Segment Routing Policy for Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (spring WG)
Last updated 2018-06-07
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Additional URLs
- Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
SPRING Working Group                                         C. Filsfils
Internet-Draft                                              S. Sivabalan
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: December 6, 2018                                       D. Voyer
                                                            Bell Canada.
                                                             A. Bogdanov
                                                            Google, Inc.
                                                               P. Mattes
                                                               Microsoft
                                                            June 4, 2018

             Segment Routing Policy for Traffic Engineering
            draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-00.txt

Abstract

   Segment Routing allows a headend node to steer a packet flow along
   any path.  Intermediate per-flow states are eliminated thanks to
   source routing.  The headend node steers a flow into an SR Policy.
   The header of a packet steered in an SR Policy is augmented with the
   ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy.  This
   document details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR
   Policy.

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 [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 December 6, 2018.

Filsfils, et al.        Expires December 6, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  SR Policy                      June 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Identification of an SR Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Candidate Path and Segment List . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Protocol-Origin of a Candidate Path . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Originator of a Candidate Path  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  Discriminator of a Candidate Path . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.6.  Identification of a Candidate Path  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.7.  Preference of a Candidate Path  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.8.  Validity of a Candidate Path  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.9.  Active Candidate Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.10. Validity of an SR Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.11. Instantiation of an SR Policy in the Forwarding Plane . .   9
     2.12. Priority of an SR Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.13. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Segment Routing Database  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Segment Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  Explicit Null . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Validity of a Candidate Path  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.1.  Explicit Candidate Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.2.  Dynamic Candidate Path  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Binding SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.1.  BSID of a candidate path  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.2.  BSID of an SR Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       6.2.1.  Frequent use-cases : unspecified BSID . . . . . . . .  17
       6.2.2.  Frequent use-case: all specified to the same BSID . .  17
Show full document text