Routing area S. Hegde
Internet-Draft K. Arora
Intended status: Standards Track M. Srivastava
Expires: August 5, 2020 Juniper Networks Inc.
S. Ninan
Individual Contributor
X. Xu
Alibaba Inc.
February 2, 2020
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR)
Egress Peer engineering Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes
draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-04
Abstract
Egress Peer Engineering is an application of Segment Routing to solve
the problem of egress peer selection. The SR-based BGP-EPE solution
allows a centralized (Software Defined Network, SDN)controller to
program any egress peer. The EPE solution requires a node to program
PeerNodeSID, PeerAdjSID, PeerSetSID as described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]. This document
provides new sub-TLVs for EPE SIDs that would be used in Target stack
TLV (Type 1) as defined in [RFC8029] for the EPE SIDs.
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 August 5, 2020.
Hegde, et al. Expires August 5, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM February 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. FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. PeerAdjSID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. PeerNodeSID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. PeerSetSID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) as defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] is an effective
mechanism to select the egress peer link based on different criteria.
The EPE SIDs provide means to represent egress peer links. Many
network deployments have built their networks consisting of multiple
Autonomous Systems either for ease of operations or as a result of
network mergers and acquisitons. The inter-AS links connecting the
two Autonomous Systems could be traffic engineered using EPE-SIDs in
this case as well. It is important to be able to validate the
control plane to forwarding plane synchronization for these SIDs so
that any anomaly can be detected easily by the operator.
This document provides Target FEC stack TLV definitions for EPE SIDs.
Other procedures for mpls ping and traceroute as defined in [RFC8287]
are applicable for EPE-SIDs as well.
Hegde, et al. Expires August 5, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM February 2020
2. FEC Definitions
As described in [RFC8287] sec 5, 3 new type of sub-TLVs for the
Target FEC Stack TLV are defined for the Target FEC stack TLV
corresponding to each label in the label stack. If a malformed FEC
sub-TLV is received, then a return code of 1, "Malformed echo request
received" as defined in [RFC8029] SHOULD be sent.
2.1. PeerAdjSID Sub-TLV
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 = TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote As Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface address (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: PeerAdjSID Sub-TLV
Type : TBD
Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address
Local AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to
which PeerAdjSID advertising node belongs to.
Remote AS Number :
Hegde, et al. Expires August 5, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM February 2020
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
remote node for which the PeerAdjSID is advertised.
Local BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Remote BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Local Interface Address :
In case of PeerAdjSID Local interface address corresponding to the
PeerAdjSID should be apecified in this field. For IPv4,this field is
4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.
Remote Interface Address :
In case of PeerAdjSID Remote interface address corresponding to the
PeerAdjSID should be apecified in this field. For IPv4,this field is
4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.
2.2. PeerNodeSID Sub-TLV
Hegde, et al. Expires August 5, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM February 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 = TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote As Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No.of IPv4 interface pairs | No.of IPv6 interface pairs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: PeerNodeSID Sub-TLV
Type : TBD
Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address
Local AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to
which PeerNodeSID advertising node belongs to.
Remote AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
remote node for which the PeerNodeSID is advertised.
Local BGP Router ID :
Hegde, et al. Expires August 5, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM February 2020
4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Remote BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Number of IPv4 interface pairs:
Total number of IPV4 local and remote interface address pairs.
Number of IPv6 interface pairs:
Total number of IPV6 local and remote interface address pairs.
There can be multiple Layer 3 interfaces on which a peerNodeSID
loadbalances the traffic. All such interfaces local/remote address
MUST be included in the FEC.
When a PeerNodeSID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only
address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the FEC definition
should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6 address
pairs.
Local Interface Address :
In case of PeerNodeSID, the interface local address ipv4/ipv6 which
corresponds to the PeerNodeSID MUST be specified. For IPv4,this
field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.
Remote Interface Address :
In case of PeerNodeSID, the interface remote address ipv4/ipv6 which
corresponds to the PeerNodeSID MUST be specified. For IPv4,this
field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.
2.3. PeerSetSID Sub-TLV
Hegde, et al. Expires August 5, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM February 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 = TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No.of elements in set | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote As Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++
| No.of IPv4 interface pairs | No.of IPv6 interface pairs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: PeerSetSID Sub-TLV
Type : TBD
Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address and number of
elements in the set
Local AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to
which PeerSetSID advertising node belongs to.
Remote AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
remote node for which the PeerSetSID is advertised.
Hegde, et al. Expires August 5, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM February 2020
Advertising BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Receiving BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
No.of elements in set:
Number of remote ASes, the set SID load-balances on.
PeerSetSID may be associated with a number of PeerNodeSIDs and
PeerAdjSIDs. Link address details of all these SIDs should be
included in the peerSetSID FEC so that the data-plane can be
correctly verified on the remote node.
Number of IPv4 interface pairs:
Total number of IPV4 local and remote interface address pairs.
Number of IPv6 interface pairs:
Total number of IPV6 local and remote interface address pairs.
There can be multiple Layer 3 interfaces on which a peerNodeSID
loadbalances the traffic. All such interfaces local/remote address
MUST be included in the FEC.
When a PeerSetSID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only
address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the Link address
TLV should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6
address pairs.
Local Interface Address :
In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID, the interface local address ipv4/
ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID MUST be
specified. For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is
16 octets.
Remote Interface Address :
In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID, the interface remote address ipv4/
ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID MUST be
Hegde, et al. Expires August 5, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM February 2020
specified. For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is
16 octets.
3. Security Considerations
The EPE SIDs are advertised for egress links for Egress Peer
Engineering purposes or for inter-As links between co-operating ASes.
When co-operating domains are involved, they can allow the packets
arriving on trusted interfaces to reach the control plane and get
processed. When EPE SIDs which are created for egress TE links where
the neighbor AS is an independent entity, it may not allow packets
arriving from external world to reach the control plane. In such
deployments mpls OAM packets will be dropped by the neighboring AS.
4. IANA Considerations
New Target FEC stack sub-TLV from the "sub-TLVs for TLV types 1,16
and 21" subregistry of the "Multi-Protocol Label switching (MPLs)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping parameters" registry
PeerAdjSID segment ID Sub-TLV : TBD
PeerNode segment ID Sub-TLV : TBD
PeerSetSID segment ID Sub-TLV : TBD
5. Acknowledgments
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D.
Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer
Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-
epe-10 (work in progress), December 2017.
[RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.
Hegde, et al. Expires August 5, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM February 2020
6.2. Informative 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>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
Authors' Addresses
Shraddha Hegde
Juniper Networks Inc.
Exora Business Park
Bangalore, KA 560103
India
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
Kapil Arora
Juniper Networks Inc.
Email: kapilaro@juniper.net
Mukul Srivastava
Juniper Networks Inc.
Email: msri@juniper.net
Samson Ninan
Individual Contributor
Email: samson.cse@gmail.com
Xiaohu Xu
Alibaba Inc.
Beijing
China
Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com
Hegde, et al. Expires August 5, 2020 [Page 10]
