SRv6 and MPLS interworking
draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-09
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Swadesh Agrawal , Zafar Ali , Clarence Filsfils , Daniel Voyer , Zhenbin Li | ||
| Last updated | 2022-09-08 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-09
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking September 2022 7.2.2. Translation between Service labels and SRv6 service SID This is similar to inter-as option B control plane procedures described in [RFC4364]. This would be described in future version of draft. 8. Migration and co-existence In addition, the draft also addresses migration and coexistence of the SRv6 and SR-MPLS-IPv4. Co-existence means a network that supports both SRv6 and MPLS in a given domain. This may be a transient state when brownfield SR-MPLS-IPv4 network upgrades to SRv6 (migration) or permanent state when some devices are not capable of SRv6 but supports native IPv6 and SR-MPLS-IPv4. These procedures would be detailed in a future revision 9. Availability * Failure within domain are taken care by existing FRR mechanisms [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]. * Procedures listed in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] provides protection in SR-PCE multi-domain On Demand Nexthop (ODN) SR policy based approach. * Convergence on failure of border routers can be achieved by well known methods for BGP inter domain routing approach: - BGP Add Path provide diverse path visibility - BGP backup path pre-programming - Sub-second convergence on border router failure notified by local IGP. 10. IANA Considerations 10.1. BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types registry This document introduce a new TLV Type of the BGP Prefix-SID attribute. IANA is requested to assign Type value in the registry "BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types" as follows Value Type Reference ---------------------------------------------------------- TBD SRv6 label route tunnel TLV <this document> Agrawal, et al. Expires 12 March 2023 [Page 19] Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking September 2022 10.2. SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors This document introduces a new SRv6 Endpoint behavior "End.DTM". IANA is requested to assign identifier value in the "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors" sub-registry under "Segment Routing Parameters" registry. +-------------+--------+-------------------------+------------------+ | Value | Hex | Endpoint behavior | Reference | +-------------+--------+-------------------------+------------------+ | TBD | TBD | End.DTM | <this document> | +-------------+--------+-------------------------+------------------+ 11. Security Considerations 12. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge Kamran Raza, Dhananjaya Rao, Stephane Litkowski, Pablo Camarillo, Ketan Talaulikar 13. References 13.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] Dawra, G., Talaulikar, K., Raszuk, R., Decraene, B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- bess-srv6-services-15, 22 March 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-srv6- services-15.txt>. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment- routing-policy-22, 22 March 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring- segment-routing-policy-22.txt>. [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>. [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>. Agrawal, et al. Expires 12 March 2023 [Page 20] Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking September 2022 [RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 4023, DOI 10.17487/RFC4023, March 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4023>. [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>. [RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>. [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. [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>. [RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah, A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669, DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>. [RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer, D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986, DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>. 13.2. Informative References Agrawal, et al. Expires 12 March 2023 [Page 21] Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking September 2022 [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] Patel, K., Velde, G. V. D., Sangli, S. R., and J. Scudder, "The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-22, 7 January 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft- ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-22.txt>. [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz, M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-seamless- mpls-07, 28 June 2014, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/ draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07.txt>. [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa- 08, 21 January 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/ draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-08.txt>. Authors' Addresses Swadesh Agrawal (editor) Cisco Systems Email: swaagraw@cisco.com Zafar ALI Cisco Systems Email: zali@cisco.com Clarence Filsfils Cisco Systems Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Daniel Voyer Bell Canada Canada Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca Gaurav dawra LinkedIn United States of America Agrawal, et al. Expires 12 March 2023 [Page 22] Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking September 2022 Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com Zhenbin Li Huawei Technologies China Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Agrawal, et al. Expires 12 March 2023 [Page 23]