draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-00.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-01.txt 
Routing area S. Hegde Routing area S. Hegde
Internet-Draft K. Arora Internet-Draft K. Arora
Intended status: Standards Track M. Srivastava Intended status: Standards Track M. Srivastava
Expires: December 18, 2020 Juniper Networks Inc. Expires: May 23, 2021 Juniper Networks Inc.
S. Ninan S. Ninan
Individual Contributor Individual Contributor
X. Xu X. Xu
Alibaba Inc. Alibaba Inc.
June 16, 2020 November 19, 2020
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR)
Egress Peer Engineering Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes Egress Peer Engineering Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes
draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-00 draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-01
Abstract Abstract
Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) is an application of Segment Routing to Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) is an application of Segment Routing to
Solve the problem of egress peer selection. The Segment Routing Solve the problem of egress peer selection. The Segment Routing
based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized controller, e.g. a based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized controller, e.g. a
Software Defined Network (SDN) controller to program any egress peer. Software Defined Network (SDN) controller to program any egress peer.
The EPE solution requires a node to program the PeerNode Segment The EPE solution requires a node to program the PeerNode Segment
Identifier(SID) describing a session between two nodes, the PeerAdj Identifier(SID) describing a session between two nodes, the PeerAdj
SID describing the link (one or more) that is used by sessions SID describing the link (one or more) that is used by sessions
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
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 December 18, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. PeerNode SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. PeerNode SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. PeerSet SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. PeerSet SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. EPE-SID FEC validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. EPE-SID FEC validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) as defined in Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) as defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] is an effective [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] is an effective
mechanism to select the egress peer link based on different criteria. mechanism to select the egress peer link based on different criteria.
The EPE-SIDs provide means to represent egress peer links. Many The EPE-SIDs provide means to represent egress peer links. Many
network deployments have built their networks consisting of multiple network deployments have built their networks consisting of multiple
Autonomous Systems either for ease of operations or as a result of Autonomous Systems either for ease of operations or as a result of
network mergers and acquisitons. The inter-AS links connecting the network mergers and acquisitons. The inter-AS links connecting the
skipping to change at page 4, line 20 skipping to change at page 4, line 20
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. There may be other [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. There may be other
possible mechanisms to learn the definition of the SID from possible mechanisms to learn the definition of the SID from
controller. Details of such mechanisms are out of scope for this controller. Details of such mechanisms are out of scope for this
document. document.
The EPE-SIDs are advertised for inter-AS links which run EBGP The EPE-SIDs are advertised for inter-AS links which run EBGP
sessions. The procedures to operate EBGP sessions in a scenario with sessions. The procedures to operate EBGP sessions in a scenario with
unnumbered interfaces is not very well defined and hence out of scope unnumbered interfaces is not very well defined and hence out of scope
for this document. During AS migration scenario procedures described for this document. During AS migration scenario procedures described
in [RFC7705] may be in force. In these scenarios, if the local and in [RFC7705] may be in force. In these scenarios, if the local and
remote AS fields in the FEC as described in Section 4carries the remote AS fields in the FEC as described in Section 4 carries the
global AS and not the "local AS" as defined in [RFC7705], the FEC global AS and not the "local AS" as defined in [RFC7705], the FEC
validation procedures may fail. validation procedures may fail.
3. Requirements Language 3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14, [RFC2119], [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14, [RFC2119], [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
skipping to change at page 7, line 17 skipping to change at page 7, line 17
|Type = TBD | Length | |Type = TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number (4 octets) | | Local AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote As Number (4 octets) | | Remote As Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP router ID (4 octets) | | Local BGP router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) | | Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No.of IPV4 interface pairs | No.of IPV6 interface pairs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: PeerNode SID Sub-TLV Figure 4: PeerNode SID Sub-TLV
Type : TBD Type : TBD
Length : variable based on IPV4/IPV6 interface address. There could Length : 16
be multiple pairs of local and remote interface pairs. The length
includes all the pairs. Type and Length field are not included in
the actual length carried in the packet.
Local AS Number : Local AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to
which PeerNode SID advertising node belongs to. which PeerNode SID advertising node belongs to.
Remote AS Number : Remote AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
skipping to change at page 8, line 19 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
Local BGP Router ID : Local BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP 4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286]. Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Remote BGP Router ID : Remote BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP 4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286]. Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Number of IPV4 interface pairs:
Total number of IPV4 local and remote interface address pairs.
Number of IPV6 interface pairs:
Total number of IPV6 local and remote interface address pairs.
There can be multiple Layer 3 interfaces on which a peerNode SID
loadbalances the traffic. All such interfaces local/remote address
MUST be included in the FEC.
When a PeerNode SID load-balances over few interfaces with IPV4 only
address and few interfaces with IPV6 address then the FEC definition
should list all IPV4 address pairs together followed by IPV6 address
pairs.
Local Interface Address :
In case of PeerNode SID, the interface local address IPV4/IPV6 which
corresponds to the PeerNode SID MUST be specified. For IPV4,this
field is 4 octets; for IPV6, this field is 16 octets.Link Local IPV6
addresses are for further study.
Remote Interface Address :
In case of PeerNode SID, the interface remote address IPV4/IPV6 which
corresponds to the PeerNode SID MUST be specified. For IPV4,this
field is 4 octets; for IPV6, this field is 16 octets. Link Local
IPV6 addresses are for further study.
When there is a multi-hop EBGP session between two ASBRs, PeerNode When there is a multi-hop EBGP session between two ASBRs, PeerNode
SID is advertised for this session and traffic can be load balanced SID is advertised for this session and traffic can be load balanced
across these interfaces. An EPE controller that does bandiwdth across these interfaces. An EPE controller that does bandiwdth
management for these links should be aware of the links on which the management for these links should be aware of the links on which the
traffic will be load-balanced. [I-D.hegde-idr-bgp-ls-epe-inter-as] traffic will be load-balanced. As per [RFC8029], the node
provides extensions to advertise attributes that will provide details advertising the EPE SIDs will send Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
of links that the traffic will be load-balanced for a Peer Node SID. (DDMT) specifying the details of nexthop interfaces, the OAM packet
It is useful to validate the incoming interface for an OAM packet will be sent out. Based on this information controller MAY choose to
received on a remote ASBR. When the interface information for a verify the actual forwarding state with the topology information
PeerNode SID is not available an ingress node can choose to send 0 controller has. On the router, the validation procedures will
pairs of interface addresses in which case, incoming interface include received DDMT validation as specified in [RFC8029] to verify
validation SHOULD be skipped by the remote ASBR. the control and forwarding state synchronization on the two routers.
Any descrepancies between controller's state and forwarding state
will not be detected by the procedures described in the document.
4.3. PeerSet SID Sub-TLV 4.3. PeerSet SID Sub-TLV
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 = TBD | Length | |Type = TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number (4 octets) | | Local AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP router ID (4 octets) | | Local BGP router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No.of elements in set | Reserved | | No.of elements in set | Reserved |
skipping to change at page 9, line 31 skipping to change at page 9, line 19
| Local AS Number (4 octets) | | Local AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP router ID (4 octets) | | Local BGP router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No.of elements in set | Reserved | | No.of elements in set | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote As Number (4 octets) | | Remote As Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) | | Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++ ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++
| No.of IPV4 interface pairs | No.of IPV6 interface pairs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One element in set consists of below details One element in set consists of below details
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote As Number (4 octets) | | Remote As Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) | | Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++ ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++
| No.of IPV4 interface pairs | No.of IPV6 interface pairs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: PeerSet SID Sub-TLV Figure 5: PeerSet SID Sub-TLV
Type : TBD Type : TBD
Length : variable based on IPV4/IPV6 interface address and number of Length : variable based on the number of elements in the set. The
elements in the set. The length field does not include the length of length field does not include the length of Type and Length fields.
Type and Length fields.
Local AS Number : Local AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to
which PeerSet SID advertising node belongs to. which PeerSet SID advertising node belongs to.
Remote AS Number : Remote AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
skipping to change at page 11, line 8 skipping to change at page 10, line 24
Receiving BGP Router ID : Receiving BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP 4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286]. Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
No.of elements in set: No.of elements in set:
Number of remote ASes, the set SID load-balances on. Number of remote ASes, the set SID load-balances on.
PeerSet SID may be associated with a number of PeerNode SIDs and PeerSet SID may be associated with a number of PeerNode SIDs and
PeerAdj SIDs. Link address details of all these SIDs should be PeerAdj SIDs. The remote AS number and the Router ID of each of
included in the peerSet SID FEC so that the data-plane can be these PeerNode SIDs PeerAdj SIDs MUST be included in the FEC.
correctly verified on the remote node.
Number of IPV4 interface pairs:
Total number of IPV4 local and remote interface address pairs.
Number of IPV6 interface pairs:
Total number of IPV6 local and remote interface address pairs.
There can be multiple Layer 3 interfaces on which a peerNode SID
loadbalances the traffic. All such interfaces local/remote address
MUST be included in the FEC.
When a PeerSet SID load-balances over few interfaces with IPV4 only
address and few interfaces with IPV6 address then the Link address
TLV should list all IPV4 address pairs together followed by IPV6
address pairs.
Local Interface Address :
In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdj SID, the interface local address IPV4/
IPV6 which corresponds to the PeerNode SID/PeerAdj SID MUST be
specified. For IPV4,this field is 4 octets; for IPV6, this field is
16 octets. Link Local IPV6 addresses are for further study.
Remote Interface Address :
In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdj SID, the interface remote address
IPV4/IPV6 which corresponds to the PeerNode SID/PeerAdj SID MUST be
specified. For IPV4,this field is 4 octets; for IPV6, this field is
16 octets. Link Local IPV6 addresses are for further study.
The details on how to obtain interface addresses in described for
PeerAdj SID and PeerNode SID in previous sections and the same is
applicable for PeerSet SID.
5. EPE-SID FEC validation 5. EPE-SID FEC validation
When a remote ASBR of the EPE-SID advertisement receives the MPLS OAM When a remote ASBR of the EPE-SID advertisement receives the MPLS OAM
packet with top FEC being the EPE-SID, it SHOULD perform validity packet with top FEC being the EPE-SID, it SHOULD perform validity
checks on the content of the EPE-SID FEC sub-TLV. The basic length checks on the content of the EPE-SID FEC sub-TLV. The basic length
check should be performed on the received FEC. check should be performed on the received FEC.
PeerAdj SID PeerAdj SID
----------- -----------
skipping to change at page 13, line 36 skipping to change at page 12, line 18
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches
with the Remote Router ID field in the received with the Remote Router ID field in the received
PeerNode SID FEC. PeerNode SID FEC.
o Validate that there is a EBGP session with a peer o Validate that there is a EBGP session with a peer
having local As number and BGP Router-ID as having local As number and BGP Router-ID as
specified in the Local AS number and Local Router-ID specified in the Local AS number and Local Router-ID
field in the received PeerNode SID FEC sub-TLV. field in the received PeerNode SID FEC sub-TLV.
If the Remote interface address is not zero, validate the
incoming interface.
Set the Best-return-code to 35 "Mapping for this FEC is not
associated with the incoming interface" (RFC8287) if any below
conditions fail:
o Validate the incoming interface on which the OAM packet
was receieved, matches with the any of the
remote interfaces specified in the PeerNode SID FEC sub-TLV
If all above validations have passed, set the return code to 3 If all above validations have passed, set the return code to 3
"Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth" "Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth"
Else, if the Target FEC sub-TLV at FEC-stack-depth is TBD3 Else, if the Target FEC sub-TLV at FEC-stack-depth is TBD3
(PeerSet SID sub-TLV), (PeerSet SID sub-TLV),
Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not
the given label at stack-depth" if any below the given label at stack-depth" if any below
conditions fail: conditions fail:
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Local AS matches o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Local AS matches
with one of the remote AS field in the received PeerSet with one of the remote AS field in the received PeerSet
SID FEC sub-TLV. SID FEC sub-TLV.
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches
with one of the Remote Router ID field in the received with one of the Remote Router ID field in the received
skipping to change at page 14, line 21 skipping to change at page 12, line 41
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches
with one of the Remote Router ID field in the received with one of the Remote Router ID field in the received
PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV. PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV.
o Validate that there is a EBGP session with a peer having o Validate that there is a EBGP session with a peer having
local As number and BGP Router-ID as local As number and BGP Router-ID as
specified in the Local AS number and Local Router-ID specified in the Local AS number and Local Router-ID
field in the received PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV. field in the received PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV.
If the Remote interface address is not zero, validate the
incoming interface.
Set the Best-return-code to 35 "Mapping for this FEC is not
associated with the incoming interface" (RFC8287) if any below
conditions fail:
o Validate the incoming interface on which the OAM packet
was receieved, matches with the any of the
remote interfaces specified in the PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV
If all above validations have passed, set the return code to 3 If all above validations have passed, set the return code to 3
"Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth" "Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth"
Figure 7: EPE-SID FEC validiation Figure 7: EPE-SID FEC validiation
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
New Target FEC stack sub-TLV from the "sub-TLVs for TLV types 1,16 New Target FEC stack sub-TLV from the "sub-TLVs for TLV types 1,16
and 21" subregistry of the "Multi-Protocol Label switching (MPLS) and 21" subregistry of the "Multi-Protocol Label switching (MPLS)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping parameters" registry Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping parameters" registry
skipping to change at page 15, line 36 skipping to change at page 13, line 48
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Loa Andersson, Dhruv Dhody, Ketan Talaulikar, Italo Busi Thanks to Loa Andersson, Dhruv Dhody, Ketan Talaulikar, Italo Busi
and Alexander Vainshtein for careful review and comments. and Alexander Vainshtein for careful review and comments.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.hegde-idr-bgp-ls-epe-inter-as] [I-D.hegde-idr-bgp-ls-epe-inter-as]
Hegde, S., Ramachandra, S., Srivastava, M., and X. Xu, Hegde, S., Sangli, S., Srivastava, M., and X. Xu, "BGP-LS
"BGP-LS Extensions for Inter-AS TE using EPE based Extensions for Inter-AS TE using EPE based mechanisms",
mechanisms", draft-hegde-idr-bgp-ls-epe-inter-as-03 (work draft-hegde-idr-bgp-ls-epe-inter-as-03 (work in progress),
in progress), June 2020. June 2020.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray,
S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing
BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
segment-routing-epe-19 (work in progress), May 2019. segment-routing-epe-19 (work in progress), May 2019.
[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,
skipping to change at page 16, line 36 skipping to change at page 14, line 47
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D. Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D.
Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer
Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central- Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-
epe-10 (work in progress), December 2017. epe-10 (work in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-07 (work in progress), ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 (work in progress),
May 2020. November 2020.
[RFC7705] George, W. and S. Amante, "Autonomous System Migration [RFC7705] George, W. and S. Amante, "Autonomous System Migration
Mechanisms and Their Effects on the BGP AS_PATH Mechanisms and Their Effects on the BGP AS_PATH
Attribute", RFC 7705, DOI 10.17487/RFC7705, November 2015, Attribute", RFC 7705, DOI 10.17487/RFC7705, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7705>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7705>.
[RFC8403] Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N. [RFC8403] Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N.
Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane
Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>. 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>.
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
156 lines changed or deleted 37 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/