Segment Routing Architecture
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-14
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8402.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Les Ginsberg , Bruno Decraene , Stephane Litkowski , Rob Shakir | ||
| Last updated | 2017-12-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Martin Vigoureux | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2017-02-21 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8402 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
(None)
Needs a YES. Needs 9 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Alvaro Retana | ||
| Send notices to | aretana.ietf@gmail.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed |
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-14
Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: June 23, 2018 L. Ginsberg
Cisco Systems, Inc
B. Decraene
S. Litkowski
Orange
R. Shakir
Google, Inc.
December 20, 2017
Segment Routing Architecture
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-14
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node
steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called
segments. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
service-based. A segment can have a semantic local to an SR node or
global within an SR domain. SR allows to enforce a flow through any
topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress
nodes to the SR domain.
Segment Routing can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with
no change on the forwarding plane. A segment is encoded as an MPLS
label. An ordered list of segments is encoded as a stack of labels.
The segment to process is on the top of the stack. Upon completion
of a segment, the related label is popped from the stack.
Segment Routing can be applied to the IPv6 architecture, with a new
type of routing header. A segment is encoded as an IPv6 address. An
ordered list of segments is encoded as an ordered list of IPv6
addresses in the routing header. The active segment is indicated by
the Destination Address of the packet. The next active segment is
indicated by a pointer in the new routing header.
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].
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
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 June 23, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Link-State IGP Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. IGP-Prefix Segment, Prefix-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1. Prefix-SID Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.2. SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.3. SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. IGP-Node Segment, Node-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. IGP-Anycast Segment, Anycast SID . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1. Anycast SID in SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. IGP-Adjacency Segment, Adj-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.1. Parallel Adjacencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.2. LAN Adjacency Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.5. Inter-Area Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
4. BGP Peering Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1. BGP Prefix Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2. BGP Peering Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Binding Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1. IGP Mirroring Context Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.1. SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2. SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.3. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node
steers a packet through an SR Policy instantiated as an ordered list
of instructions called segments. A segment can represent any
instruction, topological or service-based. A segment can have a
semantic local to an SR node or global within an SR domain. SR
supports per-flow explicit routing while maintaining per-flow state
only at the ingress nodes to the SR domain.
A segment is often referred to by its Segment Identifier (SID).
A segment may be associated with a topological instruction. A
topological local segment may instruct a node to forward the packet
via a specific outgoing interface. A topological global segment may
instruct an SR domain to forward the packet via a specific path to a
destination. Different segments may exist for the same destination,
each with different path objectives (e.g., which metric is minimized,
what constraints are specified).
A segment may be associated with a service instruction (e.g. the
packet should be processed by a container or VM associated with the
segment). A segment may be associated with a QoS treatment (e.g.,
shape the packets received with this segment at x Mbps).
The SR architecture supports any type of instruction associated with
a segment.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
The SR architecture supports any type of control-plane: distributed,
centralized or hybrid.
In a distributed scenario, the segments are allocated and signaled by
IS-IS or OSPF or BGP. A node individually decides to steer packets
on a source-routed policy (e.g., pre-computed local protection
[I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases] ) . A node individually
computes the source-routed policy.
In a centralized scenario, the segments are allocated and
instantiated by an SR controller. The SR controller decides which
nodes need to steer which packets on which source-routed policies.
The SR controller computes the source-routed policies. The SR
architecture does not restrict how the controller programs the
network. Likely options are NETCONF, PCEP and BGP. The SR
architecture does not restrict the number of SR controllers.
Specifically multiple SR controllers may program the same SR domain.
The SR architecture allows these SR controllers to discover which
SID's are instantiated at which nodes and which sets of local (SRLB)
and global labels (SRGB) are available at which node.
A hybrid scenario complements a base distributed control-plane with a
centralized controller. For example, when the destination is outside
the IGP domain, the SR controller may compute a source-routed policy
on behalf of an IGP node. The SR architecture does not restrict how
the nodes which are part of the distributed control-plane interact
with the SR controller. Likely options are PCEP and BGP.
Hosts MAY be part of an SR Domain. A centralized controller can
inform hosts about policies either by pushing these policies to hosts
or responding to requests from hosts.
The SR architecture can be instantiated on various dataplanes. This
document introduces two dataplane instantiations of SR: SR over MPLS
(SR-MPLS) and SR over IPv6 (SRv6).
Segment Routing can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with
no change on the forwarding plane
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] A segment is encoded as an
MPLS label. An SR Policy is instantiated as a stack of labels. The
segment to process (the active segment) is on the top of the stack.
Upon completion of a segment, the related label is popped from the
stack.
Segment Routing can be applied to the IPv6 architecture with a new
type of routing header called the SR header (SRH)
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] . An instruction is associated
with a segment and encoded as an IPv6 address. An SRv6 segment is
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
also called an SRv6 SID. An SR Policy is instantiated as an ordered
list of SRv6 SID's in the routing header. The active segment is
indicated by the Destination Address(DA) of the packet. The next
active segment is indicated by the SegmentsLeft (SL) pointer in the
SRH. When an SRv6 SID is completed, the SL is decremented and the
next segment is copied to the DA. When a packet is steered on an SR
policy, the related SRH is added to the packet.
In the context of an IGP-based distributed control-plane, two
topological segments are defined: the IGP adjacency segment and the
IGP prefix segment.
In the context of a BGP-based distributed control-plane, two
topological segments are defined: the BGP peering segment and the BGP
prefix segment.
The headend of an SR Policy binds a SID (called Binding segment or
BSID) to its policy. When the headend receives a packet with active
segment matching the BSID of a local SR Policy, the headend steers
the packet into the associated SR Policy.
This document defines the IGP, BGP and Binding segments for the SR-
MPLS and SRv6 dataplanes.
2. Terminology
SR-MPLS: the instantiation of SR on the MPLS dataplane
SRv6: the instantiation of SR on the IPv6 dataplane.
Segment: an instruction a node executes on the incoming packet (e.g.,
forward packet according to shortest path to destination, or, forward
packet through a specific interface, or, deliver the packet to a
given application/service instance).
SID: a segment identifier. Note that the term SID is commonly used
in place of the term Segment, though this is technically imprecise as
it overlooks any necessary translation.
SR-MPLS SID: an MPLS label or an index value into an MPLS label space
explicitly associated with the segment.
SRv6 SID: an IPv6 address explicitly associated with the segment.
Segment Routing Domain (SR Domain): the set of nodes participating in
the source based routing model. These nodes may be connected to the
same physical infrastructure (e.g., a Service Provider's network).
They may as well be remotely connected to each other (e.g., an
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
enterprise VPN or an overlay). If multiple protocol instances are
deployed, the SR domain most commonly includes all of the protocol
instances in a network. However, some deployments may wish to sub-
divide the network into multiple SR domains, each of which includes
one or more protocol instances. It is expected that all nodes in an
SR Domain are managed by the same administrative entity.
Active Segment: the segment that is used by the receiving router to
process the packet. In the MPLS dataplane it is the top label. In
the IPv6 dataplane it is the destination address.
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
PUSH: the instruction consisting of the insertion of a segment at the
top of the segment list. In SR-MPLS the top of the segment list is
the topmost (outer) label of the label stack. In SRv6, the top of
the segment list is represented by the first segment in the Segment
Routing Header as defined in [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
NEXT: when the active segment is completed, NEXT is the instruction
consisting of the inspection of the next segment. The next segment
becomes active. In SR-MPLS, NEXT is implemented as a POP of the top
label. In SRv6, NEXT is implemented as the copy of the next segment
from the SRH to the Destination Address of the IPv6 header.
CONTINUE: the active segment is not completed and hence remains
active. In SR-MPLS, CONTINUE instruction is implemented as a SWAP of
the top label. [RFC3031] In SRv6, this is the plain IPv6 forwarding
action of a regular IPv6 packet according to its Destination Address.
SR Global Block (SRGB): the set of global segments in the SR Domain.
If a node participates in multiple SR domains, there is one SRGB for
each SR domain. In SR-MPLS, SRGB is a local property of a node and
identifies the set of local labels reserved for global segments. In
SR-MPLS, using identical SRGBs on all nodes within the SR Domain is
strongly recommended. Doing so eases operations and troubleshooting
as the same label represents the same global segment at each node.
In SRv6, the SRGB is the set of global SRv6 SIDs in the SR Domain.
SR Local Block (SRLB): local property of an SR node. If a node
participates in multiple SR domains, there is one SRLB for each SR
domain. In SR-MPLS, SRLB is a set of local labels reserved for local
segments. In SRv6, SRLB is a set of local IPv6 addresses reserved
for local SRv6 SID's. In a controller-driven network, some
controllers or applications may use the control plane to discover the
available set of local segments.
Global Segment: a segment which is part of the SRGB of the domain.
The instruction associated to the segment is defined at the SR Domain
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
level. A topological shortest-path segment to a given destination
within an SR domain is a typical example of a global segment.
Local Segment: In SR-MPLS, this is a local label outside the SRGB.
It may be part of the explicitly advertised SRLB. In SRv6, this can
be any IPv6 address i.e., the address may be part of the SRGB but
used such that it has local significance. The instruction associated
to the segment is defined at the node level.
IGP Segment: the generic name for a segment attached to a piece of
information advertised by a link-state IGP, e.g. an IGP prefix or an
IGP adjacency.
IGP-Prefix Segment: an IGP-Prefix Segment is an IGP Segment
representing an IGP prefix. When an IGP-Prefix Segment is global
within the SR IGP instance/topology it identifies an instruction to
forward the packet along the path computed using the routing
algorithm specified in the algorithm field, in the topology and the
IGP instance where it is advertised. Also referred to as Prefix
Segment.
Prefix SID: the SID of the IGP-Prefix Segment.
IGP-Anycast Segment: an IGP-Anycast Segment is an IGP-Prefix Segment
which identify an anycast prefix advertised by a set of routers.
Anycast-SID: the SID of the IGP-Anycast Segment.
IGP-Adjacency Segment: an IGP-Adjacency Segment is an IGP Segment
attached to a unidirectional adjacency or a set of unidirectional
adjacencies. By default, an IGP-Adjacency Segment is local (unless
explicitly advertised otherwise) to the node that advertises it.
Also referred to as Adjacency Segment.
Adj-SID: the SID of the IGP-Adjacency Segment.
IGP-Node Segment: an IGP-Node Segment is an IGP-Prefix Segment which
identifies a specific router (e.g., a loopback). Also referred to as
Node Segment.
Node-SID: the SID of the IGP-Node Segment.
SR Policy: an ordered list of segments. The headend of an SR Policy
steers packets onto the SR policy. The list of segments can be
specified explicitly in SR-MPLS as a stack of labels and in SRv6 as
an ordered list of SRv6 SID's. Alternatively, the list of segments
is computed based on a destination and a set of optimization
objective and constraints (e.g., latency, affinity, SRLG, ...). The
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
computation can be local or delegated to a PCE server. An SR policy
can be configured by the operator, provisioned via NETCONF [RFC6241]
or provisioned via PCEP [RFC5440] . An SR policy can be used for
traffic-engineering, OAM or FRR reasons.
Segment List Depth: the number of segments of an SR policy. The
entity instantiating an SR Policy at a node N should be able to
discover the depth insertion capability of the node N. For example,
the PCEP SR capability advertisement described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] is one means of discovering this
capability.
Forwarding Information Base (FIB): the forwarding table of a node
3. Link-State IGP Segments
Within an SR domain, an SR-capable IGP node advertises segments for
its attached prefixes and adjacencies. These segments are called IGP
segments or IGP SIDs. They play a key role in Segment Routing and
use-cases as they enable the expression of any path throughout the SR
domain. Such a path is either expressed as a single IGP segment or a
list of multiple IGP segments.
Advertisement of IGP segments requires extensions in link-state IGP
protocols. These extensions are defined in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
3.1. IGP-Prefix Segment, Prefix-SID
An IGP-Prefix segment is an IGP segment attached to an IGP prefix.
An IGP-Prefix segment is global (unless explicitly advertised
otherwise) within the SR domain. The context for an IGP-Prefix
segment includes the prefix, topology, and algorithm. Multiple SIDs
MAY be allocated to the same prefix so long as the tuple <prefix,
topology, algorithm> is unique.
Multiple instances and topologies are defined in IS-IS and OSPF in:
[RFC5120], [RFC8202], [RFC6549] and [RFC4915].
3.1.1. Prefix-SID Algorithm
Segment Routing supports the use of multiple routing algorithms i.e,
different constraint based shortest path calculations can be
supported. An algorithm identifier is included as part of a Prefix-
SID advertisement.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
This document defines two algorithms:
o "Shortest Path": this algorithm is the default behavior. The
packet is forwarded along the well known ECMP-aware SPF algorithm
employed by the IGPs. However it is explicitly allowed for a
midpoint to implement another forwarding based on local policy.
The "Shortest Path" algorithm is in fact the default and current
behavior of most of the networks where local policies may override
the SPF decision.
o "Strict Shortest Path": This algorithm mandates that the packet is
forwarded according to ECMP-aware SPF algorithm and instructs any
router in the path to ignore any possible local policy overriding
the SPF decision. The SID advertised with "Strict Shortest Path"
algorithm ensures that the path the packet is going to take is the
expected, and not altered, SPF path. Note that Fast Reroute (FRR)
[RFC5714] mechanisms are still compliant with the Strict Shortest
Path. In other words, a packet received with a Strict-SPF SID may
be rerouted through a FRR mechanism.
An IGP-Prefix Segment identifies the path, to the related prefix,
computed as per the associated algorithm. A packet injected anywhere
within the SR domain with an active Prefix-SID is expected to be
forwarded along a path computed using the specified algorithm.
Clearly, if not all SR capable nodes in an SR Domain support a given
algorithm it is not possible to guarantee that the packet will follow
a path consistent with the associated algorithm.
A router MUST drop any SR traffic associated with an SR algorithm, if
the nexthop router has not advertised support for the SR algorithm.
The ingress node of an SR domain SHOULD validate that the path to a
prefix, advertised with a given algorithm, includes nodes all
supporting the advertised algorithm. If this constraint cannot be
met the packet SHOULD be dropped by the ingress node. Note that in
the special case of "Shortest Path", all nodes (SR Capable or not)
are assumed to support this algorithm.
3.1.2. SR-MPLS
When SR is used over the MPLS dataplane SIDs are an MPLS label or an
index into an MPLS label space (either SRGB or SRLB).
Where possible, it is recommended that identical SRGBs be configured
on all nodes in an SR Domain. This simplifies troubleshooting as the
same label will be associated with the same prefix on all nodes. In
addition, it simplifies support for anycast as detailed in
Section 3.3.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
The following behaviors are associated with SR operating over the
MPLS dataplane:
o the IGP signaling extension for IGP-Prefix segment includes a flag
to indicate whether directly connected neighbors of the node on
which the prefix is attached should perform the NEXT operation or
the CONTINUE operation when processing the SID. This behavior is
equivalent to Penultimate Hop Popping (NEXT) or Ultimate Hop
Popping (CONTINUE) in MPLS.
o A Prefix-SID is allocated in the form of an MPLS label (or an
index in the SRGB) according to a process similar to IP address
allocation. Typically, the Prefix-SID is allocated by policy by
the operator (or NMS) and the SID very rarely changes.
o While SR allows to attach a local segment to an IGP prefix, it is
specifically assumed that when the terms "IGP-Prefix Segment" and
"Prefix-SID" are used, the segment is global (the SID is allocated
from the SRGB or as an index into the advertised SRGB). This is
consistent with all the described use-cases that require global
segments attached to IGP prefixes.
o The allocation process MUST NOT allocate the same Prefix-SID to
different IP prefixes.
o If a node learns a Prefix-SID having a value that falls outside
the locally configured SRGB range, then the node MUST NOT use the
Prefix-SID and SHOULD issue an error log reporting a
misconfiguration.
o If a node N advertises Prefix-SID SID-R for a prefix R that is
attached to N, if N specifies CONTINUE as the operation to be
performed by directly connected neighbors, N MUST maintain the
following FIB entry:
Incoming Active Segment: SID-R
Ingress Operation: NEXT
Egress interface: NULL
o A remote node M MUST maintain the following FIB entry for any
learned Prefix-SID SID-R attached to IP prefix R:
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
Incoming Active Segment: SID-R
Ingress Operation:
If the next-hop of R is the originator of R
and instructed to remove the active segment: NEXT
Else: CONTINUE
Egress interface: the interface towards the next-hop along the
path computed using the algorithm advertised with
the SID toward prefix R.
3.1.3. SRv6
When SR is used over the IPv6 dataplane:
o A Prefix-SID is an IPv6 address.
o An operator MUST explicitly instantiate an SRv6 SID. IPv6 node
addresses are not SRv6 SIDs by default.
A node N advertising an IPv6 address R usable as a segment identifier
MUST maintain the following FIB entry:
Incoming Active Segment: R
Ingress Operation: NEXT
Egress interface: NULL
Note that forwarding to R does not require an entry in the FIBs of
all other routers for R. Forwarding can be and most often will be
achieved by a shorter mask prefix which covers R.
Independent of Segment Routing support, any remote IPv6 node will
maintain a plain IPv6 FIB entry for any prefix, no matter if the
prefix represents a segment or not. This allows forwarding of
packets to the node which owns the SID even by nodes which do not
support Segment Routing.
Support of multiple algorithms applies to SRv6. Since algorithm
specific SIDs are simply IPv6 addresses, algorithm specific
forwarding entries can be achieved by assigning algorithm specific
subnets to the (set of) algorithm specific SIDs which a node
allocates.
Nodes which do not support a given algorithm may still have a FIB
entry covering an algorithm specific address even though an algorithm
specific path has not been calculated by that node. This is
mitigated by the fact that nodes which do not support a given
algorithm will not be included in the topology associated with that
algorithm specific SPF and so traffic using the algorithm specific
destination will normally not flow via the excluded node. If such
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
traffic were to arrive and be forwarded by such a node, it will still
progress towards the destination node. The nexthop will either be a
node which supports the algorithm - in which case the packet will be
forwarded along algorithm specific paths (or be dropped if none are
available) - or the nexthop will be a node which does NOT support the
algorithm - in which case the packet will continue to be forwarded
along Algorithm 0 paths towards the destination node.
3.2. IGP-Node Segment, Node-SID
An IGP Node-SID MUST NOT be associated with a prefix that is owned by
more than one router within the same routing domain.
3.3. IGP-Anycast Segment, Anycast SID
An "Anycast Segment" or "Anycast SID" enforces the ECMP-aware
shortest-path forwarding towards the closest node of the anycast set.
This is useful to express macro-engineering policies or protection
mechanisms.
An IGP-Anycast segment MUST NOT reference a particular node.
Within an anycast group, all routers in an SR domain MUST advertise
the same prefix with the same SID value.
3.3.1. Anycast SID in SR-MPLS
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
+--------------+
| Group A |
|192.0.2.10/32 |
| SID:100 |
| |
+-----------A1---A3----------+
| | | \ / | | |
SID:10 | | | / | | | SID:30
203.0.113.1/32 | | | / \ | | | 203.0.113.3/32
PE1------R1----------A2---A4---------R3------PE3
\ /| | | |\ /
\ / | +--------------+ | \ /
\ / | | \ /
/ | | /
/ \ | | / \
/ \ | +--------------+ | / \
/ \| | | |/ \
PE2------R2----------B1---B3---------R4------PE4
203.0.113.2/32 | | | \ / | | | 203.0.113.4/32
SID:20 | | | / | | | SID:40
| | | / \ | | |
+-----------B2---B4----------+
| |
| Group B |
| 192.0.2.1/32 |
| SID:200 |
+--------------+
Figure 1: Transit device groups
The figure above describes a network example with two groups of
transit devices. Group A consists of devices {A1, A2, A3 and A4}.
They are all provisioned with the anycast address 192.0.2.10/32 and
the anycast SID 100.
Similarly, group B consists of devices {B1, B2, B3 and B4} and are
all provisioned with the anycast address 192.0.2.1/32, anycast SID
200. In the above network topology, each PE device has a path to
each of the groups A and B.
PE1 can choose a particular transit device group when sending traffic
to PE3 or PE4. This will be done by pushing the anycast SID of the
group in the stack.
Processing the anycast, and subsequent segments, requires special
care.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
+-------------------------+
| Group A |
| 192.0.2.10/32 |
| SID:100 |
|-------------------------|
| |
| SRGB: SRGB: |
SID:10 |(1000-2000) (3000-4000)| SID:30
PE1---+ +-------A1-------------A3-------+ +---PE3
\ / | | \ / | | \ /
\ / | | +-----+ / | | \ /
SRGB: \ / | | \ / | | \ / SRGB:
(7000-8000) R1 | | \ | | R3 (6000-7000)
/ \ | | / \ | | / \
/ \ | | +-----+ \ | | / \
/ \ | | / \ | | / \
PE2---+ +-------A2-------------A4-------+ +---PE4
SID:20 | SRGB: SRGB: | SID:40
|(2000-3000) (4000-5000)|
| |
+-------------------------+
Figure 2: Transit paths via anycast group A
Considering an MPLS deployment, in the above topology, if device PE1
(or PE2) requires to send a packet to the device PE3 (or PE4) it
needs to encapsulate the packet in an MPLS payload with the following
stack of labels.
o Label allocated by R1 for anycast SID 100 (outer label).
o Label allocated by the nearest router in group A for SID 30 (for
destination PE3).
While the first label is easy to compute, in this case since there
are more than one topologically nearest devices (A1 and A2), unless
A1 and A2 allocated the same label value to the same prefix,
determining the second label is impossible. Devices A1 and A2 may be
devices from different hardware vendors. If both don't allocate the
same label value for SID 30, it is impossible to use the anycast
group "A" as a transit anycast group towards PE3. Hence, PE1 (or
PE2) cannot compute an appropriate label stack to steer the packet
exclusively through the group A devices. Same holds true for devices
PE3 and PE4 when trying to send a packet to PE1 or PE2.
To ease the use of anycast segment, it is recommended to configure
identical SRGBs on all nodes of a particular anycast group. Using
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
this method, as mentioned above, computation of the label following
the anycast segment is straightforward.
Using anycast segment without configuring identical SRGBs on all
nodes belonging to the same device group may lead to misrouting (in
an MPLS VPN deployment, some traffic may leak between VPNs).
3.4. IGP-Adjacency Segment, Adj-SID
The adjacency is formed by the local node (i.e., the node advertising
the adjacency in the IGP) and the remote node (i.e., the other end of
the adjacency). The local node MUST be an IGP node. The remote node
may be an adjacent IGP neighbor or a non-adjacent neighbor (e.g., a
Forwarding Adjacency, [RFC4206]).
A packet injected anywhere within the SR domain with a segment list
{SN, SNL}, where SN is the Node-SID of node N and SNL is an Adj-SID
attached by node N to its adjacency over link L, will be forwarded
along the shortest-path to N and then be switched by N, without any
IP shortest-path consideration, towards link L. If the Adj-SID
identifies a set of adjacencies, then the node N load-balances the
traffic among the various members of the set.
Similarly, when using a global Adj-SID, a packet injected anywhere
within the SR domain with a segment list {SNL}, where SNL is a global
Adj-SID attached by node N to its adjacency over link L, will be
forwarded along the shortest-path to N and then be switched by N,
without any IP shortest-path consideration, towards link L. If the
Adj-SID identifies a set of adjacencies, then the node N does load-
balance the traffic among the various members of the set. The use of
global Adj-SID allows to reduce the size of the segment list when
expressing a path at the cost of additional state (i.e.: the global
Adj-SID will be inserted by all routers within the area in their
forwarding table).
An "IGP Adjacency Segment" or "Adj-SID" enforces the switching of the
packet from a node towards a defined interface or set of interfaces.
This is key to theoretically prove that any path can be expressed as
a list of segments.
The encodings of the Adj-SID include a set of flags supporting the
following functionalities:
o Eligible for Protection (e.g., using IPFRR or MPLS-FRR).
Protection allows that in the event the interface(s) associated
with the Adj-SID are down, that the packet can still be forwarded
via an alternate path to the node at the remote end of the
interface(s). The use of protection is clearly a policy based
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
decision i.e., for a given policy protection may or may not be
desirable.
o Indication whether the Adj-SID has local or global scope. Default
scope SHOULD be Local.
o Indication whether the Adj-SID is persistent across control plane
restarts. Persistence is a key attribute in ensuring that an SR
Policy does not temporarily result in misforwarding due to
reassignment of an Adj-SID.
A weight (as described below) is also associated with the Adj-SID
advertisement.
A node SHOULD allocate one Adj-SID for each of its adjacencies.
A node MAY allocate multiple Adj-SIDs for the same adjacency. An
example is to support an Adj-SID which is eligible for protection and
an Adj-SID which is NOT eligible for protection.
A node MAY associate the same Adj-SID to multiple adjacencies.
In order to be able to advertise in the IGP all the Adj-SIDs
representing the IGP adjacencies between two nodes, parallel
adjacency suppression MUST NOT be performed by the IGP.
When a node binds an Adj-SID to a local data-link L, the node MUST
install the following FIB entry:
Incoming Active Segment: V
Ingress Operation: NEXT
Egress Interface: L
The Adj-SID implies, from the router advertising it, the forwarding
of the packet through the adjacency(ies) identified by the Adj-SID,
regardless of its IGP/SPF cost. In other words, the use of adjacency
segments overrides the routing decision made by the SPF algorithm.
3.4.1. Parallel Adjacencies
Adj-SIDs can be used in order to represent a set of parallel
interfaces between two adjacent routers.
A node MUST install a FIB entry for any locally originated adjacency
segment (Adj-SID) of value W attached to a set of links B with:
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
Incoming Active Segment: W
Ingress Operation: NEXT
Egress interface: load-balance between any data-link within set B
When parallel adjacencies are used and associated to the same Adj-
SID, and in order to optimize the load balancing function, a "weight"
factor can be associated to the Adj-SID advertised with each
adjacency. The weight tells the ingress (or an SDN/orchestration
system) about the load-balancing factor over the parallel
adjacencies. As shown in Figure 3, A and B are connected through two
parallel adjacencies
link-1
+--------+
| |
S---A B---C
| |
+--------+
link-2
Figure 3: Parallel Links and Adj-SIDs
Node A advertises following Adj-SIDs and weights:
o Link-1: Adj-SID 1000, weight: 1
o Link-2: Adj-SID 1000, weight: 2
Node S receives the advertisements of the parallel adjacencies and
understands that by using Adj-SID 1000 node A will load-balance the
traffic across the parallel links (link-1 and link-2) according to a
1:2 ratio i.e., twice as many packets will flow over Link-2 as
compared to Link-1.
3.4.2. LAN Adjacency Segments
In LAN subnetworks, link-state protocols define the concept of
Designated Router (DR, in OSPF) or Designated Intermediate System
(DIS, in IS-IS) that conduct flooding in broadcast subnetworks and
that describe the LAN topology in a special routing update (OSPF
Type2 LSA or IS-IS Pseudonode LSP).
The difficulty with LANs is that each router only advertises its
connectivity to the DR/DIS and not to each of the individual nodes in
the LAN. Therefore, additional protocol mechanisms (IS-IS and OSPF)
are necessary in order for each router in the LAN to advertise an
Adj-SID associated to each neighbor in the LAN.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
3.5. Inter-Area Considerations
In the following example diagram it is assumed that the all areas are
part of a single SR Domain.
The example here below assumes the IPv6 control plane with the MPLS
dataplane.
! !
! !
B------C-----F----G-----K
/ | | |
S---A/ | | |
\ | | |
\D------I----------J-----L----Z (2001:DB8::2:1/128, Node-SID 150)
! !
Area-1 ! Backbone ! Area 2
! area !
Figure 4: Inter-Area Topology Example
In area 2, node Z allocates Node-SID 150 to his local IPv6 prefix
2001:DB8::2:1/128.
Area Border Routers (ABR) G and J will propagate the prefix and its
SIDs into the backbone area by creating a new instance of the prefix
according to normal inter-area/level IGP propagation rules.
Nodes C and I will apply the same behavior when leaking prefixes from
the backbone area down to area 1. Therefore, node S will see prefix
2001:DB8::2:1/128 with Prefix-SID 150 and advertised by nodes C and
I.
It therefore results that a Prefix-SID remains attached to its
related IGP Prefix through the inter-area process, which is the
expected behavior in a single SR Domain.
When node S sends traffic to 2001:DB8::2:1/128, it pushes Node-
SID(150) as active segment and forward it to A.
When packet arrives at ABR I (or C), the ABR forwards the packet
according to the active segment (Node-SID(150)). Forwarding
continues across area borders, using the same Node-SID(150), until
the packet reaches its destination.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
4. BGP Peering Segments
BGP segments may be allocated and distributed by BGP.
4.1. BGP Prefix Segment
A BGP-Prefix segment is a BGP segment attached to a BGP prefix.
A BGP-Prefix segment is global (unless explicitly advertised
otherwise) within the SR domain.
The BGP Prefix SID is the BGP equivalent to the IGP Prefix Segment.
A likely use-case for the BGP Prefix Segment is an IGP-free hyper-
scale spine-leaf topology where connectivity is learned solely via
BGP [RFC7938]
4.2. BGP Peering Segments
In the context of BGP Egress Peer Engineering (EPE), as described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe], an EPE enabled Egress
PE node MAY advertise segments corresponding to its attached peers.
These segments are called BGP peering segments or BGP peering SIDs.
They enable the expression of source-routed inter-domain paths.
An ingress border router of an AS may compose a list of segments to
steer a flow along a selected path within the AS, towards a selected
egress border router C of the AS and through a specific peer. At
minimum, a BGP peering Engineering policy applied at an ingress PE
involves two segments: the Node SID of the chosen egress PE and then
the BGP peering segment for the chosen egress PE peer or peering
interface.
Three types of BGP peering segments/SIDs are defined: PeerNode SID,
PeerAdj SID and PeerSet SID.
o PeerNode SID: a BGP PeerNode segment/SID is a local segment. At
the BGP node advertising it, its semantics is:
* SR header operation: NEXT.
* Next-Hop: the connected peering node to which the segment is
related.
o PeerAdj SID: a BGP PeerAdj segment/SID is a local segment. At the
BGP node advertising it, the semantic is:
* SR header operation: NEXT.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
* Next-Hop: the peer connected through the interface to which the
segment is related.
o PeerSet SID. a BGP PeerSet segment/SID is a local segment. At the
BGP node advertising it, the semantic is:
* SR header operation: NEXT.
* Next-Hop: load-balance across any connected interface to any
peer in the related group.
A peer set could be all the connected peers from the same AS or a
subset of these. A group could also span across AS. The group
definition is a policy set by the operator.
The BGP extensions necessary in order to signal these BGP peering
segments are defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
5. Binding Segment
In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service
independence, SR utilizes a Binding SID (BSID). The BSID is bound to
an SR policy, instantiation of which may involve a list of SIDs. Any
packets received with active segment = BSID are steered onto the
bound SR Policy.
A BSID may either be a local or a global SID. If local, a BSID
SHOULD be allocated from the SRLB. If global, a BSID MUST be
allocated from the SRGB.
Use of a BSID allows the instantiation of the policy (the SID list)
to be stored only on the node(s) which need to impose the policy.
Direction of traffic to a node supporting the policy then only
requires imposition of the BSID. If the policy changes, this also
means that only the nodes imposing the policy need to be updated.
Users of the policy are not impacted.
5.1. IGP Mirroring Context Segment
One use case for a Binding Segment is to provide support for an IGP
node to advertise its ability to process traffic originally destined
to another IGP node, called the Mirrored node and identified by an IP
address or a Node-SID, provided that a "Mirroring Context" segment be
inserted in the segment list prior to any service segment local to
the mirrored node.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
When a given node B wants to provide egress node A protection, it
advertises a segment identifying node's A context. Such segment is
called "Mirror Context Segment" and identified by the Mirror SID.
The Mirror SID is advertised using the binding segment defined in SR
IGP protocol extensions [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] .
In the event of a failure, a point of local repair (PLR) diverting
traffic from A to B does a PUSH of the Mirror SID on the protected
traffic. B, when receiving the traffic with the Mirror SID as the
active segment, uses that segment and processes underlying segments
in the context of A.
6. Multicast
Segment Routing is defined for unicast. The application of the
source-route concept to Multicast is not in the scope of this
document.
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any action from IANA.
8. Security Considerations
Segment Routing is applicable to both MPLS and IPv6 data planes.
Segment Routing adds some meta-data (instructions) to the packet,
with the list of forwarding path elements (e.g., nodes, links,
services, etc.) that the packet must traverse. It has to be noted
that the complete source routed path may be represented by a single
segment. This is the case of the Binding SID.
SR by default operates within a trusted domain. Traffic MUST be
filtered at the domain boundaries.
8.1. SR-MPLS
When applied to the MPLS data plane, Segment Routing does not
introduce any new behavior or any change in the way MPLS data plane
works. Therefore, from a security standpoint, this document does not
define any additional mechanism in the MPLS data plane.
SR allows the expression of a source routed path using a single
segment (the Binding SID). Compared to RSVP-TE which also provides
explicit routing capability, there are no fundamental differences in
term of information provided. Both RSVP-TE and Segment Routing may
express a source routed path using a single segment.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
When a path is expressed using a single label, the syntax of the
meta-data is equivalent between RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and SR.
When a source routed path is expressed with a list of segments
additional meta-data is added to the packet consisting of the source
routed path the packet must follow expressed as a segment list.
When a path is expressed using a label stack, if one has access to
the meaning (i.e.: the Forwarding Equivalence Class) of the labels,
one has the knowledge of the explicit path. For the MPLS data plane,
as no data plane modification is required, there is no fundamental
change of capability. Yet, the occurrence of label stacking will
increase.
SR domain boundary routers MUST filter any external traffic destined
to a label associated with a segment within the trusted domain. This
includes labels within the SRGB of the trusted domain, labels within
the SRLB of the specific boundary router, and labels outside either
of these blocks. External traffic is any traffic received from an
interface connected to a node outside the domain of trust.
From a network protection standpoint, there is an assumed trust model
such that any node imposing a label stack on a packet is assumed to
be allowed to do so. This is a significant change compared to plain
IP offering shortest path routing but not fundamentally different
compared to existing techniques providing explicit routing capability
such as RSVP-TE. By default, the explicit routing information MUST
NOT be leaked through the boundaries of the administered domain.
Segment Routing extensions that have been defined in various
protocols, leverage the security mechanisms of these protocols such
as encryption, authentication, filtering, etc.
In the general case, a segment routing capable router accepts and
install labels only if these labels have been previously advertised
by a trusted source. The received information is validated using
existing control plane protocols providing authentication and
security mechanisms. Segment Routing does not define any additional
security mechanism in existing control plane protocols.
Segment Routing does not introduce signaling between the source and
the mid points of a source routed path. With SR, the source routed
path is computed using SIDs previously advertised in the IP control
plane. Therefore, in addition to filtering and controlled
advertisement of SIDs at the boundaries of the SR domain, filtering
in the data plane is also required. Filtering MUST be performed on
the forwarding plane at the boundaries of the SR domain and may
require looking at multiple labels/instruction.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
For the MPLS data plane, there are no new requirements as the
existing MPLS architecture already allows such source routing by
stacking multiple labels. And for security protection, [RFC4381] and
[RFC5920] already call for the filtering of MPLS packets on trust
boundaries.
8.2. SRv6
When applied to the IPv6 data plane, Segment Routing does introduce
the Segment Routing Header (SRH,
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]) which is a type of Routing
Extension header as defined in [RFC8200].
The SRH adds some meta-data to the IPv6 packet, with the list of
forwarding path elements (e.g., nodes, links, services, etc.) that
the packet must traverse and that are represented by IPv6 addresses.
A complete source routed path may be encoded in the packet using a
single segment (single IPv6 address).
SR domain boundary routers MUST filter any external traffic destined
to an address within the SRGB of the trusted domain or the SRLB of
the specific boundary router. External traffic is any traffic
received from an interface connected to a node outside the domain of
trust.
From a network protection standpoint, there is an assumed trust model
such that any node adding an SRH to the packet is assumed to be
allowed to do so. Therefore, by default, the explicit routing
information MUST NOT be leaked through the boundaries of the
administered domain. Segment Routing extensions that have been
defined in various protocols, leverage the security mechanisms of
these protocols such as encryption, authentication, filtering, etc.
In the general case, an SR IPv6 router accepts and install segments
identifiers (in the form of IPv6 addresses), only if these SIDs are
advertised by a trusted source. The received information is
validated using existing control plane protocols providing
authentication and security mechanisms. Segment Routing does not
define any additional security mechanism in existing control plane
protocols.
Problems which may arise when the above behaviors are not done
include:
o Malicious looping
o Evasion of access controls
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
o Hiding the source of DOS attacks
Security concerns with source routing at the IPv6 data plane are more
completely discussed in [RFC5095]. The new IPv6-based segment
routing header is defined in [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
This document also discusses the above security concerns.
8.3. Congestion Control
SR does not introduce new requirements for congestion control. By
default, traffic delivery is assumed to be best effort. Congestion
control may be implemented at endpoints. Where SR policies are in
use bandwidth allocation may be managed by monitoring incoming
traffic associated with the binding SID identifying the SR policy.
Other solutions such as [RFC8084] may be applicable.
9. Manageability Considerations
In SR enabled networks, the path the packet takes is encoded in the
header. As the path is not signaled through a protocol, OAM
mechanisms are necessary in order for the network operator to
validate the effectiveness of a path as well as to check and monitor
its liveness and performance. However, it has to be noted that SR
allows to reduce substantially the number of states in transit nodes
and hence the number of elements that a transit node has to manage is
smaller.
SR OAM use cases for the MPLS data plane are defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase]. SR OAM procedures for the MPLS data
plane are defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping].
SR routers receive advertisements of SIDs (index, label or IPv6
address) from the different routing protocols being extended for SR.
Each of these protocols have monitoring and troubleshooting
mechanisms to provide operation and management functions for IP
addresses that must be extended in order to include troubleshooting
and monitoring functions of the SID.
SR architecture introduces the usage of global segments. Each global
segment MUST be bound to a unique index or address within an SR
domain. The management of the allocation of such index or address by
the operator is critical for the network behavior to avoid situations
like mis-routing. In addition to the allocation policy/tooling that
the operator will have in place, an implementation SHOULD protect the
network in case of conflict detection by providing a deterministic
resolution approach.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
When a path is expressed using a label stack, the occurrence of label
stacking will increase. A node may want to signal in the control
plane its ability in terms of size of the label stack it can support.
A YANG data model [RFC6020] for segment routing configuration and
operations has been defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-yang].
When Segment Routing is applied to the IPv6 data plane, segments are
identified through IPv6 addresses. The allocation, management and
troubleshooting of segment identifiers is no different than the
existing mechanisms applied to the allocation and management of IPv6
addresses.
The DA of the packet gives the active segment address. The segment
list in the SRH gives the entire path of the packet. The validation
of the source routed path is done through inspection of DA and SRH
present in the packet header matched to the equivalent routing table
entries.
In the context of SR over the IPv6 data plane, the source routed path
is encoded in the SRH as described in
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. The SR IPv6 source routed
path is instantiated into the SRH as a list of IPv6 address where the
active segment is in the Destination Address (DA) field of the IPv6
packet header. Typically, by inspecting in any node the packet
header, it is possible to derive the source routed path it belongs
to. Similar to the context of SR over MPLS data plane, an
implementation may originate path control and monitoring packets
where the source routed path is inserted in the SRH and where each
segment of the path inserts in the packet the relevant data in order
to measure the end to end path and performance.
10. Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to the definition
of the Segment Routing architecture and to the editing of this
document:
Ahmed Bashandy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: bashandy@cisco.com
Martin Horneffer
Deutsche Telekom
Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Jeff Tantsura
Email: jefftant@gmail.com
Edward Crabbe
Email: edward.crabbe@gmail.com
Igor Milojevic
Email: milojevicigor@gmail.com
Saku Ytti
TDC
Email: saku@ytti.fi
11. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dave Ward, Peter Psenak, Dan Frost, Stewart
Bryant, Pierre Francois, Thomas Telkamp, Ruediger Geib, Hannes
Gredler, Pushpasis Sarkar, Eric Rosen, Chris Bowers and Alvaro Retana
for their comments and review of this document.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
12.2. Informative References
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., Leddy, J., Field, B.,
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d.,
Matsushima, S., Leung, I., Linkova, J., Aries, E., Kosugi,
T., Vyncke, E., Lebrun, D., Steinberg, D., and R. Raszuk,
"IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-
segment-routing-header-07 (work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, S., and J.
Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress
Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-
epe-14 (work in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-15 (work in progress), December
2017.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping]
Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Swallow, G., Akiya, N., Kini,
S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/
Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP Prefix and Adjacency
SIDs with MPLS Data-plane", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-
ping-13 (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
segment-routing-extensions-10 (work in progress),
September 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-24 (work in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11 (work in progress),
November 2017.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
[I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase]
Geib, R., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., and N. Kumar, "A
Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Dataplane Monitoring
System", draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-10 (work in
progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir,
"Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks", draft-ietf-
spring-resiliency-use-cases-12 (work in progress),
December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D.
Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer
Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-
epe-08 (work in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-11
(work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-yang]
Litkowski, S., Qu, Y., Sarkar, P., and J. Tantsura, "YANG
Data Model for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-spring-sr-
yang-07 (work in progress), July 2017.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.
[RFC4381] Behringer, M., "Analysis of the Security of BGP/MPLS IP
Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4381,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4381, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4381>.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6549] Lindem, A., Roy, A., and S. Mirtorabi, "OSPFv2 Multi-
Instance Extensions", RFC 6549, DOI 10.17487/RFC6549,
March 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6549>.
[RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
[RFC8084] Fairhurst, G., "Network Transport Circuit Breakers",
BCP 208, RFC 8084, DOI 10.17487/RFC8084, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8084>.
[RFC8202] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and W. Henderickx, "IS-IS
Multi-Instance", RFC 8202, DOI 10.17487/RFC8202, June
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8202>.
Authors' Addresses
Clarence Filsfils (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Italy
Email: stefano@previdi.net
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems, Inc
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
FR
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Stephane Litkowski
Orange
FR
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Segment Routing December 2017
Rob Shakir
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: robjs@google.com
Filsfils, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 31]