draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-02.txt   draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-03.txt 
BESS Working Group A. Farrel BESS Working Group A. Farrel
Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting
Intended status: Standards Track J. Drake Intended status: Standards Track J. Drake
Expires: August 30, 2019 E. Rosen Expires: February 21, 2020 E. Rosen
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
K. Patel K. Patel
Arrcus, Inc. Arrcus, Inc.
L. Jalil L. Jalil
Verizon Verizon
February 26, 2019 August 20, 2019
Gateway Auto-Discovery and Route Advertisement for Segment Routing Gateway Auto-Discovery and Route Advertisement for Segment Routing
Enabled Domain Interconnection Enabled Domain Interconnection
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-02 draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-03
Abstract Abstract
Data centers are critical components of the infrastructure used by Data centers are critical components of the infrastructure used by
network operators to provide services to their customers. Data network operators to provide services to their customers. Data
centers are attached to the Internet or a backbone network by gateway centers are attached to the Internet or a backbone network by gateway
routers. One data center typically has more than one gateway for routers. One data center typically has more than one gateway for
commercial, load balancing, and resiliency reasons. commercial, load balancing, and resiliency reasons.
Segment Routing is a popular protocol mechanism for use within a data Segment Routing is a popular protocol mechanism for use within a data
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 30, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 21, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. SR Domain Gateway Auto-Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. SR Domain Gateway Auto-Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Relationship to BGP Link State and Egress Peer Engineering . 7 4. Relationship to BGP Link State and Egress Peer Engineering . 7
5. Advertising an SR Domain Route Externally . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Advertising an SR Domain Route Externally . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
skipping to change at page 7, line 47 skipping to change at page 7, line 47
to send them a packet in that SR domain's native encapsulation, then to send them a packet in that SR domain's native encapsulation, then
each GW will also include multiple instances of a tunnel TLV for that each GW will also include multiple instances of a tunnel TLV for that
native encapsulation in externally advertised routes: one for each GW native encapsulation in externally advertised routes: one for each GW
and each containing a remote endpoint sub-TLV with that GW's address. and each containing a remote endpoint sub-TLV with that GW's address.
A remote GW may then encapsulate a packet according to the rules A remote GW may then encapsulate a packet according to the rules
defined via the sub-TLVs included in each of the tunnel TLV defined via the sub-TLVs included in each of the tunnel TLV
instances. instances.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry called "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Parameters" with a sub-registry called "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Parameters" with a sub-registry called "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute Tunnel Types." The registration policy for this registry Attribute Tunnel Types." The registration policy for this registry
is First-Come First-Served [RFC8126]. is First-Come First-Served [RFC8126].
IANA is requested to assign a codepoint from this sub-registry for IANA is requested to assign a codepoint from this sub-registry for
"SR Tunnel". The next available value may be used and reference "SR Tunnel". The next available value may be used and reference
should be made to this document. should be made to this document.
[[Note: This text is likely to be replaced with a specific code point [[Note: This text is likely to be replaced with a specific code point
value once FCFS allocation has been made.]] value once FCFS allocation has been made.]]
skipping to change at page 9, line 50 skipping to change at page 9, line 50
useful discussions. useful discussions.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray,
S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing
BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
segment-routing-epe-17 (work in progress), October 2018. segment-routing-epe-19 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel Patel, K., Velde, G., Ramachandra, S., and E. Rosen, "The
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-11 BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-
(work in progress), February 2019. tunnel-encaps-13 (work in progress), July 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
skipping to change at page 10, line 49 skipping to change at page 10, line 49
[I-D.farrel-spring-sr-domain-interconnect] [I-D.farrel-spring-sr-domain-interconnect]
Farrel, A. and J. Drake, "Interconnection of Segment Farrel, A. and J. Drake, "Interconnection of Segment
Routing Domains - Problem Statement and Solution Routing Domains - Problem Statement and Solution
Landscape", draft-farrel-spring-sr-domain-interconnect-05 Landscape", draft-farrel-spring-sr-domain-interconnect-05
(work in progress), October 2018. (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-11 Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
(work in progress), October 2018. (work in progress), June 2019.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 12 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/