Network Working Group H. Chen
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Experimental Z. Hu
Expires: December 4, 2020 Huawei Technologies
H. Chen
Futurewei
X. Geng
Huawei Technologies
June 02, 2020
SRv6 Midpoint Protection
draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-02
Abstract
The previous work in IETF has provided some mechanism, e.g., TI-LFA,
that allows local repair actions on the direct neighbors of the
failed node to temporarily route traffic to the destination. These
mechanism could not work properly when the failure happens in the
destination point or the link connected to the destination. In SRv6
TE, the IPv6 destination address in the outer IPv6 header could be
the dedicated endpoint of the TE path rather than the destination of
the TE path. When the endpoint fails, local repair couldn't work on
the direct neighbor of the failed endpoint either. This document
defines midpoint protection, which enables the direct neighbor of the
failed endpoint to do the function of the endpoint, replace the IPv6
destination address to the other endpoint, and choose the next hop
based on the new destination address.
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
Chen, et al. Expires December 4, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draftdraft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-02 June 2020
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 December 4, 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. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Transit Node as Repair Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Endpoint Node as Repair Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Endpoint x Node as Repair Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. An Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
The previous work in IETF has provided some mechanism, e.g., TI-
LFA([I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]), that allows local
repair actions on the direct neighbors of the failed node to
temporarily route traffic to the destination. These mechanism could
not work properly when the failure happens in the destination point
or the link connected to the destination. In SRv6 TE, the IPv6
destination address in the outer IPv6 header could be the dedicated
endpoint of the TE path rather than the destination of the TE
Chen, et al. Expires December 4, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draftdraft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-02 June 2020
path([I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]). When the endpoint
fails, local repair couldn't work on the direct neighbor of the
failed endpoint either. This document defines midpoint protection,
which enables the direct neighbor of the failed endpoint to do the
function of the endpoint, replace the IPv6 destination address to the
other endpoint, and choose the next hop based on the new destination
address.
2. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Mechanism
When an endpoint node fails, the packet needs to bypass the failed
endpoint node and be forwarded to the next endpoint node of the
failed endpoint. On the Repair Node (i.e., the previous hop of the
failed endpoint node), it performs the proxy forwarding as follows :
o Outbound interface failure happens in the Repair Node;
Case 1: Route to the failed endpoint could be found in the FIB of
Repair Node:
o If the Repair Node is not directly connected to the failed
endpoint, the normal Ti-LFA is executed;
o If the Repair Node is directly connected to the failed endpoint,
the Repair Node forwards the packets through a bypass to the
failed endpoint, changing the IPv6 destination address with the
IPv6 address of the next, the last or other reasonable endpoint
nodes, which could avoid going throw the failed endpoint.
Case 2: Route to the failed endpoint could not be found in the FIB of
Repair Node:
o Repair Node forwards the packets through a bypass of the failed
endpoint to the next, the last or other reasonable endpoint node
directly . There is no need to check whether the failed endpoint
node is directly connected to the Repair Node or not.
3. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Example
The topology shown in Figure 1 illustrates an example of network
topology with SRv6 enabled on each node.
Chen, et al. Expires December 4, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draftdraft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-02 June 2020
+-----+ +-----+
| N5 |-----------| N6 |--------------+
+-----+ +-----+ |
| | |
| | |
| | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| N1 |-----------| N2 |-----------| N3 |-----------| N4 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
Figure 1: An example of midpoint protection
In this document, an end SID at node n with locator block B is
represented as B:n. An end.x SID at node n towards node k with
locator block B is represented as B:n:k. A SID list is represented
as <S1, S2, S3> where S1 is the first SID to visit, S2 is the second
SID to visit and S3 is the last SID to visit along the SRv6 TE path.
In the reference topology:
Node N1 is an ingress node of SRv6 domain. Node N1 steers a packet
into a segment list < B:3, B:4>.
When Node N3 fails, the packet needs to bypass the failed endpoint
node and be forwarded to the next endpoint node after the failed
endpoint in the TE path. When outbound interface failure happens in
the Repair Node (which is not limited to the previous hop node of the
failed endpoint node), it performs the proxy forwarding as follows,:
For node N2, if the outbound interface to the endpoint B:3 is failed
before IGP converges:
o Because node N2, as a Repair Node, is connected to the failed
endpoint B:3 directly, node N2 forwards the packets through a
bypass of the failed endpoint, changing the IPv6 destination
address with the next sid B:4. N2 detects the failure of outbound
interface to B:4 in the current route, it could use the normal Ti-
LFA repait path to forward the packet, because it is not directly
connected to the node N4. N2 encapsulates the packet with the
segment list < B:5:6> as a repair path.
For node N1, route to the failed endpoint N3 could not be found in
the FIB after IGP converges:
o Node N1, as a Repair Node, forwards the packets through a bypass
of the failed endpoint to the next or endpoint node (e.g., N4)
directly. There is no need to check whether the failed endpoint
Chen, et al. Expires December 4, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draftdraft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-02 June 2020
node is directly connected to N1. N1 changes the IPv6 destination
address with the next sid B:4. Since IGP has completed
convergence, it forwards packets directly based on the IGP SPF
path
4. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Behavior
4.1. Transit Node as Repair Node
When the Repair Node is a transit node, it provides fast protection
against the endpoint node failure as follows after looking up the
FIB.
IF the primary outbound interface used to forward the packet failed
IF NH = SRH && SL != 0, and
the failed endpoint is directly connected to the Repair Node THEN
SL decreases*; update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL];
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
forward the packet according to the matched entry;
ELSE
forward the packet according to the backup nexthop;
ELSE // there is no FIB entry for forwarding the packet
IF NH = SRH && SL != 0 THEN
SL decreases*; update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL];
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
forward the packet according to the matched entry;
ELSE
drop the packet;
*: SL could decrease any dedicated value from [1-N], where N is the current value of SL.
The case is similar in the following examples.
4.2. Endpoint Node as Repair Node
When a node N receives a packet, if the destination address (DA) of
the packet is a local END SID, then node N is an endpoint node. When
the Repair Node is an endpoint node, it provides fast protections for
the failure through executing the following procedure after looking
up the FIB for the updated DA.
Chen, et al. Expires December 4, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draftdraft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-02 June 2020
IF the primary outbound interface used to forward the packet failed
IF NH = SRH && SL != 0, and
the failed endpoint is directly connected to the Repair Node THEN
SL decreases; update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL];
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
forward the packet according to the matched entry;
ELSE
forward the packet according to the backup nexthop;
ELSE // there is no FIB entry for forwarding the packet
IF NH = SRH && SL != 0 THEN
SL decreases; update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL];
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
forward the packet according to the matched entry;
ELSE
drop the packet;
ELSE
forward accordingly to the matched entry;
4.3. Endpoint x Node as Repair Node
An endpoint node with cross-connect (End.X for short) is an endpoint
node with an array of layer 3 adjacencies. When a node N receives a
packet, if the destination address (DA) of the packet is a local
END.X SID, then node N as Repair Node provides fast protections for
the failure through executing the following procedure after updating
DA.
IF the layer-3 adjacency interface is down THEN
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
IF the primary interface used to forward the packet failed THEN
IF NH = SRH && SL != 0, and
the failed endpoint is directly connected to the Repair Node THEN
SL decreases; update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL];
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
forward the packet according to the matched entry;
ELSE
forward the packet according to the backup nexthop;
ELSE // there is no FIB entry for forwarding the packet
IF NH = SRH && SL != 0 THEN
SL decreases; update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL];
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
forward the packet according to the matched entry;
ELSE
drop the packet;
ELSE
forward accordingly to the matched entry;
Chen, et al. Expires December 4, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draftdraft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-02 June 2020
5. Security Considerations
This section reviews security considerations related to SRv6 Midpoint
protection processing discussed in this document.To ensure that the
Repair node does not modify the SRH header Encapsulated by nodes
outside the SRv6 Domain.Only the segment within the SRH is same
domain as the repair node. So it is necessary to check the skipped
segment have same block as repair node.
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
7. Acknowledgements
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding]
Hu, Z., Chen, H., Yao, J., Bowers, C., and Y. Zhu, "SR-TE
Path Midpoint Protection", draft-hu-spring-segment-
routing-proxy-forwarding-08 (work in progress), May 2020.
[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-08
(work in progress), April 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]
Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak,
"OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-lsr-
ospfv3-srv6-extensions-00 (work in progress), February
2020.
Chen, et al. Expires December 4, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draftdraft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-02 June 2020
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-27 (work in progress), December 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15 (work in
progress), March 2020.
[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>.
[RFC7356] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding
Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7356, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7356>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths]
Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski, S., Xu, X., and F. Xu,
"Node Protection for SR-TE Paths", draft-hegde-spring-
node-protection-for-sr-te-paths-05 (work in progress),
July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B.,
Francois, P., Voyer, D., Clad, F., and P. Camarillo,
"Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-03 (work in
progress), March 2020.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-07 (work in progress),
May 2020.
[I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Hardwick, J.,
Previdi, S., and C. Li, "Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID
in PCE-based Networks.", draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-
label-sid-07 (work in progress), July 2019.
Chen, et al. Expires December 4, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draftdraft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-02 June 2020
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
Appendix A. An Appendix
Authors' Addresses
Huanan
China Telecom
Email: chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn
Zhibo
Huawei Technologies
Email: huzhibo@huawei.com
Huaimo
Futurewei
Email: Huaimo.chen@futurewei.co
Xuesong
Huawei Technologies
Email: gengxuesong@huawei.com
Chen, et al. Expires December 4, 2020 [Page 9]