Interdomain Routing Working Group C. Li
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track H. Chen
Expires: February 9, 2020 China Telecom
M. Chen
J. Dong
Z. Li
Huawei Technologies
August 8, 2019
SR Policies Extensions for Path Segment and Bidirectional Path in BGP-LS
draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03
Abstract
This document specifies the way of collecting configuration and
states of SR policies carrying Path Segment and bidirectional path
information by using BPG-LS. Such information can be used by
external conponents for many use cases such as performance
measurement, path re-optimization and end-to-end protection.
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 February 9, 2020.
Li, et al. Expires February 9, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS August 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Carrying SR Path Sub-TLVs in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. SR Path Segment Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Sub-TLVs for Bidirectional Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. SR Bidirectional Path Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. SR Reverse Path Segment List Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . 7
4. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. BGP-LS TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. BGP-LS SR Segment Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Segment routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a source routing paradigm that
allows the ingress node steers packets into a specific path according
to the Segment Routing Policy
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
However, the SR Policies defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] only supports unidirectional
SR paths and there is no path ID in a Segment List to identify an SR
path. For identifying an SR path and supporting bidirectional path
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment], new policies carrying Path
Segment and bidirectional path information are defined in
Li, et al. Expires February 9, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS August 2019
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution], as well as the
extensions to BGP to distribute new SR policies. The Path Segment
can be a Path Segment in SR-MPLS [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]
, or other IDs that can identify a path.
In many network scenarios, the configuration and state of each TE
Policy is required by a controller which allows the network operator
to optimize several functions and operations through the use of a
controller aware of both topology and state information
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].
To collect the TE Policy information that is locally available in a
router, [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] describes a new mechanism
by using BGP-LS update messages.
Based on the mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution],
this document describes a mechanism to distribute configuration and
states of the new SR policies defined in
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution] to external
components using BGP-LS.
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8402] and
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].
3. Carrying SR Path Sub-TLVs in BGP-LS
A mechanism to collect states of SR Policies via BGP-LS is proposed
by [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]. The characteristics of an SR
policy can be described by a TE Policy State TLV, which is carried in
the optional non-transitive BGP Attribute "LINK_STATE Attribute"
defined in [RFC7752]. The TE Policy State TLV contains several sub-
TLVs such as SR TE Policy sub-TLVs. Rather than replicating SR TE
Policy sub-TLVs, [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] reuses the
equivalent sub-TLVs as defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution] defines the BGP
extensions for Path Segment. The Path Segment can appear at both
segment-list level and candidate path level upon the use case. The
encoding is shown below.
Li, et al. Expires February 9, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS August 2019
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
Attributes:
Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
Tunnel Type: SR Policy
Binding SID
Preference
Priority
Policy Name
Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
Path Segment
Segment List
Weight
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
Segment List
Weight
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
...
Figure 1. Path Segment in SR policy
Also, [I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution] defines SR
policy extensions for bidirectional SR path, the encoding is shown
below:
Li, et al. Expires February 9, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS August 2019
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
Attributes: Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
Tunnel Type: SR Policy
Binding SID
Preference
Priority
Policy Name
Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
Bidirectioanl Path
Segment List
Weight
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
Reverse Segment List
Weight
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
Figure 2. SR policy for Bidirectional path
In order to collect configuration and states of unidirectional and
bidirectional SR policies defined in
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution], new sub-TLVs in SR
TE Policy sub-TLVs should be defined. Likewise, rather than
replicating SR Policy sub-TLVs, this document can reuse the
equivalent sub-TLVs as defined in
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution].
3.1. SR Path Segment Sub-TLV
This section reuses the SR Path Segment sub-TLV defined in
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution] to describe a Path
Segment , and it can be included in the Segment List sub-TLV as
defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] . An SR Path Segment
sub-TLV can be associated with an SR path specified by a Segment List
sub-TLV, and it MUST appear only once within a Segment List sub-TLV.
Also, it can be used for identifying an SR candidate path or an SR
Policy defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
The format of Path Segment TLV is included below for reference.
Li, et al. Expires February 9, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS August 2019
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 | Length | Flag | ST |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Path Segment (Variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2. Path Segment sub-TLV
All fields, including type and length, are defined in
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution].
3.2. Sub-TLVs for Bidirectional Path
In some scenarios like mobile backhaul transport network, there are
requirements to support bidirectional path. In SR, a bidirectional
path can be represented as a binding of two unidirectional SR paths
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment].
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution] defines new sub-TLVs
to describe an SR bidirectional path. An SR policy carrying SR
bidirectional path information is expressed in Figure 1.
3.2.1. SR Bidirectional Path Sub-TLV
This section reuses the SR bidirectional path sub-TLV defined in
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution] to specify a
bidirectional path, which contains a Segment List sub-TLV
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] and an associated Reverse
Path Segment List as defined in
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution]. The SR
bidirectional path sub-TLV has the following format:
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 | Length | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLVs (Variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3. SR Bidirectional path sub-TLV
All fields, including type and length, are defined in
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution].
Li, et al. Expires February 9, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS August 2019
3.2.2. SR Reverse Path Segment List Sub-TLV
This section reuses the SR Reverse Path Segment List sub-TLV defined
in [I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution] to specify an
reverse SR path associated with the path specified by the Segment
List in the same SR Bidirectional Path Sub-TLV, and it has the
following format:
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 | Length | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLVs (Variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4. SR Reverse Path Segment List Sub-TLV
All fields, including type and length, are defined in
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution].
4. Operations
No new operation procedures are defined in this document, the
operations procedures of [RFC7752] can apply to this document.
Typically but not limited to, the uni/bidirectional SR policies
carrying path identification information can be distributed by the
ingress node.
Generally, BGP-LS is used for collecting link states and
synchronizing with the external component. The consumer of the uni/
bidirectional SR policies carrying path identification information is
not BGP LS process by itself, and it can be any applications such as
performance measurement [I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm] and path re-
coputation or re-optimization, etc. The operation of sending
information to other precesses is out of scope of this document.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. BGP-LS TLVs
IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Node Anchor,
Link Descriptor and Link Attribute TLVs". The following TLV
codepoints are suggested (for early allocation by IANA):
Li, et al. Expires February 9, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS August 2019
Codepoint Description Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------
1212 Path Segment sub-TLV This document
1213 SR Bidirectional Path sub-TLV This document
1214 Reverse Segment List sub-TLV This document
5.2. BGP-LS SR Segment Descriptors
This document defines new sub-TLVs in the registry "SR Segment
Descriptor Types" [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] to be assigned
by IANA:
Codepoint Description Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------
14 Path Segment sub-TLV This document
6. Security Considerations
TBA
7. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Shraddha Hedge for her detailed review and
professional comments.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Mattes, P., Rosen, E., Jain,
D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in
BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-07 (work in
progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Dong, J., Chen, M., Gredler,
H., and J. Tantsura, "Distribution of Traffic Engineering
(TE) Policies and State using BGP-LS", draft-ietf-idr-te-
lsp-distribution-11 (work in progress), May 2019.
Li, et al. Expires February 9, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS August 2019
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]
Cheng, W., Li, H., Chen, M., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler,
"Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network",
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-00 (work in progress),
March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing
Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
policy-03 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution]
Li, C., Chen, M., Dong, J., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing
Policies for Path Segment and Bidirectional Path", draft-
li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution-01 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm]
Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
Salsano, S., Ventre, P., and M. Chen, "UDP Path for In-
band Performance Measurement for Segment Routing
Networks", draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-02 (work in
progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed]
Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return
Path", draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-11 (work in progress),
April 2019.
Li, et al. Expires February 9, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-LS August 2019
Authors' Addresses
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: chengli13@huawei.com
Huanan Chen
China Telecom
109 West Zhongshan Ave
Guangzhou
China
Email: chenhn8.gd@chinatelecom.cn
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: Mach.chen@huawei.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Li, et al. Expires February 9, 2020 [Page 10]