Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy
draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-08
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (pim WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Daniel Voyer , Clarence Filsfils , Rishabh Parekh , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2024-04-12 | ||
| Replaces | draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-08
Network Working Group D. Voyer, Ed.
Internet-Draft Bell Canada
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: 14 October 2024 R. Parekh
Cisco Systems, Inc.
H. Bidgoli
Nokia
Z. Zhang
Juniper Networks
12 April 2024
Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy
draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-08
Abstract
This document describes an architecture to construct a Point-to-
Multipoint (P2MP) tree to deliver Multi-point services in a Segment
Routing domain. A SR P2MP tree is constructed by stitching a set of
Replication segments. A SR Point-to-Multipoint (SR P2MP) Policy
defines a P2MP tree and a PCE computes and instantiates the tree.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
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 14 October 2024.
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. SR P2MP Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. P2MP Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Using Controller to build a P2MP Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Provisioning SR P2MP Policy Creation . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2. Invoking API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. P2MP Tree Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Topology Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2. Capability and Attribute Discovery . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.3. Loop Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Instantiating P2MP tree on nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.1. PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2. BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.1. Local Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.2. Path Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Illustration of SR P2MP Policy and P2MP Tree . . . . 13
A.1. P2MP Tree with non-adjacent Replication Segments . . . . 15
A.1.1. SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.1.2. SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.2. P2MP Tree with adjacent Replication Segments . . . . . . 18
A.2.1. SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.2.2. SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
1. Introduction
A Multi-point service delivery can be realized with P2MP trees in a
Segment Routing domain [RFC8402]. A P2MP tree spans from a Root node
to a set of Leaf nodes via intermediate Replication nodes. It
consists of a Replication segment [RFC9524] at the root node,
stitched to one or more Replication segments at Leaf nodes and
intermediate Replication nodes. A Bud node [RFC9524] is a node that
is both a Replication node and a Leaf node. Any mention of "Leaf
node(s)" in this document should be considered as referring to "Leaf
or Bud node(s)".
A Segment Routing P2MP policy, a variant of the SR Policy [RFC9256],
defines the Root and Leaf nodes of a P2MP tree. One or more
Candidate Paths define optional constraints and/or optimization
objectives for the tree. A PCE computes the tree from the Root node
to the set of Leaf nodes via a set of Replication nodes based on a SR
P2MP Policy. The PCE then instantiates the P2MP tree in the SR
domain by signaling Replication segments to Root, Replication and
Leaf nodes using protocols such as PCEP, BGP, NetConf etc. The
Replication segments of a P2MP tree can be instantiated for SR-MPLS
and SRv6 dataplanes.
2. SR P2MP Policy
An SR P2MP policy is a variant of an SR policy[RFC9256] and is used
to instantiate SR P2MP trees.
A SR P2MP Policy is identified by the tuple <Root, Tree-ID>, where:
* Root: The address of Root node of a P2MP trees instantiated by the
SR P2MP Policy
* Tree-ID: A identifier that is unique in context of the Root. This
is an unsigned 32-bit number.
A SR P2MP Policy is defined by following elements:
* Leaf nodes: A set of nodes that terminate the P2MP trees.
* Candidate Paths: See below.
A SR P2MP policy is provisioned on a PCE to compute and instantiate
P2MP trees. A PCE computes the P2MP tree instances of a policy and
instantiates Replication segments at Root, Replication and Leaf nodes
of the trees. The Root and Tree-ID of the SR P2MP policy are mapped
to Replication-ID element of the Replication segment
identifier[RFC9524].
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
A SR P2MP Policy has one or more Candidate paths. Each candidate
path has optional topological/resource constraints and/or
optimization objectives that determine the P2MP trees computed for
that Candidate path. The Root node selects the active Candidate path
based on the tie breaking rules amongst the candidate-paths as
specified in[RFC9256].
A Candidate path has zero or more P2MP tree instances. Instance-ID
is the identifier of an instance of a Candidate path. This is an
unsigned 16-bit number which is unique in context of the SR P2MP
policy of the Candidate path. The identifier of Replication segments
used to instantiate an instance is <Root-ID, Tree-ID, Instance-ID,
Node-ID>. The PCE designates an Active instance of a Candidate Path
at the Root node of SR P2MP policy by signalling this state in the
protocol used to instantiate the Replication segment of the instance.
The Tree-SID (Section 3 below) is an identifier of a P2MP tree
instance in the forwarding plane. It is instantiated in the
forwarding plane at Root node, intermediate Replication nodes and
Leaf nodes of the P2MP tree of an instance. The Tree-SID of the
active instance of the active Candidate path SHOULD be used as
Binding SID of the SR P2MP policy.
The Root node steers an incoming packet of a Multi-point service into
a SR P2MP policy in one of two ways:
* Based on a local policy-based routing at the Root node. This
packet is carried by the active instance of the active Candidate
path of the policy.
* Based on the Tree-SID (Binding SID) in the incoming packet.
3. P2MP Tree
A P2MP tree in a SR domain connects a Root to a set of Leaf nodes via
a set of intermediate Replication nodes. It consists of a
Replication segment at the Root stitched to zero or more Replication
segments at intermediate Replication nodes, and eventually the
Replication segments at Leaf nodes.
The Replication SID of the Replication segment at Root node is called
the Tree-SID. The Tree-SID SHOULD also be the Replication-SID of
Replication segments at Replication and Leaf nodes. The Replication
segments at Replication and Leaf nodes MAY have Replication-SIDs that
are not same as the Tree-SID.
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
A Replication Segment MAY be shared by P2MP tree instances, e.g. for
protection. A shared Replication Segment MAY be identified with zero
Root-ID address (0.0.0.0 for IPv4 and :: for IPv6) and a Replication-
ID that is unique in context of Node address where the Replication
segment is instantiated. A shared Replication Segment MUST NOT be
associated with a SR P2MP tree.
For SR-MPLS, a PCE MAY decide not to instantiate Replication segments
at Leaf nodes of a P2MP tree if it is known a priori that Multi-point
services mapped to the P2MP tree can be identified using a context
that is globally unique in SR domain. In this case, Replication nodes
upstream to the Leaf nodes effectively implement Penultimate-Hop Pop
(PHP) behavior to pop Tree-SID from a packet. A Multi-point service
context assigned from "Domain-wide Common Block" (DCB)
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label] is an example of a
globally unique context.
A packet steered into a P2MP tree instance is replicated by the
Replication segment at Root node to its downstream nodes. A
replicated packet has the Replication-SID of the Replication segment
at a downstream node. A downstream node could be a Leaf node or an
intermediate Replication Node. In the latter case, the packet is
replicated through Replication segments till it reaches all the Leaf
nodes.
4. Using Controller to build a P2MP Tree
A P2MP tree can be instantited by a Path Computation Element (PCE).
This section outlines a high-level architecture for such an approach.
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
North Bound South Bound
Programming ..... Programming
Interface Interface
|
|
v
+-----+ ..........................
.............| PCE | ............. .
. +-----+ . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . V .
. . +----+ .
. . | N3 | .
. . +----+ .
. . | Leaf (L2) .
. . | .
. . | .
V V | V
+----+ +----+ -------------- +----+
| N1 |----------| N2 |-------------------------| N4 |
+----+ +----+ +----+
Root (R) Replication node (M) Leaf (L1)
Figure 1: Centralized Control Plane Model
4.1. Provisioning SR P2MP Policy Creation
A SR P2MP policy can be instantiated and maintained in a using a Path
Computation Element (PCE).
4.1.1. API
North-bound APIs on a PCE can be used to:
1. Create SR P2MP policy: CreateSRP2MPPolicy<Root, Tree-ID>
2. Delete SR P2MP policy: DeleteSRP2MPPolicy<Root, Tree-ID>
3. Modify SR P2MP policy Leaf Set: SRP2MPPolicyLeafSetModify<Root,
Tree-ID, {Leaf Set}>
4. Create a Candidate Path for SR P2MP policy:
CreateSRP2MPCandidatePath<Root, Tree-ID, <CP-ID>>
5. Delete a Candidate Path for SR P2MP policy:
DeleteSRP2MPCandidatePath<Root, Tree-ID, <CP-ID>>
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
6. Update a Candidate Path for SR P2MP policy:
UpdateSRP2MPCandidatePath<Root, Tree-ID, <CP-ID>, Preference,
Constraints, Optimization, ...>
CP-ID is identifier of a Candidate Path within a SR P2MP policy. One
possible identifier is the tuple <Protocol-Origin, originator,
discriminator> as specified in [RFC9256].
Note these are conceptual APIs. Actual implementations may offer
different APIs as long as they provide same functionality. For
example, API might allow symbolic name to be assigned for a P2MP
policy or APIs might allow individual Leaf nodes to be added or
deleted from a policy instead of an update operation.
4.1.2. Invoking API
Interaction with a PCE can be via PCEP, REST, Netconf, gRPC, CLI. A
YANG model shall be be developed for this purpose as well.
4.2. P2MP Tree Computation
An entity (an operator, a network node or a machine) provisions a SR
P2MP policy by specifying the addresses of the root (R) and set of
leaves {L} as well as Traffic Engineering (TE) attributes of
Candidate paths via a suitable North-Bound API. The PCE computes one
or more instances of P2MP trees of a candidate path. The PCE MAY
compute P2MP trees for all Candidate paths. If tree computation is
successful, PCE instantiates the P2MP tree instance(s) using
Replication segments on Root, Replication, and Leaf nodes. A
Candidate path may not have any instance of P2MP tree if PCE cannot
compute a tree.
Candidate path constraints shall include link color affinity,
bandwidth, disjointness (link, node, SRLG), delay bound, link loss,
flexible algorithm etc. Candidate path shall be optimized based on
IGP or TE metric or link latency. Other constraints and optimization
objectives MAY be used for P2MP tree computation.
The Tree SID of an instance of a Candidate path of a SR P2MP policy
can be either dynamically allocated by the PCE or statically assigned
by entity provisioning the SR P2MP policy. Ideally, same Tree-SID
SHOULD be used for Replication segments at Root, Replication, and
Leaf nodes. Different Tree-SIDs MAY be used at Replication Node(s)
if it is not feasible to use same Tree SID.
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
A PCE can modify a P2MP tree of a Candidate path on detecting a
change in the network topology or in case a better path can be found
based on the new network state. In this case, the PCE MAY create a
new instance of a P2MP tree and remove the old instance of the tree
from the network in order to minimize traffic loss.
A PCE shall be capable of computing paths across multiple IGP areas
or levels as well as Autonomous Systems (ASs).
4.2.1. Topology Discovery
A PCE shall learn network topology, TE attributes of link/node as
well as SIDs via dynamic routing protocols (IGP and/or BGP-LS). It
may be possible for entities to pass topology information to PCE via
north-bound API.
4.2.2. Capability and Attribute Discovery
It shall be possible for a node to advertise SR P2MP tree capability
via IGP, BGP-LS and/or PCEP. Similarly, a PCE can also advertise its
P2MP tree computation capability via IGP, BGP-LS and/or PCEP.
Capability advertisement allows a network node to dynamically choose
one or more PCE(s) to obtain services pertaining to SR P2MP policies,
as well a PCE to dynamically identify SR P2MP tree capable nodes.
4.2.3. Loop Prevention
A PCE MUST compute a P2MP tree such that there are no loops in the
tree at steady state (Section 2 of [RFC9524]). An OPTIONAL algorithm
to compute a loop free tree is listed below,
Given SR P2MP Polciy with Root (R) and Leaf node set (LS), a
Candidate path of the policy with constraints(C) and optimization
objective(O), and Constrained Shortest Path First(CSPF) algorithm to
compute a path between a pair of nodes:
S01. Path Set<PS> = {}
S02. For each Leaf(L) in LS {
S03. Path P = Compute CSPF(R, L, C, O)
S04. Add P to PS
S05. }
S06. Tree = Merge(PS)
Notes:
* Specification of CSPF algorithm is outside the scope of this
document
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
* Path Set Merge function merges individual paths resulting in a
tree of Root, intermediate Replication and Leaf nodes. The
specfication of this function is outside the scope of this
document.
A PCE MAY implement other tree computation algorithm(s) which MUST
guarantee loop prevention or loop detection and mitigation at steady
state.
4.3. Instantiating P2MP tree on nodes
Once a PCE computes a P2MP tree for an instance of a Candidate path
of a SR P2MP policy, it needs to instantiate the tree on the relevant
network nodes via Replication segments. The PCE can use various
protocols to program the Replication segments as described below.
4.3.1. PCEP
PCE Protocol (PCEP) has been traditionally used:
1. For a head-end to obtain paths from a PCE.
2. A PCE to instantiate SR policies.
PCEP protocol can be stateful in that a PCE can have a stateful
control of an SR policy on a head-end which has delegated the control
of the SR policy to the PCE. PCEP shall be extended to provision and
maintain SR P2MP trees in a stateful fashion.
4.3.2. BGP
BGP has been extended to instantiate and report SR policies. It
shall be extended to instantiate and maintain P2MP trees for SR P2MP
policies.
4.4. Protection
4.4.1. Local Protection
A network link, node or path on the instance of a P2MP tree can be
protected using SR policies computed by PCE. The backup SR policies
shall be programmed in forwarding plane in order to minimize traffic
loss when the protected link/node fails. It is also possible to use
node local Loop-Free Alternate protection mechanisms (LFA) to protect
link/nodes of P2MP tree.
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
4.4.2. Path Protection
It is possible for PCE create a disjoint backup tree for providing
end-to-end path protection.
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
6. Security Considerations
This document describes how a P2MP tree can be created in an SR
domain by stitching Replication Segments together. Some security
considerations for Replication Segments outlined in [RFC9524] are
also appicable to this document. Following is a brief reminder of
the same.
An SR domain needs protection from outside attackers as described in
[RFC8754].
Failure to protect the SR MPLS domain by correctly provisioning MPLS
support per interface permits attackers from outside the domain to
send packets to receivers of the Multipoint services that use the SR
P2MP trees provisioned within the domain.
Failure to protect the SRv6 domain with inbound Infrastructure Access
Control Lists (IACLs) on external interfaces, combined with failure
to implement BCP 38 [RFC2827]or apply IACLs on nodes provisioning
SIDs, permits attackers from outside the SR domain to send packets to
the receivers of Multipoint services that use the SR P2MP trees
provisioned within the domain.
Incorrect provisioning of Replication segments by a PCE that computes
SR P2MP tree instance can result in a chain of Replication segments
forming a loop. In this case, replicated packets can create a storm
till MPLS TTL (for SR-MPLS) or IPv6 Hop Limit (for SRv6) decrements
to zero.
The control plane protocols (like PCEP, BGP, etc.) used to
instantiate Replication segments of SR P2MP tree instance can
leverage their own security mechanisms such as encryption,
authentication filtering etc.
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
For SRv6, [RFC9524] describes an exception for Parameter Problem
Message, code 2 ICMPv6 Error messages. If an attacker is able to
inject a packet into Multipoint service with source address of a node
and with an extension header using unknown option type marked as
mandatory, then a large number of ICMPv6 Parameter Problem messages
can cause a denial-of-service attack on the source node.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Siva Sivabalan, Mike Koldychev
and Vishnu Pavan Beeram for their valuable inputs.
8. Contributors
Clayton Hassen Bell Canada Vancouver Canada
Email: clayton.hassen@bell.ca
Kurtis Gillis Bell Canada Halifax Canada
Email: kurtis.gillis@bell.ca
Arvind Venkateswaran Cisco Systems, Inc. San Jose US
Email: arvvenka@cisco.com
Zafar Ali Cisco Systems, Inc. US
Email: zali@cisco.com
Swadesh Agrawal Cisco Systems, Inc. San Jose US
Email: swaagraw@cisco.com
Jayant Kotalwar Nokia Mountain View US
Email: jayant.kotalwar@nokia.com
Tanmoy Kundu Nokia Mountain View US
Email: tanmoy.kundu@nokia.com
Andrew Stone Nokia Ottawa Canada
Email: andrew.stone@nokia.com
Tarek Saad Juniper Networks Canada
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
Email:tsaad@juniper.net
Kamran Raza Cisco Systems, Inc. Canada
Email:skraza@cisco.com
Anuj Budhiraja Cisco Systems, Inc. US
Email:abudhira@cisco.com
9. References
9.1. 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
[RFC9524] Voyer, D., Ed., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and
Z. Zhang, "Segment Routing Replication for Multipoint
Service Delivery", RFC 9524, DOI 10.17487/RFC9524,
February 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9524>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-illustration]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Li, Z., Matsushima, S.,
Decraene, B., Steinberg, D., Lebrun, D., Raszuk, R., and
J. Leddy, "Illustrations for SRv6 Network Programming",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-filsfils-spring-
srv6-net-pgm-illustration-04, 30 March 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-
spring-srv6-net-pgm-illustration-04>.
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label]
Zhang, Z. J., Rosen, E. C., Lin, W., Li, Z., and I.
Wijnands, "MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common
Labels", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-14, 4 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-
mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-14>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[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>.
Appendix A. Illustration of SR P2MP Policy and P2MP Tree
Consider the following topology:
R3------R6
PCE--/ \
R1----R2----R5-----R7
\ /
+--R4---+
Figure 2: Figure 1
In these examples, the Node-SID of a node Rn is N-SIDn and Adjacency-
SID from node Rm to node Rn is A-SIDmn. Interface between Rm and Rn
is Lmn.
For SRv6, the reader is expected to be familiar with SRv6 Network
Programming [RFC8986] to follow the examples. This document re-uses
SID allocation scheme, reproduced below, from Illustrations in SRv6
Network Programming [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-illustration]
* 2001:db8::/32 is an IPv6 block allocated by a RIR to the operator
* 2001:db8:0::/48 is dedicated to the internal address space
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
* 2001:db8:cccc::/48 is dedicated to the internal SRv6 SID space
* We assume a location expressed in 64 bits and a function expressed
in 16 bits
* node k has a classic IPv6 loopback address 2001:db8::k/128 which
is advertised in the IGP
* node k has 2001:db8:cccc:k::/64 for its local SID space. Its SIDs
will be explicitly assigned from that block
* node k advertises 2001:db8:cccc:k::/64 in its IGP
* Function :1:: (function 1, for short) represents the End function
with PSP support
* Function :Cn:: (function Cn, for short) represents the End.X
function to node n
* Function :C1n: (function C1n for short) represents the End.X
function to node n with USD
Each node k has:
* An explicit SID instantiation 2001:db8:cccc:k:1::/128 bound to an
End function with additional support for PSP
* An explicit SID instantiation 2001:db8:cccc:k:Cj::/128 bound to an
End.X function to neighbor J with additional support for PSP
* An explicit SID instantiation 2001:db8:cccc:k:C1j::/128 bound to
an End.X function to neighbor J with additional support for USD
Assume a PCE is provisioned with following SR P2MP policy at Root R1
with Tree-ID T-ID:
SR P2MP Policy <R1,T-ID>:
Leaf nodes: {R2, R6, R7}
Candidate-path 1:
Optimize: IGP metric
Tree-SID: T-SID1
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
The PCE is responsible for computing a P2MP tree instance of the
Candidate Path. In this example, we assume one active instance of
P2MP tree with Instance-ID I-ID1. Assume PCE instantiates P2MP trees
by signalling Replication segments i.e. Replication-ID of these
Replication segments is <Root, Tree-ID, Instance-ID>.. All
Replication segments use the Tree-SID T-SID1 as Replication-SID. For
SRv6, assume the Replication-SID at node k, bound to an End.Replicate
function, is 2001:db8:cccc:k:FA::/128.
A.1. P2MP Tree with non-adjacent Replication Segments
Assume PCE computes a P2MP tree instance with Root node R1,
Intermediate and Leaf node R2, and Leaf nodes R6 and R7. The PCE
instantiates the instance by stitching Replication segments at R1,
R2, R6 and R7. Replication segment at R1 replicates to R2.
Replication segment at R2 replicates to R6 and R7. Note nodes R3, R4
and R5 do not have any Replication segment state for the tree.
A.1.1. SR-MPLS
The Replication segment state at nodes R1, R2, R6 and R7 is shown
below.
Replication segment at R1:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R1>:
Replication-SID: T-SID1
Replication State:
R2: <T-SID1->L12>
Replication to R2 steers packet directly to the node on interface
L12.
Replication segment at R2:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R2>:
Replication-SID: T-SID1
Replication State:
R2: <Leaf>
R6: <N-SID6, T-SID1>
R7: <N-SID7, T-SID1>
R2 is a Bud node. It performs role of Leaf as well as a transit node
replicating to R6 and R7. Replication to R6, using N-SID6, steers
packet via IGP shortest path to that node. Replication to R7, using
N-SID7, steers packet via IGP shortest path to R7 via either R5 or R4
based on ECMP hashing.
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
Replication segment at R6:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R6>:
Replication-SID: T-SID1
Replication State:
R6: <Leaf>
Replication segment at R7:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R7>:
Replication-SID: T-SID1
Replication State:
R7: <Leaf>
When a packet is steered into the active instance Candidate path 1 of
SR P2MP Policy at R1:
* Since R1 is directly connected to R2, R1 performs PUSH operation
with just <T-SID1> label for the replicated copy and sends it to
R2 on interface L12.
* R2, as Leaf, performs NEXT operation, pops T-SID1 label and
delivers the payload. For replication to R6, R2 performs a PUSH
operation of N-SID6, to send <N-SID6,T-SID1> label stack to R3.
R3 is the penultimate hop for N-SID6; it performs penultimate hop
popping, which corresponds to the NEXT operation and the packet is
then sent to R6 with <T-SID1> in the label stack. For replication
to R7, R2 performs a PUSH operation of N-SID7, to send
<N-SID7,T-SID1> label stack to R4, one of IGP ECMP nexthops
towards R7. R4 is the penultimate hop for N-SID7; it performs
penultimate hop popping, which corresponds to the NEXT operation
and the packet is then sent to R7 with <T-SID1> in the label
stack.
* R6, as Leaf, performs NEXT operation, pops T-SID1 label and
delivers the payload.
* R7, as Leaf, performs NEXT operation, pops T-SID1 label and
delivers the payload.
A.1.2. SRv6
For SRv6, the replicated packet from R2 to R7 has to traverse R4
using a SR-TE policy, Policy27. The policy has one SID in segment
list: End.X function with USD of R4 to R7 . The Replication segment
state at nodes R1, R2, R6 and R7 is shown below.
Policy27: <2001:db8:cccc:4:C17::>
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
Replication segment at R1:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R1>:
Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:1:FA::
Replication State:
R2: <2001:db8:cccc:2:FA::->L12>
Replication to R2 steers packet directly to the node on interface
L12.
Replication segment at R2:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R2>:
Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:2:FA::
Replication State:
R2: <Leaf>
R6: <2001:db8:cccc:6:FA::>
R7: <2001:db8:cccc:7:FA:: -> Policy27>
R2 is a Bud node. It performs role of Leaf as well as a transit node
replicating to R6 and R7. Replication to R6, steers packet via IGP
shortest path to that node. Replication to R7, via SR-TE policy,
first encapsulates the packet using H.Encaps and then steers the
outer packet to R4. End.X USD on R4 decapsulates outer header and
sends the original inner packet to R7.
Replication segment at R6:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R6>:
Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:6:FA::
Replication State:
R6: <Leaf>
Replication segment at R7:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R7>:
Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:7:FA::
Replication State:
R7: <Leaf>
When a packet (A,B2) is steered into the active instance of Candidate
path 1 of SR P2MP Policy at R1 using H.Encaps.Replicate behavior:
* Since R1 is directly connected to R2, R1 sends replicated copy
(2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:2:FA::) (A,B2) to R2 on interface L12.
* R2, as Leaf removes outer IPv6 header and delivers the payload.
R2, as a bud node, also replicates the packet.
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
* - For replication to R6, R2 sends (2001:db8::1,
2001:db8:cccc:6:FA::) (A,B2) to R3. R3 forwards the packet
using 2001:db8:cccc:6::/64 packet to R6.
- For replication to R7 using Policy27, R2 encapsulates and sends
(2001:db8::2, 2001:db8:cccc:4:C17::) (2001:db8::1,
2001:db8:cccc:7:FA::) (A,B2) to R4. R4 performs End.X USD
behavior, decapsulates outer IPv6 header and sends
(2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:7:FA::) (A,B2) to R7.
* R6, as Leaf, removes outer IPv6 header and delivers the payload.
* R7, as Leaf, removes outer IPv6 header and delivers the payload.
A.2. P2MP Tree with adjacent Replication Segments
Assume PCE computes a P2MP tree with Root node R1, Intermediate and
Leaf node R2, Intermediate nodes R3 and R5, and Leaf nodes R6 and R7.
The PCE instantiates the P2MP tree instance by stitching Replication
segments at R1, R2, R3, R5, R6 and R7. Replication segment at R1
replicates to R2. Replication segment at R2 replicates to R3 and R5.
Replication segment at R3 replicates to R6. Replication segment at
R5 replicates to R7. Note node R4 does not have any Replication
segment state for the tree.
A.2.1. SR-MPLS
The Replication segment state at nodes R1, R2, R3, R5, R6 and R7 is
shown below.
Replication segment at R1:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R1>:
Replication-SID: T-SID1
Replication State:
R2: <T-SID1->L12>
Replication to R2 steers packet directly to the node on interface
L12.
Replication segment at R2:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R2>:
Replication-SID: T-SID1
Replication State:
R2: <Leaf>
R3: <T-SID1->L23>
R5: <T-SID1->L25>
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
R2 is a Bud node. It performs role of Leaf as well as a transit node
replicating to R3 and R5. Replication to R3, steers packet directly
to the node on L23. Replication to R5, steers packet directly to the
node on L25.
Replication segment at R3:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R3>:
Replication-SID: T-SID1
Replication State:
R6: <T-SID1->L36>
Replication to R6, steers packet directly to the node on L36.
Replication segment at R5:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R5>:
Replication-SID: T-SID1
Replication State:
R7: <T-SID1->L57>
Replication to R7, steers packet directly to the node on L57.
Replication segment at R6:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R6>:
Replication-SID: T-SID1
Replication State:
R6: <Leaf>
Replication segment at R7:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R7>:
Replication-SID: T-SID1
Replication State:
R7: <Leaf>
When a packet is steered into the SR P2MP Policy at R1:
* Since R1 is directly connected to R2, R1 performs PUSH operation
with just <T-SID1> label for the replicated copy and sends it to
R2 on interface L12.
* R2, as Leaf, performs NEXT operation, pops T-SID1 label and
delivers the payload. It also performs PUSH operation on T-SID1
for replication to R3 and R5. For replication to R6, R2 sends
<T-SID1> label stack to R3 on interface L23. For replication to
R5, R2 sends <T-SID1> label stack to R5 on interface L25.
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
* R3 performs NEXT operation on T-SID1 and performs a PUSH operation
for replication to R6 and sends <T-SID1> label stack to R6 on
interface L36.
* R5 performs NEXT operation on T-SID1 and performs a PUSH operation
for replication to R7 and sends <T-SID1> label stack to R7 on
interface L57.
* R6, as Leaf, performs NEXT operation, pops T-SID1 label and
delivers the payload.
* R7, as Leaf, performs NEXT operation, pops T-SID1 label and
delivers the payload.
A.2.2. SRv6
The Replication segment state at nodes R1, R2, R3, R5, R6 and R7 is
shown below.
Replication segment at R1:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R1>:
Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:1:FA::
Replication State:
R2: <2001:db8:cccc:2:FA::->L12>
Replication to R2 steers packet directly to the node on interface
L12.
Replication segment at R2:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R2>:
Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:2:FA::
Replication State:
R2: <Leaf>
R3: <2001:db8:cccc:3:FA::->L23>
R5: <2001:db8:cccc:5:FA::->L25>
R2 is a Bud node. It performs role of Leaf as well as a transit node
replicating to R3 and R5. Replication to R3, steers packet directly
to the node on L23. Replication to R5, steers packet directly to the
node on L25.
Replication segment at R3:
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R3>:
Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:3:FA::
Replication State:
R6: <2001:db8:cccc:6:FA::->L36>
Replication to R6, steers packet directly to the node on L36.
Replication segment at R5:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R5>:
Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:5:FA::
Replication State:
R7: <2001:db8:cccc:7:FA::->L57>
Replication to R7, steers packet directly to the node on L57.
Replication segment at R6:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R6>:
Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:6:FA::
Replication State:
R6: <Leaf>
Replication segment at R7:
Replication segment <R1,T-ID,I-ID1,R7>:
Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:7:FA::
Replication State:
R7: <Leaf>
When a packet (A,B2) is steered into the active instance of Candidate
path 1 of SR P2MP Policy at R1 using H.Encaps.Replicate behavior:
* Since R1 is directly connected to R2, R1 sends replicated copy
(2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:2:FA::) (A,B2) to R2 on interface L12.
* R2, as Leaf, removes outer IPv6 header and delivers the payload.
R2, as a bud node, also replicates the packet. For replication to
R3, R2 sends (2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:3:FA::) (A,B2) to R3 on
interface L23. For replication to R5, R2 sends (2001:db8::1,
2001:db8:cccc:5:FA::) (A,B2) to R5 on interface L25.
* R3 replicates and sends (2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:6:FA::) (A,B2)
to R6 on interface L36.
* R5 replicates and sends (2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:7:FA::) (A,B2)
to R7 on interface L57.
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft SR P2MP Policy April 2024
* R6, as Leaf, removes outer IPv6 header and delivers the payload.
* R7, as Leaf, removes outer IPv6 header and delivers the payload.
Authors' Addresses
Daniel Voyer (editor)
Bell Canada
Montreal
Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Rishabh Parekh
Cisco Systems, Inc.
San Jose,
United States of America
Email: riparekh@cisco.com
Hooman Bidgoli
Nokia
Ottawa
Canada
Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Voyer, Ed., et al. Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 22]