Node Protection for SR-TE Paths
draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths-05
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2019-07-05
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
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)
|
Routing area S. Hegde
Internet-Draft C. Bowers
Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks Inc.
Expires: January 6, 2020 S. Litkowski
Orange
X. Xu
Alibaba Inc.
F. Xu
Tencent
July 5, 2019
Node Protection for SR-TE Paths
draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths-05
Abstract
Segment routing supports the creation of explicit paths using
adjacency-sids, node-sids, and binding-sids. It is important to
provide fast reroute (FRR) mechanisms to respond to failures of links
and nodes in the Segment-Routed Traffic-Engineered(SR-TE) path. A
point of local repair (PLR) can provide FRR protection against the
failure of a link in an SR-TE path by examining only the first (top)
label in the SR label stack. In order to protect against the failure
of a node, a PLR may need to examine the second label in the stack as
well, in order to determine SR-TE path beyond the failed node. This
document specifies how a PLR can use the first and second label in
the label stack describing an SR-TE path to provide protection
against node failures.
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
Hegde, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Node Protection for SR-TE Paths July 2019
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 January 6, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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. Node Failures Along SR-TE Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Node protection for node-sid explicit paths . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Node-Protection for Anycast-SIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Node-protection for adj-sid explicit paths . . . . . . . 5
3. Detailed Solution using Context Tables . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Building Context Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Node protection for node SIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Node protection for adjacency SIDs . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Node protection for edge nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Hold timers for Node-SID/Prefix-SIDs and Adjacency-SIDs . . . 10
5. Optimization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
It is possible for a routing device to completely go out of service
abruptly due to power failure, hardware failure or software crashes.
Show full document text