Routing area S. Hegde
Internet-Draft K. Arora
Intended status: Standards Track M. Srivastava
Expires: October 15, 2020 Juniper Networks Inc.
S. Ninan
Individual Contributor
X. Xu
Alibaba Inc.
April 13, 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-06
Abstract
Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) is an application of Segment Routing to
Solve the problem of egress peer selection. The Segment Routing
based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized controller, e.g. a
Software Defined Network (SDN) controller to program any egress peer.
The EPE solution requires a node to program the PeerNode SID
describing a session between two nodes, the PeerAdj SID describing
the link (one or more) that is used by sessions between peer nodes,
and the PeerSet SID describing an arbitrary set of sessions or links
between a local node and its peers. This document provides new sub-
TLVs for EPE Segment Identifiers (SID) that would be used in the MPLS
Target stack TLV (Type 1), in MPLS Ping and Traceroute procedures.
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 October 15, 2020.
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 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. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. PeerNode SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. PeerSet SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. EPE-SID FEC validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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.
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 2020
This document provides Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)
stack TLV definitions for EPE-SIDs. Other procedures for mpls Ping
and Traceroute as defined in [RFC8287] section 7 and clarified by
[RFC8690] are applicable for EPE-SIDs as well.
2. Theory of Operation
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] provides mechanisms to
advertise the EPE-SIDs in BGP-LS. These EPE-SIDs may be used to
build Segment Routing paths as described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] or using Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) extensions as defined in [RFC8664]. Data
plane monitoring for such paths which consist of EPE-SIDs will use
extensions defined in this document to build the Taget FEC stack TLV.
The MPLS Ping and Traceroute procedures MAY be initaited by the head-
end of the Segment Routing path or a centralized topology-aware data
plane monitoring system as described in [RFC8403]. The extensions in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] and [RFC8664] do not define
the details of the SID and such extensions are out of scope for this
document. The node initiating the data plane monitoring may acquire
the details of EPE-SIDs through BGP-LS advertisements as described in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. There may be other
possible mechanisms to learn the definition of the SID from
controller. Details of such mechanisms are out of scope for this
document.
The EPE-SIDs are advertised for inter-AS links which run e-BGP
sessions.The procedures to operate e-BGP sessions in a scenario with
unnumbered interfaces is not very well defined and hence out of scope
for this document. During AS migration scenario procedures described
in [RFC7705] may be in force. In these scenarios, if the local and
remote AS fields in the FEC as described in Section 4carries the
global AS and not the "local AS" as defined in [RFC7705], the FEC
validation procedures may fail.
3. 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.
4. 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
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 2020
sub-TLV is received, then a return code of 1, "Malformed echo request
received" as defined in [RFC8029] SHOULD be sent.
4.1. PeerAdj SID 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: PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV
Type : TBD
Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address. Length
excludes the length of Type and length field. For IPv4 interface
addresses length will be 24. In case of IPv6 address length will be
48
Local AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to
which PeerAdj SID 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 PeerAdj SID is advertised.
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 2020
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 PeerAdj SID Local interface address corresponding to the
PeerAdj SID should be apecified in this field. For IPv4,this field
is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets. Link Local IPv6
addresses are FFS.
Remote Interface Address :
In case of PeerAdj SID Remote interface address corresponding to the
PeerAdj SID should be apecified in this field. For IPv4,this field
is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.Link Local IPv6
addresses are FFS.
4.2. PeerNode SID Sub-TLV
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 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: PeerNode SID Sub-TLV
Type : TBD
Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address. There could
be multiple pairs of local and remote interface pairs. The length
includes all the pairs.Type and Length field are not included in the
actual length carried in the packet.
Local AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to
which PeerNode SID advertising node belongs to.
Remote AS Number :
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 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 PeerNode SID 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].
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 peerNode SID
loadbalances the traffic. All such interfaces local/remote address
MUST be included in the FEC.
When a PeerNode SID 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 PeerNode SID, the interface local address ipv4/ipv6 which
corresponds to the PeerNode SID MUST be specified. For IPv4,this
field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.Link Local IPv6
addresses are FFS.
Remote Interface Address :
In case of PeerNode SID, the interface remote address ipv4/ipv6 which
corresponds to the PeerNode SID MUST be specified. For IPv4,this
field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.Link Local IPv6
addresses are FFS.
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 2020
4.3. PeerSet SID 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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One element in set consists of below details
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 2020
Figure 3: PeerSet SID Sub-TLV
Type : TBD
Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address and number of
elements in the set. The length field does not include the length of
Type and Length fields.
Local AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to
which PeerSet SID 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 PeerSet SID is advertised.
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.
PeerSet SID may be associated with a number of PeerNode SIDs and
PeerAdj SIDs. Link address details of all these SIDs should be
included in the peerSet SID 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.
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 2020
There can be multiple Layer 3 interfaces on which a peerNode SID
loadbalances the traffic. All such interfaces local/remote address
MUST be included in the FEC.
When a PeerSet SID 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/PeerAdj SID, the interface local address ipv4/
ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNode SID/PeerAdj SID MUST be
specified. For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is
16 octets. Link Local IPv6 addresses are FFS.
Remote Interface Address :
In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdj SID, the interface remote address
ipv4/ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNode SID/PeerAdj SID MUST be
specified. For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is
16 octets. Link Local IPv6 addresses are FFS.
5. EPE-SID FEC validation
This section augments the section 7.4 of [RFC8287]. When a remote
ASBR of the EPE-SID advertisement receives the MPLS OAM packet with
top FEC being the EPE-SID, it SHOuLD perform validity checks on the
content of the EPE-SID FEC sub-TLV.
4a. Segment Routing EPE-SID Validation:
If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV
at FEC-stack-depth is TBD1 (PeerAdj SID sub-TLV)
Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not
the given label at stack-depth if any below
conditions fail:
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Local AS matches with the remote AS field in the
received PeerAdj SID FEC sub-TLV.
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches with the Remote Router ID field in the
received PeerAdj SID FEC.
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 2020
o Validate that there is a e-BGP session with a peer having local As number and BGP Router-ID as
specified in the Local AS number and Local Router-ID field in the received PeerAdj SID FEC sub-TLV.
Set the Best-return-code to 35 "Mapping for this FEC is not associated with the incoming interface" (RFC8287) if any below
conditions fail:
o Validate the incoming interface on which the OAM packet was receieved, matches with the remote interface
specified in the PeerAdj SID FEC sub-TLV
Else, if the Target FEC sub-TLV at FEC-stack-depth is TBD2
(PeerNode SID sub-TLV),
Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not
the given label at stack-depth if any below
conditions fail:
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Local AS matches with the remote AS field in the
received PeerNode SID FEC sub-TLV.
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches with the Remote Router ID field in the
received PeerNode SID FEC.
o Validate that there is a e-BGP session with a peer having local As number and BGP Router-ID as
specified in the Local AS number and Local Router-ID field in the received PeerNode SID FEC sub-TLV.
Set the Best-return-code to 35 "Mapping for this FEC is not associated with the incoming interface" (RFC8287) if any below
conditions fail:
o Validate the incoming interface on which the OAM packet was receieved, matches with the any of the
remote interfaces specified in the PeerNode SID FEC sub-TLV
Else, if the Target FEC sub-TLV at FEC-stack-depth is TBD3
(PeerSet SID sub-TLV),
Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not
the given label at stack-depth if any below
conditions fail:
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Local AS matches with one of the remote AS field in the
received PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV.
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches with one of the Remote Router ID field in the
received PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV.
o Validate that there is a e-BGP session with a peer having local As number and BGP Router-ID as
specified in the Local AS number and Local Router-ID field in the received PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV.
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 2020
Set the Best-return-code to 35 "Mapping for this FEC is not associated with the incoming interface" (RFC8287) if any below
conditions fail:
o Validate the incoming interface on which the OAM packet was receieved, matches with the any of the
remote interfaces specified in the PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV
Figure 4: EPE-SID FEC validiation
6. 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
PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV : TBD1
PeerNode SID Sub-TLV : TBD2
PeerSet SID Sub-TLV : TBD3
7. 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
that receives the MPLS OAM packet. In MPLS traceroute applications,
when the AS boundary is crossed with the EPE-SIDs, the FEC stack is
changed. [RFC8287] does not mandate that the initiator upon
receiving an MPLS Echo Reply message that includes the FEC Stack
Change TLV with one or more of the original segments being popped
remove a corresponding FEC(s) from the Target FEC Stack TLV in the
next (TTL+1) traceroute request. If an initiator does not remove the
FECs belonging to the previous AS that has traversed, it MAY expose
the internal AS information to the following AS being traversed in
traceroute.
8. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Loa Andersson and Alexander Vainshtein for careful review
and comments.
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 2020
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[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.
[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>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative 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.
[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-06 (work in progress),
December 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>.
[RFC7705] George, W. and S. Amante, "Autonomous System Migration
Mechanisms and Their Effects on the BGP AS_PATH
Attribute", RFC 7705, DOI 10.17487/RFC7705, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7705>.
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 2020
[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>.
[RFC8403] Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N.
Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane
Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC8690] Nainar, N., Pignataro, C., Iqbal, F., and A. Vainshtein,
"Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287",
RFC 8690, DOI 10.17487/RFC8690, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8690>.
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
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM April 2020
Xiaohu Xu
Alibaba Inc.
Beijing
China
Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com
Hegde, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 15]
