draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-01.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02.txt 
Network Working Group X. Xu Network Working Group X. Xu
Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc. Internet-Draft Alibaba, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track S. Bryant Intended status: Standards Track S. Bryant
Expires: April 21, 2019 Huawei Expires: June 21, 2019 Huawei
A. Farrel A. Farrel
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
S. Hassan S. Hassan
Cisco Cisco
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
Z. Li Z. Li
Huawei Huawei
October 18, 2018 December 18, 2018
SR-MPLS over IP SR-MPLS over IP
draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-01 draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02
Abstract Abstract
MPLS Segment Routing (SR-MPLS) is an MPLS data plane-based source MPLS Segment Routing (SR-MPLS) is an MPLS data plane-based source
routing paradigm in which the sender of a packet is allowed to routing paradigm in which the sender of a packet is allowed to
partially or completely specify the route the packet takes through partially or completely specify the route the packet takes through
the network by imposing stacked MPLS labels on the packet. SR-MPLS the network by imposing stacked MPLS labels on the packet. SR-MPLS
could be leveraged to realize a source routing mechanism across MPLS, could be leveraged to realize a source routing mechanism across MPLS,
IPv4, and IPv6 data planes by using an MPLS label stack as a source IPv4, and IPv6 data planes by using an MPLS label stack as a source
routing instruction set while preserving backward compatibility with routing instruction set while preserving backward compatibility with
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 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 April 21, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 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 4, line 33 skipping to change at page 4, line 33
allow encoding of entropy, such as MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation allow encoding of entropy, such as MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation
[RFC7510] where the source port of the UDP header is used as an [RFC7510] where the source port of the UDP header is used as an
entropy field, may be used to maximize the utilization of ECMP entropy field, may be used to maximize the utilization of ECMP
and/or LAG, especially when it is difficult to make use of entropy and/or LAG, especially when it is difficult to make use of entropy
label mechanism. Refer to [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]) label mechanism. Refer to [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label])
for more discussion about using entropy label in SR-MPLS. for more discussion about using entropy label in SR-MPLS.
o Tunneling MPLS into IP provides a technology that enables SR in an o Tunneling MPLS into IP provides a technology that enables SR in an
IPv4 and/or IPv6 network where the routers do not support SRv6 IPv4 and/or IPv6 network where the routers do not support SRv6
capabilities [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] and where MPLS capabilities [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] and where MPLS
forwarding is not an option. This is shown in Figure Figure 2. forwarding is not an option. This is shown in Figure 2.
__________________________________ __________________________________
__( IP Network )__ __( IP Network )__
__( )__ __( )__
( -- -- -- ) ( -- -- -- )
-------- -- -- |SR| -- |SR| -- |SR| -- -------- -------- -- -- |SR| -- |SR| -- |SR| -- --------
| Ingress| |IR| |IR| | | |IR| | | |IR| | | |IR| | Egress | | Ingress| |IR| |IR| | | |IR| | | |IR| | | |IR| | Egress |
--->| Router |===========| |======| |======| |======| Router |---> --->| Router |===========| |======| |======| |======| Router |--->
| SR | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SR | | SR | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SR |
-------- -- -- | | -- | | -- | | -- -------- -------- -- -- | | -- | | -- | | -- --------
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 assume that OSPF or ISIS is enabled: in Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 assume that OSPF or ISIS is enabled: in
fact, other mechanisms of discovery and advertisement could be used fact, other mechanisms of discovery and advertisement could be used
including other routing protocols (such as BGP) or a central including other routing protocols (such as BGP) or a central
controller. controller.
3.1. Forwarding Entry Construction 3.1. Forwarding Entry Construction
This sub-section describes the how to construct the forwarding This sub-section describes the how to construct the forwarding
information base (FIB) entry on an SR-MPLS-capable router when some information base (FIB) entry on an SR-MPLS-capable router when some
or all of the next-hops along the shortest path towards a prefix or all of the next-hops along the shortest path towards a prefix
Segment Identifier (prefix-SID) are IP-only routers. Segment Identifier (prefix-SID) are IP-only routers.
Consider router A that receives a labeled packet with top label L(E) Consider router A that receives a labeled packet with top label L(E)
that corresponds to the prefix-SID SID(E) of prefix P(E) advertised that corresponds to the prefix-SID SID(E) of prefix P(E) advertised
by router E. Suppose the i-th next-hop router (termed NHi) along the by router E. Suppose the i-th next-hop router (termed NHi) along the
shortest path from router A toward SID(E) is not SR-MPLS capable shortest path from router A toward SID(E) is not SR-MPLS capable
while both routers A and E are SR-MPLS capable. The following while both routers A and E are SR-MPLS capable. The following
processing steps apply: processing steps apply:
o Router E is SR-MPLS capable so it advertises the SRGB as described o Router E is SR-MPLS capable so it advertises the SRGB as described
in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
skipping to change at page 12, line 21 skipping to change at page 12, line 21
It is difficult for an attacker to pass a raw MPLS encoded packet It is difficult for an attacker to pass a raw MPLS encoded packet
into a network and operators have considerable experience at into a network and operators have considerable experience at
excluding such packets at the network boundaries. excluding such packets at the network boundaries.
It is easy for an ingress node to detect any attempt to smuggle an IP It is easy for an ingress node to detect any attempt to smuggle an IP
packet into the network since it would see that the UDP destination packet into the network since it would see that the UDP destination
port was set to MPLS. SR packets not having a destination address port was set to MPLS. SR packets not having a destination address
terminating in the network would be transparently carried and would terminating in the network would be transparently carried and would
pose no security risk to the network under consideration. pose no security risk to the network under consideration.
Where control plane techniques are used (as described in Where control plane techniques are used (as described in Section 3),
Authors' Addresses it is important that these protocols are it is important that these protocols are adequately secured for the
adequately secured for the environment in which they are run. environment in which they are run.
6. Contributors 6. Contributors
Ahmed Bashandy Ahmed Bashandy
Individual Individual
Email: abashandy.ietf@gmail.com Email: abashandy.ietf@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Cisco
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
skipping to change at page 13, line 43 skipping to change at page 13, line 43
Eric Rosen, Jim Guichard, and Gunter Van De Velde for their Eric Rosen, Jim Guichard, and Gunter Van De Velde for their
insightful comments on this draft. insightful comments on this draft.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[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-14 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-18
(work in progress), June 2018. (work in progress), December 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>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
skipping to change at page 14, line 48 skipping to change at page 14, line 48
[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>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and
d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-14 (work in (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-15 (work in
progress), June 2018. progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap]
Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras,
L., and L. Jalil, "Advertising Tunnelling Capability in
IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap-01 (work in
progress), April 2017.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for
Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
extensions-22 (work in progress), December 2018.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]
Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S., Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy label for SPRING Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy label for SPRING
tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12 (work in tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12 (work in
progress), July 2018. progress), July 2018.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap]
Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Contreras, L., and L.
Jalil, "The Tunnel Encapsulations OSPF Router
Information", draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-09 (work
in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-27 (work in progress), December 2018.
[RFC8354] Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Maglione, R., [RFC8354] Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Maglione, R.,
Ed., and M. Townsley, "Use Cases for IPv6 Source Packet Ed., and M. Townsley, "Use Cases for IPv6 Source Packet
Routing in Networking (SPRING)", RFC 8354, Routing in Networking (SPRING)", RFC 8354,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8354, March 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8354, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8354>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8354>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu Xiaohu Xu
Alibaba Inc. Alibaba, Inc
Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com
Stewart Bryant Stewart Bryant
Huawei Huawei
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Adrian Farrel Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Syed Hassan Syed Hassan
Cisco Cisco
Email: shassan@cisco.com Email: shassan@cisco.com
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 39 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/