BGP Extensions for IDs Allocation
draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext-05
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 | Huaimo Chen , Zhenbin Li , Zhenqiang Li , Yanhe Fan , Mehmet Toy , Lei Liu | ||
Last updated | 2020-05-02 | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | Candidate for WG Adoption | |
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext-05
Chen, et al. Expires November 3, 2020 [Page 6] Internet-Draft BGP for IDs Allocation May 2020 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (TBDb for Link SID) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Identifier (8 octets) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Peer IP (4/16 bytes for IPv4/IPv6 Address) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Local Node Descriptors TLV ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Remote Node Descriptors TLV ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Link Descriptors TLV ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Sub-TLVs ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Where: Type (TBDb): It is to be assigned by IANA. Length: It is the length of the value field in bytes. Peer IP: 4/16 octet value indicates an IPv4/IPv6 peer. Protocol-ID, Identifier, Local Node Descriptors, Remote Node Descriptors and Link Descriptors: defined in [RFC7752], can be reused. The Sub-TLVs may be some of the followings: Adj-SID TLV (1099): It contains the Segment Identifier (SID) allocated for the link/adjacency. LAN Adj-SID TLV (1100): It contains the Segment Identifier (SID) allocated for the adjacency/link to a non-DR router on a broadcast, NBMA, or hybrid link. SRv6 Adj-SID TLV (TBD3): A new TLV, called SRv6 Adj-SID TLV, contains an SRv6 Adj-SID and related information. SRv6 LAN Adj-SID TLV (TBD4): A new TLV, called SRv6 LAN Adj-SID TLV, contains an SRv6 LAN Adj-SID and related information. The format of an SRv6 Adj-SID TLV is illustrated below. Chen, et al. Expires November 3, 2020 [Page 7] Internet-Draft BGP for IDs Allocation May 2020 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (TBD3) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Weight | Algorithm |B|S|P| Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | SRv6 Endpoint Function | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SRv6 Identifier | | (128 bits) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Optional sub-TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ SRv6 Adj-SID TLV Type: TBD3 for SRv6 Adj-SID TLV is to be assigned by IANA. Length: Variable. Weight: 1 octet. The value represents the weight of the SID for the purpose of load balancing. Algorithm: 1 octet. Associated algorithm. Flags: 2 octets. Three flags are defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]. SRv6 Endpoint Function: 2 octets. The function associated with SRv6 SID. SRv6 Identifier: 16 octets. IPv6 address representing SRv6 SID. Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt. The format of an SRv6 LAN Adj-SID TLV is illustrated below. Chen, et al. Expires November 3, 2020 [Page 8] Internet-Draft BGP for IDs Allocation May 2020 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (TBD4) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Weight | Algorithm |B|S|P| Flags |O| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | SRv6 Endpoint Function | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | neighbor Router ID (4 octets) / System ID (6 octets) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SRv6 Identifier | | (128 bits) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Optional sub-TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ SRv6 LAN Adj-SID TLV Type: TBD4 for SRv6 LAN Adj-SID TLV is to be assigned by IANA. Length: Variable. Weight: 1 octet. The value represents the weight of the SID for the purpose of load balancing. Algorithm: 1 octet. Associated algorithm. Flags: 2 octets. Three flags B, S and P are defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]. Flag O set to 1 indicating OSPF neighbor Router ID of 4 octets, set to 0 indicating IS-IS neighbor System ID of 6 octets. SRv6 Endpoint Function: 2 octets. The function associated with SRv6 SID. SRv6 Identifier: 16 octets. IPv6 address representing SRv6 SID. Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt. Chen, et al. Expires November 3, 2020 [Page 9] Internet-Draft BGP for IDs Allocation May 2020 3.3. Prefix SID NLRI TLV The Prefix SID NLRI TLV is used to represent the IDs such as SID associated with a prefix. Its format is illustrated in the Figure below, which is similar to the corresponding one defined in [RFC7752]. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (TBDc for Prefix SID) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Identifier (8 octets) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Peer IP (4/16 bytes for IPv4/IPv6 Address) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Local Node Descriptors TLV ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Prefix Descriptors TLV ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Sub-TLVs ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Where: Type (TBDc): It is to be assigned by IANA. Length: It is the length of the value field in bytes. Peer IP: 4/16 octet value indicates an IPv4/IPv6 peer. Protocol-ID, Identifier, Local Node Descriptors and Prefix Descriptors: defined in [RFC7752], can be reused. Sub-TLVs may be some of the followings: Prefix-SID TLV (1158): It contains the Segment Identifier (SID) allocated for the prefix. Prefix Range TLV (1159): It contains a range of prefixes and the Segment Identifier (SID)s allocated for the prefixes. Chen, et al. Expires November 3, 2020 [Page 10] Internet-Draft BGP for IDs Allocation May 2020 3.4. Capability Negotiation It is necessary to negotiate the capability to support BGP Extensions for sending and receiving Segment Identifiers (SIDs). The BGP SID Capability is a new BGP capability [RFC5492]. The Capability Code for this capability is to be specified by the IANA. The Capability Length field of this capability is variable. The Capability Value field consists of one or more of the following tuples: +--------------------------------------------------+ | Address Family Identifier (2 octets) | +--------------------------------------------------+ | Subsequent Address Family Identifier (1 octet) | +--------------------------------------------------+ | Send/Receive (1 octet) | +--------------------------------------------------+ BGP SID Capability The meaning and use of the fields are as follows: Address Family Identifier (AFI): This field is the same as the one used in [RFC4760]. Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI): This field is the same as the one used in [RFC4760]. Send/Receive: This field indicates whether the sender is (a) willing to receive SID from its peer (value 1), (b) would like to send SID to its peer (value 2), or (c) both (value 3) for the <AFI, SAFI>. 4. IANA Considerations This document requests assigning a new AFI in the registry "Address Family Numbers" as follows: +-------------+---------------------+-------------+ | Code Point | Description | Reference | +-------------+---------------------+-------------+ | TBDx | Identifier AFI |This document| +-------------+---------------------+-------------+ This document requests assigning a new SAFI in the registry "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters" as follows: Chen, et al. Expires November 3, 2020 [Page 11] Internet-Draft BGP for IDs Allocation May 2020 +-------------+----------------------+-------------+ | Code Point | Description | Reference | +-------------+----------------------+-------------+ | TBDy | SID SAFI |This document| +-------------+----------------------+-------------+ This document defines a new registry called "SID NLRI TLVs". The allocation policy of this registry is "First Come First Served (FCFS)" according to [RFC8126]. Following TLV code points are defined: +-------------+-----------------------------------+-------------+ | Code Point | Description | Reference | +-------------+-----------------------------------+-------------+ | 1 (TBDa) | Node SID NLRI |This document| +-------------+-----------------------------------+-------------+ | 2 (TBDb) | Link SID NLRI |This document| +-------------+-----------------------------------+-------------+ | 3 (TBDc) | Prefix SID NLRI |This document| +-------------+-----------------------------------+-------------+ This document requests assigning a code-point from the registry "BGP- LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" as follows: +----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------+ | TLV Code Point | Description | Reference | +----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------+ | TBD1 | SRv6 Node SID |This document| +----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------+ | TBD2 | SRv6 Allocator |This document| +----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------+ | TBD3 | SRv6 Adj-SID |This document| +----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------+ | TBD4 | SRv6 LAN Adj-SID |This document| +----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------+ 5. Security Considerations Protocol extensions defined in this document do not affect the BGP security other than those as discussed in the Security Considerations section of [RFC7752]. Chen, et al. Expires November 3, 2020 [Page 12] Internet-Draft BGP for IDs Allocation May 2020 6. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Eric Wu, Robert Raszuk, Zhengquiang Li, and Ketan Talaulikar for their valuable suggestions and comments on this draft. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect] Velde, G., Patel, K., and Z. Li, "Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect", draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10 (work in progress), October 2019. [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-25 (work in progress), May 2019. [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-07 (work in progress), March 2020. [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, "Use of BGP for routing in large-scale data centers", draft-ietf-rtgwg- bgp-routing-large-dc-11 (work in progress), June 2016. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work in progress), January 2018. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-15 (work in progress), September 2018. Chen, et al. Expires November 3, 2020 [Page 13] Internet-Draft BGP for IDs Allocation May 2020 [I-D.li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak, "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-li-ospf- ospfv3-srv6-extensions-07 (work in progress), November 2019. [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>. [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>. [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>. [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>. [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>. [RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>. [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. Chen, et al. Expires November 3, 2020 [Page 14] Internet-Draft BGP for IDs Allocation May 2020 7.2. Informative References [I-D.gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-extension] Gredler, H., Ray, S., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Chen, M., and J. Tantsura, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing", draft-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing- extension-02 (work in progress), October 2014. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., 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-19 (work in progress), May 2019. [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn] Dong, J., Bryant, S., Li, Z., Miyasaka, T., and Y. Lee, "A Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Networks (VPN+) Services", draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-05 (work in progress), February 2020. Authors' Addresses Huaimo Chen Futurewei Boston, MA USA Email: Huaimo.chen@futurewei.com Zhenbin Li Huawei Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Zhenqiang Li China Mobile No. 29 Finance Street, Xicheng District Beijing 100029 P.R. China Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com Chen, et al. Expires November 3, 2020 [Page 15] Internet-Draft BGP for IDs Allocation May 2020 Yanhe Fan Casa Systems USA Email: yfan@casa-systems.com Mehmet Toy Verizon USA Email: mehmet.toy@verizon.com Lei Liu Fujitsu USA Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com Chen, et al. Expires November 3, 2020 [Page 16]