to the Node Attribute associated with These TLVs can ONLY be added to the Node Attribute associated with
the Node NLRI that originates the corresponding SR TLV. the Node NLRI that originates the corresponding SR TLV.
2.1.1. SR-Capabilities TLV 2.1.1. SR-Capabilities TLV
The SR Capabilities sub-TLV has following format: The SR Capabilities sub-TLV has following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | RESERVED | | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Range Size | | Range Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SID/Label Sub-TLV (variable) // // SID/Label Sub-TLV (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 9
2.1.4. SRMS Preference TLV 2.1.4. SRMS Preference TLV
The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference sub-TLV is used The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference sub-TLV is used
in order to associate a preference with SRMS advertisements from a in order to associate a preference with SRMS advertisements from a
particular source. particular source.
The SRMS Preference sub-TLV has following format: The SRMS Preference sub-TLV has following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Preference | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD, suggested value 1037. Type: TBD, suggested value 1037.
Length: 1. Length: 1.
Preference: 1 octet. Unsigned 8 bit SRMS preference. Preference: 1 octet. Unsigned 8 bit SRMS preference.
The use of the SRMS Preference TLV is defined in The use of the SRMS Preference TLV is defined in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].
skipping to change at page 27, line 29 skipping to change at page 27, line 29
Advertisement of an SR path for range of prefixes: the OSPF/OSPFv3 Advertisement of an SR path for range of prefixes: the OSPF/OSPFv3
Extended Prefix Range TLV is encoded in the BGP-LS Prefix Extended Prefix Range TLV is encoded in the BGP-LS Prefix
Attribute Range TLV as defined in Section 2.3.5. The original Attribute Range TLV as defined in Section 2.3.5. The original
OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Binding SID TLV is encoded into the BGP-LS Binding OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Binding SID TLV is encoded into the BGP-LS Binding
Sub-TLV as defined in Section 2.3.6. The set of Sub-TLVs from the Sub-TLV as defined in Section 2.3.6. The set of Sub-TLVs from the
original OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Binding TLV are encoded as Sub-TLVs of the original OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Binding TLV are encoded as Sub-TLVs of the
BGP-LS Binding TLV as defined in Section 2.3.6. This includes the BGP-LS Binding TLV as defined in Section 2.3.6. This includes the
SID/Label TLV defined in Section 2.3. SID/Label TLV defined in Section 2.3.
4. IANA Considerations 4. Implementation Status
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication,
as well as the reference to RFC 7942.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
Several early implementations exist and will be reported in detail in
a forthcoming version of this document. For purposes of early
interoperability testing, when no FCFS code point was available,
implementations have made use of the values described in Table 8.
It will ease implementation interoperability and deployment if the
value could be preserved also due to the large amount of codepoints
this draft requires. However, when IANA-assigned values are
available, implementations will be updated to use them.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests assigning code-points from the registry for This document requests assigning code-points from the registry for
BGP-LS attribute TLVs based on table Table 8. BGP-LS attribute TLVs based on table Table 8.
4.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary 5.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary
This section contains the global table of all TLVs/Sub-TLVs defined This section contains the global table of all TLVs/Sub-TLVs defined
in this document. in this document.
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+ +-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+
| TLV Code | Description | Length | Section | | TLV Code | Description | Length | Section |
| Point | | | | | Point | | | |
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+ +-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+
| 1034 | SR Capabilities | variable | Section 2.1.1 | | 1034 | SR Capabilities | variable | Section 2.1.1 |
| 1035 | SR Algorithm | variable | Section 2.1.2 | | 1035 | SR Algorithm | variable | Section 2.1.2 |
skipping to change at page 28, line 39 skipping to change at page 29, line 39
| | | octets | | | | | octets | |
| 1168 | Unnumbered Interface ID | 12 | 1 [49] | | 1168 | Unnumbered Interface ID | 12 | 1 [49] |
| | Backup ERO TLV | octets | | | | Backup ERO TLV | octets | |
| 1169 | IPv6 Prefix SID | variable | Section 2.3.2 | | 1169 | IPv6 Prefix SID | variable | Section 2.3.2 |
| 1170 | IGP Prefix Attributes | variable | Section 2.3.3 | | 1170 | IGP Prefix Attributes | variable | Section 2.3.3 |
| 1171 | Source Router-ID | variable | Section 2.3.4 | | 1171 | Source Router-ID | variable | Section 2.3.4 |
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+ +-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+
Table 8: Summary Table of TLV/Sub-TLV Codepoints Table 8: Summary Table of TLV/Sub-TLV Codepoints
5. Manageability Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706]. This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706].
5.1. Operational Considerations 6.1. Operational Considerations
5.1.1. Operations 6.1.1. 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.
6. 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 to section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to
[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP. [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.
7. Contributors 8. Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to the editing of The following people have substantially contributed to the editing of
this document: this document:
Acee Lindem Acee Lindem
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: acee@cisco.com Email: acee@cisco.com
Saikat Ray Saikat Ray
Individual Individual
Email: raysaikat@gmail.com Email: raysaikat@gmail.com
8. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg and Ketan Jivan The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg and Ketan Jivan
Talaulikar for their review of this document. Talaulikar for their review of this document.
9. References 10. References
9.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com, Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis- "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), October segment-routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), October
2016. 2016.
[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.,
skipping to change at page 30, line 36 skipping to change at page 31, line 36
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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and [RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and
U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4
and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794, and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,
March 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>. March 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.
9.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf- and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
spring-segment-routing-09 (work in progress), July 2016. spring-segment-routing-10 (work in progress), November
2016.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and [RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions", Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009, RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
9.3. URIs [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
10.3. URIs
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
extensions-05#section-3.1 extensions-05#section-3.1
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
extensions-05#section-3.2 extensions-05#section-3.2
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
extensions-05#section-2.2.1 extensions-05#section-2.2.1
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
35 lines changed or deleted 79 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/