SR Path Ingress Protection
draft-chen-idr-sr-ingress-protection-02
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2020-04-30
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
htmlized (tools)
htmlized
bibtex
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group H. Chen
Internet-Draft Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track M. Toy
Expires: November 1, 2020 Verizon
A. Wang
China Telecom
Z. Li
China Mobile
L. Liu
Fujitsu
X. Liu
Volta Networks
April 30, 2020
SR Path Ingress Protection
draft-chen-idr-sr-ingress-protection-02
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
for protecting the ingress node of a Segment Routing (SR) tunnel or
path.
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 November 1, 2020.
Chen, et al. Expires November 1, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SR Ingress Protection April 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. SR Path Ingress Protection Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Behavior after Ingress Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Extensions to BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. SR Path Ingress Protection Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1.1. Primary Ingress Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.2. Service Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.3. Traffic Description Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Backup Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Ingress Protection Information Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The fast protection of a transit node of a Segment Routing (SR) path
or tunnel is described in [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
and [I-D.hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding]. [RFC8424]
presents extensions to RSVP-TE for the fast protection of the ingress
node of a traffic engineering (TE) Label Switching Path (LSP).
However, these documents do not discuss any protocol extensions for
the fast protection of the ingress node of an SR path or tunnel.
Chen, et al. Expires November 1, 2020 [Page 2]
Show full document text