< draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-05.txt | draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-06.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: August 26, 2020 Juniper Networks Inc. | Expires: October 15, 2020 Juniper Networks Inc. | |||
S. Ninan | S. Ninan | |||
Individual Contributor | Individual Contributor | |||
X. Xu | X. Xu | |||
Alibaba Inc. | Alibaba Inc. | |||
February 23, 2020 | April 13, 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-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-05 | draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-06 | |||
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 SID | The EPE solution requires a node to program the PeerNode SID | |||
describing a session between two nodes, the PeerAdj SID describing | describing a session between two nodes, the PeerAdj SID describing | |||
the link (one or more) that is used by sessions between peer nodes, | the link (one or more) that is used by sessions between peer nodes, | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶ | |||
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 August 26, 2020. | This Internet-Draft will expire on October 15, 2020. | |||
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 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶ | |||
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. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
4. FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 4. FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
4.1. PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 4.1. PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
4.2. PeerNode SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 4.2. PeerNode SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
4.3. PeerSet SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4.3. PeerSet SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5. EPE-SID FEC validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | ||||
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 3, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 15 ¶ | |||
This document provides Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) | This document provides Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) | |||
stack TLV definitions for EPE-SIDs. Other procedures for mpls Ping | stack TLV definitions for EPE-SIDs. Other procedures for mpls Ping | |||
and Traceroute as defined in [RFC8287] section 7 and clarified by | and Traceroute as defined in [RFC8287] section 7 and clarified by | |||
[RFC8690] are applicable for EPE-SIDs as well. | [RFC8690] are applicable for EPE-SIDs as well. | |||
2. Theory of Operation | 2. Theory of Operation | |||
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] provides mechanisms to | [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] provides mechanisms to | |||
advertise the EPE-SIDs in BGP-LS. These EPE-SIDs may be used to | advertise the EPE-SIDs in BGP-LS. These EPE-SIDs may be used to | |||
build Segment Routing paths as described in | build Segment Routing paths as described in | |||
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. Data plane monitoring for | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] or using Path Computation | |||
such paths which consist of EPE-SIDs will use extensions defined in | Element Protocol (PCEP) extensions as defined in [RFC8664]. Data | |||
this document to build the Taget FEC stack TLV. The MPLS Ping and | plane monitoring for such paths which consist of EPE-SIDs will use | |||
Traceroute procedures MAY be initaited by the head-end of the Segment | extensions defined in this document to build the Taget FEC stack TLV. | |||
Routing path or a centralized topology-aware data plane monitoring | The MPLS Ping and Traceroute procedures MAY be initaited by the head- | |||
system as described in [RFC8403]. The node initiating the data plane | end of the Segment Routing path or a centralized topology-aware data | |||
monitoring may acquire the details of EPE-SIDs through BGP-LS | plane monitoring system as described in [RFC8403]. The extensions in | |||
advertisements as described in | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] and [RFC8664] do not define | |||
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. The procedures to operate | the details of the SID and such extensions are out of scope for this | |||
e-BGP sessions in a scenario with unnumbered interfaces is not very | document. The node initiating the data plane monitoring may acquire | |||
well defined and hence out of scope for this document. During AS | the details of EPE-SIDs through BGP-LS advertisements as described in | |||
migration scenario procedures described in [RFC7705] may be in force. | [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. There may be other | |||
In these scenarios, if the local and remote AS fields in the FEC as | possible mechanisms to learn the definition of the SID from | |||
described in Section 4carries the global AS and not the "local AS" as | controller. Details of such mechanisms are out of scope for this | |||
defined in [RFC7705], the FEC validation procedures may fail. | document. | |||
The EPE-SIDs are advertised for inter-AS links which run e-BGP | ||||
sessions.The procedures to operate e-BGP sessions in a scenario with | ||||
unnumbered interfaces is not very well defined and hence out of scope | ||||
for this document. During AS migration scenario procedures described | ||||
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 | ||||
global AS and not the "local AS" as defined in [RFC7705], the FEC | ||||
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. | |||
4. FEC Definitions | 4. FEC Definitions | |||
skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 31 ¶ | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Local Interface address (4/16 octets) | | | Local Interface address (4/16 octets) | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Remote Interface address (4/16 octets) | | | Remote Interface address (4/16 octets) | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
Figure 1: PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV | Figure 1: PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV | |||
Type : TBD | Type : TBD | |||
Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address | Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address. Length | |||
excludes the length of Type and length field. For IPv4 interface | ||||
addresses length will be 24. In case of IPv6 address length will be | ||||
48 | ||||
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 PeerAdj SID advertising node belongs to. | which PeerAdj 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 5, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 20 ¶ | |||
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]. | |||
Local Interface Address : | Local Interface Address : | |||
In case of PeerAdj SID Local interface address corresponding to the | In case of PeerAdj SID Local interface address corresponding to the | |||
PeerAdj SID should be apecified in this field. For IPv4,this field | PeerAdj SID should be apecified in this field. For IPv4,this field | |||
is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets. Link Local IPv6 | is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets. Link Local IPv6 | |||
addresses are allowed in this field. | addresses are FFS. | |||
Remote Interface Address : | Remote Interface Address : | |||
In case of PeerAdj SID Remote interface address corresponding to the | In case of PeerAdj SID Remote interface address corresponding to the | |||
PeerAdj SID should be apecified in this field. For IPv4,this field | PeerAdj SID should be apecified in this field. For IPv4,this field | |||
is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.Link Local IPv6 | is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.Link Local IPv6 | |||
addresses are allowed in this field. | addresses are FFS. | |||
4.2. PeerNode SID Sub-TLV | 4.2. PeerNode 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) | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Remote As Number (4 octets) | | | Remote As Number (4 octets) | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Local BGP router ID (4 octets) | | | Local BGP router ID (4 octets) | | |||
skipping to change at page 6, line 9 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 34 ¶ | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| ...... | | | ...... | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
Figure 2: PeerNode SID Sub-TLV | Figure 2: PeerNode SID Sub-TLV | |||
Type : TBD | Type : TBD | |||
Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address. There could | Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address. There could | |||
be multiple pairs of local and remote interface pairs. The length | be multiple pairs of local and remote interface pairs. The length | |||
includes all the pairs. | 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 7, line 8 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 41 ¶ | |||
When a PeerNode SID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only | When a PeerNode SID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only | |||
address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the FEC definition | address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the FEC definition | |||
should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6 address | should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6 address | |||
pairs. | pairs. | |||
Local Interface Address : | Local Interface Address : | |||
In case of PeerNode SID, the interface local address ipv4/ipv6 which | In case of PeerNode SID, the interface local address ipv4/ipv6 which | |||
corresponds to the PeerNode SID MUST be specified. For IPv4,this | 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 | field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.Link Local IPv6 | |||
addresses are allowed in this field. | addresses are FFS. | |||
Remote Interface Address : | Remote Interface Address : | |||
In case of PeerNode SID, the interface remote address ipv4/ipv6 which | In case of PeerNode SID, the interface remote address ipv4/ipv6 which | |||
corresponds to the PeerNode SID MUST be specified. For IPv4,this | 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 | field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.Link Local IPv6 | |||
addresses are allowed in this field. | addresses are FFS. | |||
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) | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
skipping to change at page 7, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 33 ¶ | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets) | | | Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets) | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets) | | | Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets) | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets) | | | Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets) | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| ...... | | | ...... | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
One element in set consists of below details | ||||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| Remote As Number (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 3: PeerSet SID Sub-TLV | Figure 3: PeerSet SID Sub-TLV | |||
Type : TBD | Type : TBD | |||
Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address and number of | Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address and number of | |||
elements in the set | elements in the set. The length field does not include the length of | |||
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 9, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 19 ¶ | |||
When a PeerSet SID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only | When a PeerSet SID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only | |||
address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the Link address | address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the Link address | |||
TLV should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6 | TLV should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6 | |||
address pairs. | address pairs. | |||
Local Interface Address : | Local Interface Address : | |||
In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdj SID, the interface local address ipv4/ | In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdj SID, the interface local address ipv4/ | |||
ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNode SID/PeerAdj SID MUST be | ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNode SID/PeerAdj SID MUST be | |||
specified. For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is | specified. For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is | |||
16 octets. Link Local IPv6 addresses are allowed in this field. | 16 octets. Link Local IPv6 addresses are FFS. | |||
Remote Interface Address : | Remote Interface Address : | |||
In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdj SID, the interface remote address | In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdj SID, the interface remote address | |||
ipv4/ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNode SID/PeerAdj SID MUST be | 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 | specified. For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is | |||
16 octets. Link Local IPv6 addresses are allowed in this field. | 16 octets. Link Local IPv6 addresses are FFS. | |||
5. IANA Considerations | 5. EPE-SID FEC validation | |||
This section augments the section 7.4 of [RFC8287]. 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 checks on the | ||||
content of the EPE-SID FEC sub-TLV. | ||||
4a. Segment Routing EPE-SID Validation: | ||||
If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV | ||||
at FEC-stack-depth is TBD1 (PeerAdj SID sub-TLV) | ||||
Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not | ||||
the given label at stack-depth if any below | ||||
conditions fail: | ||||
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Local AS matches with the remote AS field in the | ||||
received PeerAdj SID FEC sub-TLV. | ||||
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches with the Remote Router ID field in the | ||||
received PeerAdj SID FEC. | ||||
o Validate that there is a e-BGP session with a peer having local As number and BGP Router-ID as | ||||
specified in the Local AS number and Local Router-ID field in the received PeerAdj SID FEC sub-TLV. | ||||
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 remote interface | ||||
specified in the PeerAdj SID FEC sub-TLV | ||||
Else, if the Target FEC sub-TLV at FEC-stack-depth is TBD2 | ||||
(PeerNode SID sub-TLV), | ||||
Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not | ||||
the given label at stack-depth if any below | ||||
conditions fail: | ||||
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Local AS matches with the remote AS field in the | ||||
received PeerNode SID FEC sub-TLV. | ||||
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches with the Remote Router ID field in the | ||||
received PeerNode SID FEC. | ||||
o Validate that there is a e-BGP session with a peer having local As number and BGP Router-ID as | ||||
specified in the Local AS number and Local Router-ID field in the received PeerNode SID FEC sub-TLV. | ||||
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 | ||||
Else, if the Target FEC sub-TLV at FEC-stack-depth is TBD3 | ||||
(PeerSet SID sub-TLV), | ||||
Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not | ||||
the given label at stack-depth if any below | ||||
conditions fail: | ||||
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Local AS matches with one of the remote AS field in the | ||||
received PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV. | ||||
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches with one of the Remote Router ID field in the | ||||
received PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV. | ||||
o Validate that there is a e-BGP session with a peer having local As number and BGP Router-ID as | ||||
specified in the Local AS number and Local Router-ID field in the received PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV. | ||||
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 | ||||
Figure 4: EPE-SID FEC validiation | ||||
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 | |||
PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV : TBD | PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV : TBD1 | |||
PeerNode SID Sub-TLV : TBD | PeerNode SID Sub-TLV : TBD2 | |||
PeerSet SID Sub-TLV : TBD | PeerSet SID Sub-TLV : TBD3 | |||
6. Security Considerations | 7. Security Considerations | |||
The EPE-SIDs are advertised for egress links for Egress Peer | The EPE-SIDs are advertised for egress links for Egress Peer | |||
Engineering purposes or for inter-As links between co-operating ASes. | Engineering purposes or for inter-As links between co-operating ASes. | |||
When co-operating domains are involved, they can allow the packets | When co-operating domains are involved, they can allow the packets | |||
arriving on trusted interfaces to reach the control plane and get | arriving on trusted interfaces to reach the control plane and get | |||
processed. When EPE-SIDs which are created for egress TE links where | processed. When EPE-SIDs which are created for egress TE links where | |||
the neighbor AS is an independent entity, it may not allow packets | the neighbor AS is an independent entity, it may not allow packets | |||
arriving from external world to reach the control plane. In such | arriving from external world to reach the control plane. In such | |||
deployments mpls OAM packets will be dropped by the neighboring AS | deployments mpls OAM packets will be dropped by the neighboring AS | |||
that receives the MPLS OAM packet. | that receives the MPLS OAM packet. In MPLS traceroute applications, | |||
when the AS boundary is crossed with the EPE-SIDs, the FEC stack is | ||||
changed. [RFC8287] does not mandate that the initiator upon | ||||
receiving an MPLS Echo Reply message that includes the FEC Stack | ||||
Change TLV with one or more of the original segments being popped | ||||
remove a corresponding FEC(s) from the Target FEC Stack TLV in the | ||||
next (TTL+1) traceroute request. If an initiator does not remove the | ||||
FECs belonging to the previous AS that has traversed, it MAY expose | ||||
the internal AS information to the following AS being traversed in | ||||
traceroute. | ||||
7. Acknowledgments | 8. Acknowledgments | |||
Thanks to Loa Andersson and Alexander Vainshtein for careful review | Thanks to Loa Andersson and Alexander Vainshtein for careful review | |||
and comments. | and comments. | |||
8. References | 9. References | |||
8.1. Normative References | 9.1. Normative References | |||
[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. | |||
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., | [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., | |||
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label | Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label | |||
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, | Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>. | |||
[RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, | [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, | |||
N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) | N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) | |||
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and | Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and | |||
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data | IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data | |||
Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, | Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>. | |||
8.2. 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., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and | |||
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- | P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- | |||
skipping to change at page 11, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 14 ¶ | |||
[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>. | |||
[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>. | |||
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., | ||||
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication | ||||
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, | ||||
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, | ||||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>. | ||||
[RFC8690] Nainar, N., Pignataro, C., Iqbal, F., and A. Vainshtein, | [RFC8690] Nainar, N., Pignataro, C., Iqbal, F., and A. Vainshtein, | |||
"Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287", | "Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287", | |||
RFC 8690, DOI 10.17487/RFC8690, December 2019, | RFC 8690, DOI 10.17487/RFC8690, December 2019, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8690>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8690>. | |||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Shraddha Hegde | Shraddha Hegde | |||
Juniper Networks Inc. | Juniper Networks Inc. | |||
Exora Business Park | Exora Business Park | |||
End of changes. 30 change blocks. | ||||
48 lines changed or deleted | 171 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/ |