draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-00.txt   draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-01.txt 
Network Working Group Z. Hu Network Working Group Z. Hu
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track H. Chen Intended status: Standards Track H. Chen
Expires: September 19, 2020 Futurewei Expires: January 29, 2021 Futurewei
H. Chen H. Chen
China Telecom China Telecom
P. Wu P. Wu
Huawei Huawei
M. Toy M. Toy
Verizon Verizon
C. Cao C. Cao
T. He T. He
China Unicom China Unicom
L. Liu L. Liu
Fujitsu Fujitsu
X. Liu X. Liu
Volta Networks Volta Networks
March 18, 2020 July 28, 2020
SRv6 Path Egress Protection SRv6 Path Egress Protection
draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-00 draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-01
Abstract Abstract
This document describes protocol extensions for protecting the egress This document describes protocol extensions for protecting the egress
node of a Segment Routing for IPv6 (SRv6) path or tunnel. node of a Segment Routing for IPv6 (SRv6) path or tunnel.
Requirements Language 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
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 September 19, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 29, 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 5, line 6 skipping to change at page 5, line 6
Figure 1: PEB Protects Egress PEA of SR Path Figure 1: PEB Protects Egress PEA of SR Path
Where node PEA is the egress of the SR path from PE1 to PEA, and has Where node PEA is the egress of the SR path from PE1 to PEA, and has
SIDa which is the active segment in the packet from the SR path at SIDa which is the active segment in the packet from the SR path at
PEA. Node PEB is the backup egress (or say protector) to provide the PEA. Node PEB is the backup egress (or say protector) to provide the
protection for egress (or say primary egress) PEA. Node P1 is the protection for egress (or say primary egress) PEA. Node P1 is the
direct previous hop of egress PEA and acts as PLR to support the direct previous hop of egress PEA and acts as PLR to support the
protection for PEA. protection for PEA.
When PEB is selected as a backup egress to protect the egress PEA, a When PEB is selected as a backup egress to protect the egress PEA, a
Mirror SID is configured on PEB to protect PEA. PEB advertises this Mirror SID (refer to Section 5.1 of [RFC8402]) is configured on PEB
information through IGP, which includes the Mirror SID and the egress to protect PEA. PEB advertises this information through IGP, which
PEA. The information is represented by <PEB, PEA, Mirror SID>, which includes the Mirror SID and the egress PEA. The information is
indicates that PEB protects PEA with Mirror SID. represented by <PEB, PEA, Mirror SID>, which indicates that PEB
protects PEA with Mirror SID.
After PEA receives the information <PEB, PEA, Mirror SID>, it may After PEA receives the information <PEB, PEA, Mirror SID>, it may
send the forwarding behavior of the SIDa at PEA to PEB with the send the forwarding behavior of the SIDa at PEA to PEB with the
Mirror SID using some protocols such as BGP if PEB can not obtain Mirror SID using some protocols such as BGP if PEB can not obtain
this behavior from other approaches if PEB wants to protect SIDa of this behavior from other approaches if PEB wants to protect SIDa of
PEA. How to send the forwarding behavior of the SIDa to PEB is out PEA. How to send the forwarding behavior of the SIDa to PEB is out
scope of this document. scope of this document.
When PEB gets the forwarding behavior of the SIDa of PEA from PEA or When PEB gets the forwarding behavior of the SIDa of PEA from PEA or
other means, it adds a forwarding entry for the SIDa according to the other means, it adds a forwarding entry for the SIDa according to the
skipping to change at page 13, line 33 skipping to change at page 13, line 33
Li, Alexander Vainshtein, Greg Mirsky, Bruno Decraene and Jeff Li, Alexander Vainshtein, Greg Mirsky, Bruno Decraene and Jeff
Tantsura for their comments to this work. Tantsura for their comments to this work.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]
Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over
IPv6 Dataplane", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-05 IPv6 Dataplane", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-08
(work in progress), February 2020. (work in progress), April 2020.
[I-D.li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] [I-D.li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]
Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak, Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak,
"OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-li-ospf- "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-li-ospf-
ospfv3-srv6-extensions-07 (work in progress), November ospfv3-srv6-extensions-07 (work in progress), November
2019. 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 14, line 15 skipping to change at page 14, line 15
[RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N. [RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)", So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015, RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.
[RFC8400] Chen, H., Liu, A., Saad, T., Xu, F., and L. Huang, [RFC8400] Chen, H., Liu, A., Saad, T., Xu, F., and L. Huang,
"Extensions to RSVP-TE for Label Switched Path (LSP) "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Label Switched Path (LSP)
Egress Protection", RFC 8400, DOI 10.17487/RFC8400, June Egress Protection", RFC 8400, DOI 10.17487/RFC8400, June
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8400>. 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8400>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
skipping to change at page 14, line 37 skipping to change at page 14, line 42
[RFC8679] Shen, Y., Jeganathan, M., Decraene, B., Gredler, H., [RFC8679] Shen, Y., Jeganathan, M., Decraene, B., Gredler, H.,
Michel, C., and H. Chen, "MPLS Egress Protection Michel, C., and H. Chen, "MPLS Egress Protection
Framework", RFC 8679, DOI 10.17487/RFC8679, December 2019, Framework", RFC 8679, DOI 10.17487/RFC8679, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8679>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8679>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths] [I-D.hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths]
Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski, S., Xu, X., and F. Xu, Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski, S., Xu, X., and F. Xu,
"Node Protection for SR-TE Paths", draft-hegde-spring- "Node Protection for SR-TE Paths", draft-hegde-spring-
node-protection-for-sr-te-paths-05 (work in progress), node-protection-for-sr-te-paths-06 (work in progress),
July 2019. July 2020.
[I-D.hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding] [I-D.hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding]
Hu, Z., Chen, H., Yao, J., Bowers, C., and Y. Zhu, "SR-TE Hu, Z., Chen, H., Yao, J., Bowers, C., and Y. Zhu, "SR-TE
Path Midpoint Protection", draft-hu-spring-segment- Path Midpoint Protection", draft-hu-spring-segment-
routing-proxy-forwarding-07 (work in progress), January routing-proxy-forwarding-09 (work in progress), July 2020.
2020.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B.,
Francois, P., Voyer, D., Clad, F., and P. Camarillo, Francois, P., Voyer, D., Clad, F., and P. Camarillo,
"Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing", "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-02 (work in draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-03 (work in
progress), January 2020. progress), March 2020.
[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-06 (work in progress), ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08 (work in progress),
December 2019. July 2020.
[I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid] [I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Hardwick, J., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Hardwick, J.,
Previdi, S., and C. Li, "Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID Previdi, S., and C. Li, "Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID
in PCE-based Networks.", draft-sivabalan-pce-binding- in PCE-based Networks.", draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-
label-sid-07 (work in progress), July 2019. label-sid-07 (work in progress), July 2019.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 24 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/