< 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/