BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-09

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (idr WG)
Last updated 2018-10-10
Replaces draft-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG, Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
Document shepherd Susan Hares
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2018-06-26)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Inter-Domain Routing                                     S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track                           K. Talaulikar
Expires: April 13, 2019                                      C. Filsfils
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                              H. Gredler
                                                            RtBrick Inc.
                                                                 M. Chen
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                        October 10, 2018

             BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing
              draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-09

Abstract

   Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
   paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called
   "segments".  These segments are advertised by routing protocols e.g.
   by the link state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3) within
   IGP topologies.

   This draft defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in
   order to carry segment routing information via BGP.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2019.

Previdi, et al.          Expires April 13, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    BGP LS extensions for Segment Routing     October 2018

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  BGP-LS Extensions for Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Node Attributes TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.1.  SID/Label Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.1.2.  SR-Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.3.  SR-Algorithm TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.4.  SR Local Block TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.5.  SRMS Preference TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.2.  Link Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.2.1.  Adjacency SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.2.2.  LAN Adjacency SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.2.3.  L2 Bundle Member  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     2.3.  Prefix Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       2.3.1.  Prefix-SID TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       2.3.2.  Prefix Attribute Flags TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.3.3.  Source Router Identifier (Source Router-ID) TLV . . .  17
       2.3.4.  Range TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     2.4.  Equivalent IS-IS Segment Routing TLVs/Sub-TLVs  . . . . .  19
     2.5.  Equivalent OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Segment Routing TLVs/Sub-TLVs  .  20
   3.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     4.1.  TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   5.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.1.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.2.  Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
Show full document text