Segment Routing Prefix Segment Identifier Extensions for BGP
RFC 8669

Document Type RFC - Proposed Standard (December 2019; No errata)
Last updated 2019-12-06
Replaces draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-prefix-sid
Stream IETF
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd John Scudder
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2018-05-18)
IESG IESG state RFC 8669 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
Send notices to Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack


Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        S. Previdi
Request for Comments: 8669                           Huawei Technologies
Category: Standards Track                                    C. Filsfils
ISSN: 2070-1721                                           A. Lindem, Ed.
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                          A. Sreekantiah
                                                                        
                                                              H. Gredler
                                                            RtBrick Inc.
                                                           December 2019

      Segment Routing Prefix Segment Identifier Extensions for BGP

Abstract

   Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm.  A node
   steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions called
   "segments".  A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
   service based.  The ingress node prepends an SR header to a packet
   containing a set of segment identifiers (SIDs).  Each SID represents
   a topological or service-based instruction.  Per-flow state is
   maintained only on the ingress node of the SR domain.  An "SR domain"
   is defined as a single administrative domain for global SID
   assignment.

   This document defines an optional, transitive BGP attribute for
   announcing information about BGP Prefix Segment Identifiers (BGP
   Prefix-SIDs) and the specification for SR-MPLS SIDs.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669.

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.  MPLS BGP Prefix-SID
   3.  BGP Prefix-SID Attribute
     3.1.  Label-Index TLV
     3.2.  Originator SRGB TLV
   4.  Receiving BGP Prefix-SID Attribute
     4.1.  MPLS Data Plane: Labeled Unicast
   5.  Advertising BGP Prefix-SID Attribute
     5.1.  MPLS Data Plane: Labeled Unicast
   6.  Error Handling of BGP Prefix-SID Attribute
   7.  IANA Considerations
   8.  Manageability Considerations
   9.  Security Considerations
   10. References
     10.1.  Normative References
     10.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Contributors
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   The Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the source-routing
   paradigm.  A segment represents either a topological instruction,
   such as "go to prefix P following shortest path", or a service
   instruction.  Other types of segments may be defined in the future.

   A segment is identified through a Segment Identifier (SID).  An "SR
   domain" is defined as a single administrative domain for global SID
   assignment.  It may be comprised of a single Autonomous System (AS)
   or multiple ASes under consolidated global SID administration.
   Typically, the ingress node of the SR domain prepends an SR header
   containing SIDs to an incoming packet.

   As described in [RFC8402], when SR is applied to the MPLS data plane
   ([RFC8660]), the SID consists of a label.

   [RFC8402] also describes how Segment Routing can be applied to an
   IPv6 data plane (SRv6) using an IPv6 routing header containing a
   stack of SR SIDs encoded as IPv6 addresses [IPv6-SRH].  The
   applicability and support for Segment Routing over IPv6 is beyond the
   scope of this document.

   A BGP Prefix Segment is a BGP prefix with a Prefix-SID attached.  A
   BGP Prefix-SID is always a global SID ([RFC8402]) within the SR
   domain and identifies an instruction to forward the packet over the
   Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) best path computed by BGP to the related
   prefix.  The BGP Prefix-SID is the identifier of the BGP Prefix
   Segment.  In this document, we always refer to the BGP Prefix Segment
   by the BGP Prefix-SID.

   This document describes the BGP extensions to signal the BGP Prefix-
   SID.  Specifically, this document defines a BGP attribute known as
   the "BGP Prefix-SID attribute" and specifies the rules to originate,
   receive, and handle error conditions for the attribute.

   The BGP Prefix-SID attribute defined in this document can be attached
   to prefixes from Multiprotocol BGP IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast
   ([RFC4760] [RFC8277]).  Usage of the BGP Prefix-SID attribute for
   other Address Family Identifier (AFI) / Subsequent Address Family
   Identifier (SAFI) combinations is not defined herein but may be
   specified in future specifications.

   [RFC8670] describes example use cases where the BGP Prefix-SID is
   used for the above AFI/SAFI combinations.

   It should be noted that:

   *  A BGP Prefix-SID will be global across ASes when the
      interconnected ASes are part of the same SR domain.
      Alternatively, when interconnecting ASes, the ASBRs of each domain
      will have to handle the advertisement of unique SIDs.  The
      mechanisms for such interconnection are outside the scope of the
      protocol extensions defined in this document.

   *  A BGP Prefix-SID MAY be attached to a BGP prefix.  This implies
      that each prefix is advertised individually, reducing the ability
      to pack BGP advertisements (when sharing common attributes).

   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.

2.  MPLS BGP Prefix-SID

   The BGP Prefix-SID is realized on the MPLS data plane ([RFC8660]) in
   the following way:

      The operator assigns a globally unique label index, L_I, to a
      locally originated prefix of a BGP speaker N, which is advertised
      to all other BGP speakers in the SR domain.

      According to [RFC8402], each BGP speaker is configured with a
      label block called the Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB).  While
      [RFC8402] recommends using the same SRGB across all the nodes
      within the SR domain, the SRGB of a node is a local property and
      could be different on different speakers.  The drawbacks of the
      use case where BGP speakers have different SRGBs are documented in
      [RFC8402] and [RFC8670].

      If traffic engineering within the SR domain is required, each node
      may also be required to advertise topological information and Peer
      SIDs for each of its links and peers.  This information is
      required to perform the explicit path computation and to express
      an explicit path as a list of SIDs.  The advertisement of
      topological information and peer segments (Peer SIDs) is done
      through [BGPLS-SR-EPE].

      If a prefix segment is to be included in an MPLS label stack,
      e.g., for traffic-engineering purposes, knowledge of the prefix
      originator's SRGB is required in order to compute the local label
      used by the originator.

      This document assumes that Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
      (BGP-LS) is the preferred method for a collecting both peer
      segments (Peer SIDs) and SRGB information through [RFC7752],
      [BGPLS-SR-EPE], and [BGPLS-SR-EXT].  However, as an optional
      alternative for the advertisement of the local SRGB without the
      topology or the peer SIDs and, therefore, without applicability
      for TE, the Originator SRGB TLV of the BGP Prefix-SID attribute is
      specified in Section 3.2 of this document.

      A BGP speaker will derive its local MPLS label L from the label
      index L_I and its local SRGB as described in [RFC8660].  The BGP
      speaker then programs the MPLS label L in its MPLS data plane as
      its incoming/local label for the prefix.  See Section 4.1 for more
      details.

      The outgoing label for the prefix is found in the Network Layer
      Reachability Information (NLRI) of the Multiprotocol BGP IPv4/IPv6
      Labeled Unicast prefix advertisement as defined in [RFC8277].  The
      label index L_I is only used as a hint to derive the local/
      incoming label.

      Section 3.1 of this document specifies the Label-Index TLV of the
      BGP Prefix-SID attribute; this TLV can be used to advertise the
      label index for a given prefix.

3.  BGP Prefix-SID Attribute

   The BGP Prefix-SID attribute is an optional, transitive BGP path
   attribute.  The attribute type code 40 has been assigned by IANA (see
   Section 7).

   The BGP Prefix-SID attribute is defined here to be a set of elements
   encoded as "Type/Length/Value" tuples (i.e., a set of TLVs).  All BGP
   Prefix-SID attribute TLVs will start with a 1-octet type and a
   2-octet length.  The following TLVs are defined in this document:

   *  Label-Index TLV

   *  Originator SRGB TLV

   The Label-Index and Originator SRGB TLVs are used only when SR is
   applied to the MPLS data plane.

   For future extensibility, unknown TLVs MUST be ignored and propagated
   unmodified.

3.1.  Label-Index TLV

   The Label-Index TLV MUST be present in the BGP Prefix-SID attribute
   attached to IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast prefixes ([RFC8277]).  It MUST
   be ignored when received for other BGP AFI/SAFI combinations.  The
   Label-Index 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    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Flags              |       Label Index             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Label Index          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

      Type:  1

      Length:  7, the total length in octets of the value portion of the
         TLV.

      RESERVED:  8-bit field.  It MUST be clear on transmission and MUST
         be ignored on reception.

      Flags:  16 bits of flags.  None are defined by this document.  The
         Flags field MUST be clear on transmission and MUST be ignored
         on reception.

      Label Index:  32-bit value representing the index value in the
         SRGB space.

3.2.  Originator SRGB TLV

   The Originator SRGB TLV is an optional TLV and 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               |    Flags      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Flags     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |         SRGB 1 (6 octets)                                     |
    |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |         SRGB n (6 octets)                                     |
    |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

      Type:  3

      Length:  The total length in octets of the value portion of the
         TLV: 2 + (non-zero multiple of 6).

      Flags:  16 bits of flags.  None are defined in this document.  The
         Flags field MUST be clear on transmission and MUST be ignored
         on reception.

      SRGB:  3 octets specifying the first label in the range followed
         by 3 octets specifying the number of labels in the range.  Note
         that the SRGB field MAY appear multiple times.  If the SRGB
         field appears multiple times, the SRGB consists of multiple
         ranges that are concatenated.

   The Originator SRGB TLV contains the SRGB of the node originating the
   prefix to which the BGP Prefix-SID is attached.  The Originator SRGB
   TLV MUST NOT be changed during the propagation of the BGP update.  It
   is used to build SR policies when different SRGBs are used in the
   fabric, for example, [RFC8670].

   Examples of how the receiving routers concatenate the ranges and
   build their neighbor's Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB) are
   included in [RFC8660].

   The Originator SRGB TLV may only appear in a BGP Prefix-SID attribute
   attached to IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast prefixes ([RFC8277]).  It MUST
   be ignored when received for other BGP AFI/SAFI combinations.  Since
   the Label-Index TLV is required for IPv4/IPv6 prefix applicability,
   the Originator SRGB TLV will be ignored if it is not specified in a
   manner consistent with Section 6.

   If a BGP speaker receives a node's SRGB as an attribute of the BGP-LS
   Node NLRI and the BGP speaker also receives the same node's SRGB in a
   BGP Prefix-SID attribute, then the received values should be the
   same.  If the values are different, the values advertised in the BGP-
   LS NLRI SHOULD be preferred, and an error should be logged.

4.  Receiving BGP Prefix-SID Attribute

   A BGP speaker receiving a BGP Prefix-SID attribute from an External
   BGP (EBGP) neighbor residing outside the boundaries of the SR domain
   MUST discard the attribute unless it is configured to accept the
   attribute from the EBGP neighbor.  A BGP speaker SHOULD log an error
   for further analysis when discarding an attribute.

4.1.  MPLS Data Plane: Labeled Unicast

   A BGP session supporting the Multiprotocol BGP Labeled IPv4 or IPv6
   Unicast ([RFC8277]) AFI/SAFI is required.

   When the BGP Prefix-SID attribute is attached to a BGP Labeled IPv4
   or IPv6 Unicast [RFC8277] AFI/SAFI, it MUST contain the Label-Index
   TLV and MAY contain the Originator SRGB TLV.  A BGP Prefix-SID
   attribute received without a Label-Index TLV MUST be considered to be
   "invalid" by the receiving speaker.

   The label index provides guidance to the receiving BGP speaker as to
   the incoming label that SHOULD be allocated to the prefix.

   A BGP speaker may be locally configured with an SRGB=[SRGB_Start,
   SRGB_End].  The preferred method for deriving the SRGB is a matter of
   local node configuration.

   The mechanisms through which a given label-index value is assigned to
   a given prefix are outside the scope of this document.

   Given a label index L_I, we refer to (L = L_I + SRGB_Start) as the
   derived label.  A BGP Prefix-SID attribute is designated
   "conflicting" for a speaker M if the derived label value L lies
   outside the SRGB configured on M.  Otherwise, the Label-Index TLV is
   designated "acceptable" to speaker M.

   If multiple different prefixes are received with the same label
   index, all of the different prefixes MUST have their BGP Prefix-SID
   attribute considered to be "conflicting".

   If multiple valid paths for the same prefix are received from
   multiple BGP speakers or, in the case of [RFC7911], from the same BGP
   speaker, and the BGP Prefix-SID attributes do not contain the same
   label index, then the label index from the best path BGP Prefix-SID
   attribute SHOULD be chosen with a notable exception being when
   [RFC5004] is being used to dampen route changes.

   When a BGP speaker receives a path from a neighbor with an
   "acceptable" BGP Prefix-SID attribute and that path is selected as
   the best path, it SHOULD program the derived label as the label for
   the prefix in its local MPLS data plane.

   When a BGP speaker receives a path from a neighbor with an "invalid"
   or "conflicting" BGP Prefix-SID attribute, or when a BGP speaker
   receives a path from a neighbor with a BGP Prefix-SID attribute but
   is unable to process it (e.g., local policy disables the
   functionality), it MUST ignore the BGP Prefix-SID attribute.  For the
   purposes of label allocation, a BGP speaker MUST assign a local (also
   called dynamic) label (non-SRGB) for such a prefix as per classic
   Multiprotocol BGP IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast ([RFC8277]) operation.

   In the case of an "invalid" BGP Prefix-SID attribute, a BGP speaker
   MUST follow the error-handling rules specified in Section 6.  A BGP
   speaker SHOULD log an error for further analysis.  In the case of a
   "conflicting" BGP Prefix-SID attribute, a BGP speaker SHOULD NOT
   treat it as an error and SHOULD propagate the attribute unchanged.  A
   BGP speaker SHOULD log a warning for further analysis, i.e., in the
   case the conflict is not due to a label-index transition.

   When a BGP Prefix-SID attribute changes and transitions from
   "conflicting" to "acceptable", the BGP Prefix-SID attributes for
   other prefixes may also transition to "acceptable" as well.
   Implementations SHOULD ensure all impacted prefixes revert to using
   the label indices corresponding to these newly "acceptable" BGP
   Prefix-SID attributes.

   The outgoing label is always programmed as per classic Multiprotocol
   BGP IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast ([RFC8277]) operation.  Specifically, a
   BGP speaker receiving a prefix with a BGP Prefix-SID attribute and a
   label NLRI field of Implicit NULL [RFC3032] from a neighbor MUST
   adhere to standard behavior and program its MPLS data plane to pop
   the top label when forwarding traffic to the prefix.  The label NLRI
   defines the outbound label that MUST be used by the receiving node.

5.  Advertising BGP Prefix-SID Attribute

   The BGP Prefix-SID attribute MAY be attached to BGP IPv4/IPv6 Labeled
   Unicast prefixes [RFC8277].  In order to prevent distribution of the
   BGP Prefix-SID attribute beyond its intended scope of applicability,
   attribute filtering SHOULD be deployed to remove the BGP Prefix-SID
   attribute at the administrative boundary of the SR domain.

   A BGP speaker that advertises a path received from one of its
   neighbors SHOULD advertise the BGP Prefix-SID received with the path
   without modification as long as the BGP Prefix-SID was acceptable.
   If the path did not come with a BGP Prefix-SID attribute, the speaker
   MAY attach a BGP Prefix-SID to the path if configured to do so.  The
   content of the TLVs present in the BGP Prefix-SID is determined by
   the configuration.

5.1.  MPLS Data Plane: Labeled Unicast

   A BGP speaker that originates a prefix attaches the BGP Prefix-SID
   attribute when it advertises the prefix to its neighbors via
   Multiprotocol BGP IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast ([RFC8277]).  The value
   of the label index in the Label-Index TLV is determined by
   configuration.

   A BGP speaker that originates a BGP Prefix-SID attribute MAY
   optionally announce the Originator SRGB TLV along with the mandatory
   Label-Index TLV.  The content of the Originator SRGB TLV is
   determined by configuration.

   Since the label-index value must be unique within an SR domain, by
   default an implementation SHOULD NOT advertise the BGP Prefix-SID
   attribute outside an AS unless it is explicitly configured to do so.

   In all cases, the Label field of the advertised NLRI ([RFC8277]
   [RFC4364]) MUST be set to the local/incoming label programmed in the
   MPLS data plane for the given advertised prefix.  If the prefix is
   associated with one of the BGP speaker's interfaces, this is the
   usual MPLS label (such as the Implicit or Explicit NULL label
   [RFC3032]).

6.  Error Handling of BGP Prefix-SID Attribute

   When a BGP speaker receives a BGP UPDATE message containing a
   malformed or invalid BGP Prefix-SID attribute attached to an IPv4/
   IPv6 Labeled Unicast prefix ([RFC8277]), it MUST ignore the received
   BGP Prefix-SID attribute and not advertise it to other BGP peers.  In
   this context, a malformed BGP Prefix-SID attribute is one that cannot
   be parsed due to not meeting the minimum attribute length
   requirement, containing a TLV length that doesn't conform to the
   length constraints for the TLV, or containing a TLV length that would
   extend beyond the end of the attribute (as defined by the attribute
   length).  This is equivalent to the "Attribute discard" action
   specified in [RFC7606].  When discarding an attribute, a BGP speaker
   SHOULD log an error for further analysis.

   As per [RFC7606], if the BGP Prefix-SID attribute appears more than
   once in an UPDATE message, all the occurrences of the attribute other
   than the first one SHALL be discarded and the UPDATE message will
   continue to be processed.  Similarly, if a recognized TLV appears
   more than once in a BGP Prefix-SID attribute while the specification
   only allows for a single occurrence, then all the occurrences of the
   TLV other than the first one SHALL be discarded and the Prefix-SID
   attribute will continue to be processed.

   For future extensibility, unknown TLVs MUST be ignored and propagated
   unmodified.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a BGP path attribute known as the BGP Prefix-
   SID attribute.  IANA has assigned attribute code type 40 to the BGP
   Prefix-SID attribute from the "BGP Path Attributes" registry.

   This document defines two TLVs for the BGP Prefix-SID attribute.
   These TLVs have been registered with IANA.  IANA has created a
   registry for BGP Prefix-SID Attribute TLVs as follows:

   Under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry, the
   new registry titled "BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types" has been created and
   points to this document as the reference.

   Registration Procedure(s):

      Values 1-254, Expert Review as defined in [RFC8126]
      Values 0 and 255, Reserved

   +-------+-----------------+---------------+
   | Value | Type            | Reference     |
   +=======+=================+===============+
   | 0     | Reserved        | This document |
   +-------+-----------------+---------------+
   | 1     | Label-Index     | This document |
   +-------+-----------------+---------------+
   | 2     | Deprecated      | This document |
   +-------+-----------------+---------------+
   | 3     | Originator SRGB | This document |
   +-------+-----------------+---------------+
   | 4-254 | Unassigned      |               |
   +-------+-----------------+---------------+
   | 255   | Reserved        | This document |
   +-------+-----------------+---------------+

        Table 1: BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types

   The value 2 previously corresponded to the IPv6 SID TLV, which was
   specified in previous versions of this document.  It was removed, and
   use of the BGP Prefix-SID for Segment Routing over the IPv6 data
   plane [RFC8402] has been deferred to future specifications.

   IANA has also created the "BGP Prefix-SID Label-Index TLV Flags"
   registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters"
   registry, with a reference to this document.  Initially, this 16-bit
   flags registry is empty.  The registration policy for flag bits is
   Expert Review [RFC8126], consistent with the "BGP Prefix-SID TLV
   Types" registry.

   Finally, IANA has created the "BGP Prefix-SID Originator SRGB TLV
   Flags" registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters"
   registry, with a reference to this document.  Initially, this 16-bit
   flags registry is empty.  The registration policy for flag bits is
   Expert Review [RFC8126] consistent with the BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types
   registry.

   The designated experts must be good and faithful stewards of the
   above registries, ensuring that each request is legitimate and
   corresponds to a viable use case.  Given the limited number of bits
   in the flags registries and the applicability to a single TLV,
   additional scrutiny should be afforded to requests for flag-bit
   allocation.  In general, no single use case should require more than
   one flag bit and, should the use case require more, alternate
   encodings using new TLVs should be considered.

8.  Manageability Considerations

   This document defines a BGP attribute to address use cases such as
   the one described in [RFC8670].  It is assumed that advertisement of
   the BGP Prefix-SID attribute is controlled by the operator in order
   to:

   *  Prevent undesired origination/advertisement of the BGP Prefix-SID
      attribute.  By default, a BGP Prefix-SID attribute SHOULD NOT be
      attached to a prefix and advertised.  Hence, BGP Prefix-SID
      Advertisement SHOULD require explicit enablement.

   *  Prevent any undesired propagation of the BGP Prefix-SID attribute.
      By default, the BGP Prefix-SID is not advertised outside the
      boundary of a single SR/administrative domain that may include one
      or more ASes.  The propagation to other ASes MUST be explicitly
      configured.

   The deployment model described in [RFC8670] assumes multiple ASes
   under a common administrative domain.  For this use case, the BGP
   Prefix-SID Advertisement is applicable to the inter-AS context, i.e.,
   EBGP, while it is confined to a single administrative domain.

9.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces a BGP attribute (BGP Prefix-SID), which
   inherits the security considerations expressed in: [RFC4271],
   [RFC8277], and [RFC8402].

   When advertised using BGPsec as described in [RFC8205], the BGP
   Prefix-SID attribute doesn't impose any unique security
   considerations.  It should be noted that the BGP Prefix-SID attribute
   is not protected by the BGPsec signatures.

   It should be noted that, as described in Section 8, this document
   refers to a deployment model where all nodes are under the single
   administrative domain.  In this context, we assume that the operator
   doesn't want to leak any information related to internal prefixes and
   topology outside of the administrative domain.  The internal
   information includes the BGP Prefix-SID.  In order to prevent such
   leaking, the common BGP mechanisms (filters) are applied at the
   boundary of the SR/administrative domain.  Local BGP-attribute-
   filtering policies and mechanisms are not standardized and,
   consequently, are beyond the scope of this document.

   To prevent a Denial-of-Service (DoS) or Distributed-Denial-of-Service
   (DDoS) attack due to excessive BGP updates with an invalid or
   conflicting BGP Prefix-SID attribute, error log message rate limiting
   as well as suppression of duplicate error log messages SHOULD be
   deployed.

   Since BGP-LS is the preferred method for advertising SRGB
   information, the BGP speaker SHOULD log an error if a BGP Prefix-SID
   attribute is received with SRGB information different from that
   received as an attribute of the same node's BGP-LS Node NLRI.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative 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>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7606]  Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
              Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
              RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.

   [RFC7911]  Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
              "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8205]  Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol
              Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, September
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8205>.

   [RFC8277]  Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
              Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8660]  Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [BGPLS-SR-EPE]
              Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray,
              S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing
              BGP Egress Peer Engineering", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-19, 16 May
              2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
              segment-routing-epe-19>.

   [BGPLS-SR-EXT]
              Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
              and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
              Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16, 27 June 2019,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-
              segment-routing-ext-16>.

   [IPv6-SRH] Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
              Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
              (SRH)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-
              segment-routing-header-26, 22 October 2019,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-
              routing-header-26>.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.

   [RFC5004]  Chen, E. and S. Sangli, "Avoid BGP Best Path Transitions
              from One External to Another", RFC 5004,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5004, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5004>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8670]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and
              P. Lapukhov, "BGP Prefix Segment in Large-Scale Data
              Centers", RFC 8670, DOI 10.17487/RFC8670, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8670>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Satya Mohanty for his contribution to
   this document.

   The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana for substantive
   comments as part of the Routing AD review.

   The authors would like to thank Bruno Decraene for substantive
   comments and suggested text as part of the Routing Directorate
   review.

   The authors would like to thank Shyam Sethuram for comments and
   discussion of TLV processing and validation.

   The authors would like to thank Robert Raszuk for comments and
   suggestions regarding the MPLS data-plane behavior.

   The authors would like to thank Krishna Deevi, Juan Alcaide, Howard
   Yang, and Jakob Heitz for discussions on conflicting BGP Prefix-SID
   label indices and BGP add paths.

   The authors would like to thank Peter Yee, Tony Przygienda, Mirja
   Kuhlewind, Alexey Melnikov, Eric Rescorla, Suresh Krishnan, Warren
   Kumari, Ben Campbell Sue Hares, and Martin Vigoureux for IDR Working
   Group last call, IETF Last Call, directorate, and IESG reviews.

Contributors

   Keyur Patel
   Arrcus, Inc.
   United States of America

   Email: Keyur@arrcus.com

   Saikat Ray
   Unaffiliated
   United States of America

   Email: raysaikat@gmail.com

Authors' Addresses

   Stefano Previdi
   Huawei Technologies
   Italy

   Email: stefano@previdi.net

   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems
   Brussels
   Belgium

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com

   Acee Lindem (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   301 Midenhall Way
   Cary, NC,  27513
   United States of America

   Email: acee@cisco.com

   Arjun Sreekantiah

   Email: arjunhrs@gmail.com

   Hannes Gredler
   RtBrick Inc.

   Email: hannes@rtbrick.com