draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-03.txt   draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-04.txt 
Spring J. Brzozowski Spring J. Brzozowski
Internet-Draft J. Leddy Internet-Draft J. Leddy
Intended status: Informational Comcast Intended status: Informational Comcast
Expires: May 16, 2015 I. Leung Expires: September 7, 2015 I. Leung
Rogers Communications Rogers Communications
S. Previdi S. Previdi
M. Townsley M. Townsley
C. Martin C. Martin
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
R. Maglione, Ed. R. Maglione, Ed.
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
November 12, 2014 March 6, 2015
IPv6 SPRING Use Cases IPv6 SPRING Use Cases
draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-03 draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-04
Abstract Abstract
Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture leverages Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture leverages
the source routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through a the source routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through a
controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the
packet with SPRING header. A segment can represent any instruction, packet with SPRING header. A segment can represent any instruction,
topological or service-based. A segment can have a local semantic to topological or service-based. A segment can have a local semantic to
the SPRING node or global within the SPRING domain. SPRING allows to the SPRING node or global within the SPRING domain. SPRING allows to
enforce a flow through any topological path and service chain while enforce a flow through any topological path and service chain while
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 16, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
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. IPv6 SPRING use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IPv6 SPRING use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. SPRING in the Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. SPRING in the Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. SPRING in the Access Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. SPRING in the Access Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. SPRING in the Data Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. SPRING in the Data Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.1. VM isolation in a Data Center . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.1. VM isolation in a Data Center . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. SPRING in the Content Delivery Networks . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4. SPRING in the Content Delivery Networks . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5. SPRING in the Core networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.5. SPRING in the Core networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture leverages Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture leverages
skipping to change at page 3, line 39 skipping to change at page 3, line 39
In addition there are cases where the operators could have made the In addition there are cases where the operators could have made the
design choice to disable IPv4, for ease of management and scale design choice to disable IPv4, for ease of management and scale
(return to single-stack) or due to an address constraint, for example (return to single-stack) or due to an address constraint, for example
because they do not possess enough IPv4 addresses resources to number because they do not possess enough IPv4 addresses resources to number
all the endpoints and other network elements on which they desire to all the endpoints and other network elements on which they desire to
run MPLS. run MPLS.
In such scenario the support for MPLS operations on an IPv6-only In such scenario the support for MPLS operations on an IPv6-only
network would be required. However today's IPv6-only networks are network would be required. However today's IPv6-only networks are
not fully capable of supporting MPLS. There is ongoing work in the not fully capable of supporting MPLS. There is ongoing work in the
MPLS Working Group, described in [I-D.ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap] to MPLS Working Group, described in [RFC7439] to identify gaps that must
identify gaps that must be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols and
protocols and applications to be used with IPv6-only networks. This applications to be used with IPv6-only networks. This is an another
is an another example of scenario where an IPv6-only solution could example of scenario where an IPv6-only solution could represent a
represent a valid option to solve the problem and meet operators' valid option to solve the problem and meet operators' requirements.
requirements.
It is important to clarify that today, it is possible to run IPv6 on It is important to clarify that today, it is possible to run IPv6 on
top of an IPv4 MPLS network by using the mechanism called 6PE, top of an IPv4 MPLS network by using the mechanism called 6PE,
described in [RFC4798]. However this approach does not fulfill the described in [RFC4798]. However this approach does not fulfill the
requirement of removing the need of IPv4 addresses in the network, as requirement of removing the need of IPv4 addresses in the network, as
requested in the above use case. requested in the above use case.
In addition it is worth to note that in today's MPLS dual-stack In addition it is worth to note that in today's MPLS dual-stack
networks IPv4 traffic is labeled while IPv6 traffic is usually networks IPv4 traffic is labeled while IPv6 traffic is usually
natively routed, not label-switched. Therefore in order to be able natively routed, not label-switched. Therefore in order to be able
skipping to change at page 5, line 8 skipping to change at page 5, line 8
is neither present nor desired. is neither present nor desired.
The use cases described in the section do not constitute an The use cases described in the section do not constitute an
exhaustive list of all the possible scenarios; this section only exhaustive list of all the possible scenarios; this section only
includes some of the most common envisioned deployment models for includes some of the most common envisioned deployment models for
IPv6 Segment Routing. IPv6 Segment Routing.
In addition to the use cases described in this document the SPRING In addition to the use cases described in this document the SPRING
architecture can be applied to all the use cases described in architecture can be applied to all the use cases described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement] for the SPRING MPLS data plane, [I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement] for the SPRING MPLS data plane,
when an IPv6 data plane is present. when an IPv6 data plane is present. Here there is a summary of those
use cases:
1. Traffic Engineering
2. Disjoint paths in dual-plane networks
3. Fast Reroute: Protecting node and adjacency segments
4. OAM/monitoring
5. Egress Peering Engineering
2.1. SPRING in the Home Network 2.1. SPRING in the Home Network
An IPv6-enabled home network provides ample globally routed IP An IPv6-enabled home network provides ample globally routed IP
addresses for all devices in the home. An IPv6 home network with addresses for all devices in the home. An IPv6 home network with
multiple egress points and associated provider-assigned prefixes multiple egress points and associated provider-assigned prefixes
will, in turn, provide multiple IPv6 addresses to hosts. A homenet will, in turn, provide multiple IPv6 addresses to hosts. A homenet
performing Source and Destination Routing performing Source and Destination Routing
([I-D.lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]) will ensure that packets exit ([I-D.lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]) will ensure that packets exit
the home at the appropriate egress based on the associated delegated the home at the appropriate egress based on the associated delegated
skipping to change at page 10, line 23 skipping to change at page 10, line 29
raise. raise.
The described use cases could be addressed with the SPRING The described use cases could be addressed with the SPRING
architecture by having the Edge nodes of network to impose a Segment architecture by having the Edge nodes of network to impose a Segment
List on specific traffic flows, based on certain classification List on specific traffic flows, based on certain classification
criteria that would include source IPv6 address. criteria that would include source IPv6 address.
3. Acknowledgements 3. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Brian Field, Robert Raszuk, Wes The authors would like to thank Brian Field, Robert Raszuk, Wes
George, John G. Scudder and Yakov Rekhter for their valuable George, Eric Vyncke, John G. Scudder and Yakov Rekhter for their
comments and inputs to this document. valuable comments and inputs to this document.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any action from IANA. This document does not require any action from IANA.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
There are a number of security concerns with source routing at the IP There are a number of security concerns with source routing at the IP
layer [RFC5095]. The new IPv6-based routing header will be defined layer [RFC5095]. Security mechanisms applied to Segment Routing over
in way that blind attacks are never possible, i.e., attackers will be IPv6 networks are detailed in
unable to send source routed packets that get successfully processed, [I-D.vyncke-6man-segment-routing-security]
without being part of the negations for setting up the source routes
or being able to eavesdrop legitimate source routed packets. In some
networks this base level security may be complemented with other
mechanisms, such as packet filtering, cryptographic security, etc.
6. Informative References 6. Informative References
[I-D.baker-openstack-ipv6-model] [I-D.baker-openstack-ipv6-model]
Baker, F., Marino, C., and I. Wells, "A Model for IPv6 Baker, F., Marino, C., Wells, I., Agarwalla, R., Jeuk, S.,
Operation in OpenStack", draft-baker-openstack- and G. Salgueiro, "A Model for IPv6 Operation in
ipv6-model-00 (work in progress), October 2014. OpenStack", draft-baker-openstack-ipv6-model-02 (work in
progress), February 2015.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe, Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-spring- "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-spring-
segment-routing-04 (work in progress), July 2014. segment-routing-04 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe, Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing with MPLS data plane", draft-filsfils- "Segment Routing with MPLS data plane", draft-filsfils-
spring-segment-routing-mpls-03 (work in progress), August spring-segment-routing-mpls-03 (work in progress), August
2014. 2014.
[I-D.ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support] [I-D.ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support]
Krishnan, S., Korhonen, J., and S. Bhandari, "Support for Krishnan, S., Korhonen, J., and S. Bhandari, "Support for
multiple provisioning domains in DHCPv6", draft-ietf-mif- multiple provisioning domains in DHCPv6", draft-ietf-mif-
mpvd-dhcp-support-00 (work in progress), August 2014. mpvd-dhcp-support-01 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap]
George, W. and C. Pignataro, "Gap Analysis for Operating
IPv6-only MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-03
(work in progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]
Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz, Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz,
M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", draft- M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", draft-
ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2014. ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2014.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-dc-use-cases] [I-D.ietf-sfc-dc-use-cases]
Surendra, S., Tufail, M., Majee, S., Captari, C., and S. Surendra, S., Tufail, M., Majee, S., Captari, C., and S.
Homma, "Service Function Chaining Use Cases In Data Homma, "Service Function Chaining Use Cases In Data
Centers", draft-ietf-sfc-dc-use-cases-01 (work in Centers", draft-ietf-sfc-dc-use-cases-02 (work in
progress), July 2014. progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-problem-statement] [I-D.ietf-sfc-problem-statement]
Quinn, P. and T. Nadeau, "Service Function Chaining Quinn, P. and T. Nadeau, "Service Function Chaining
Problem Statement", draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement-10 Problem Statement", draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement-13
(work in progress), August 2014. (work in progress), February 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement] [I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "SPRING Problem Statement Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "SPRING Problem Statement
and Requirements", draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-03 and Requirements", draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-03
(work in progress), October 2014. (work in progress), October 2014.
[I-D.lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing] [I-D.lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]
Lamparter, D., "Destination/Source Routing", draft- Lamparter, D., "Destination/Source Routing", draft-
lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-00 (work in progress), lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-00 (work in progress),
October 2014. October 2014.
[I-D.previdi-6man-segment-routing-header] [I-D.previdi-6man-segment-routing-header]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Field, B., and I. Leung, "IPv6 Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Field, B., and I. Leung, "IPv6
Segment Routing Header (SRH)", draft-previdi-6man-segment- Segment Routing Header (SRH)", draft-previdi-6man-segment-
routing-header-03 (work in progress), October 2014. routing-header-05 (work in progress), January 2015.
[I-D.quinn-sfc-nsh] [I-D.quinn-sfc-nsh]
Quinn, P., Guichard, J., Fernando, R., Surendra, S., Quinn, P., Guichard, J., Surendra, S., Smith, M.,
Smith, M., Yadav, N., Agarwal, P., Manur, R., Chauhan, A., Henderickx, W., Nadeau, T., Agarwal, P., Manur, R.,
Elzur, U., Garg, P., McConnell, B., and C. Wright, Chauhan, A., Halpern, J., Majee, S., Elzur, U., Melman,
"Network Service Header", draft-quinn-sfc-nsh-03 (work in D., Garg, P., McConnell, B., Wright, C., and K. Kevin,
progress), July 2014. "Network Service Header", draft-quinn-sfc-nsh-07 (work in
progress), February 2015.
[I-D.vyncke-6man-segment-routing-security]
Vyncke, E., Previdi, S., and D. Lebrun, "IPv6 Segment
Routing Security Considerations", draft-vyncke-6man-
segment-routing-security-02 (work in progress), February
2015.
[RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur, [RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur,
"Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6
Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798, February 2007. Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798, February 2007.
[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, December of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, December
2007. 2007.
[RFC7439] George, W. and C. Pignataro, "Gap Analysis for Operating
IPv6-Only MPLS Networks", RFC 7439, January 2015.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
John Brzozowski John Brzozowski
Comcast Comcast
Email: john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com Email: john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com
John Leddy John Leddy
Comcast Comcast
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
41 lines changed or deleted 53 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/