draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-00.txt   draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-01.txt 
BESS Working Group A. Farrel BESS Working Group A. Farrel
Internet-Draft J. Drake Internet-Draft J. Drake
Intended status: Standards Track E. Rosen Intended status: Standards Track E. Rosen
Expires: September 28, 2017 Juniper Networks Expires: March 29, 2018 Juniper Networks
J. Uttaro J. Uttaro
AT&T AT&T
L. Jalil L. Jalil
Verizon Verizon
March 27, 2017 September 25, 2017
BGP Control Plane for NSH SFC BGP Control Plane for NSH SFC
draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-00 draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-01
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the use of BGP as a control plane for This document describes the use of BGP as a control plane for
networks that support Service Function Chaining (SFC). The document networks that support Service Function Chaining (SFC). The document
introduces a new BGP address family called the SFC AFI/SAFI with two introduces a new BGP address family called the SFC AFI/SAFI with two
route types. One route type is originated by a node to advertise route types. One route type is originated by a node to advertise
that it hosts a particular instance of a specified service function. that it hosts a particular instance of a specified service function.
This route type also provides "instructions" on how to send a packet This route type also provides "instructions" on how to send a packet
to the hosting node in a way that indicates that the service function to the hosting node in a way that indicates that the service function
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 http://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 September 28, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 29, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
skipping to change at page 47, line 38 skipping to change at page 47, line 38
IANA maintains a registry of "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) IANA maintains a registry of "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Parameters". IANA is request to create a new subregistry called the Parameters". IANA is request to create a new subregistry called the
"SFP Attribute TLVs" registry. "SFP Attribute TLVs" registry.
Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535. Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535.
o Values 0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be o Values 0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be
allocated". allocated".
o Values 1 through 65524 are to be assigned according to the "First o Values 1 through 65524 are to be assigned according to the "First
Come First Served" policy [RFC5226]. Come First Served" policy [RFC8126].
This document should be given as a reference for this registry. This document should be given as a reference for this registry.
The new registry should track: The new registry should track:
o Type o Type
o Name o Name
o Reference Document or Contact o Reference Document or Contact
skipping to change at page 48, line 23 skipping to change at page 48, line 23
IANA maintains a registry of "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) IANA maintains a registry of "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Parameters". IANA is request to create a new subregistry called the Parameters". IANA is request to create a new subregistry called the
"SFP Association Type" registry. "SFP Association Type" registry.
Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535. Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535.
o Values 0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be o Values 0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be
allocated". allocated".
o Values 1 through 65524 are to be assigned according to the "First o Values 1 through 65524 are to be assigned according to the "First
Come First Served" policy [RFC5226]. Come First Served" policy [RFC8126].
This document should be given as a reference for this registry. This document should be given as a reference for this registry.
The new registry should track: The new registry should track:
o Association Type o Association Type
o Name o Name
o Reference Document or Contact o Reference Document or Contact
skipping to change at page 49, line 9 skipping to change at page 49, line 9
IANA is request to create a new top-level registry called "Service IANA is request to create a new top-level registry called "Service
Function Chaining Service Function Types". Function Chaining Service Function Types".
Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535. Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535.
o Values 0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be o Values 0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be
allocated". allocated".
o Values 1 through 31 are to be assigned by "Standards Action" o Values 1 through 31 are to be assigned by "Standards Action"
[RFC5226] and are referred to as the Special Purpose SFT values. [RFC8126] and are referred to as the Special Purpose SFT values.
o Other values (32 through 65534) are to be assigned according to o Other values (32 through 65534) are to be assigned according to
the "First Come First Served" policy [RFC5226]. the "First Come First Served" policy [RFC8126].
This document should be given as a reference for this registry. This document should be given as a reference for this registry.
The new registry should track: The new registry should track:
o Value o Value
o Name o Name
o Reference Document or Contact o Reference Document or Contact
skipping to change at page 50, line 28 skipping to change at page 50, line 28
Thanks to Tony Przygienda for helpful comments, and to Joel Halpern Thanks to Tony Przygienda for helpful comments, and to Joel Halpern
for discussions that improved this document. for discussions that improved this document.
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-03 Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07
(work in progress), November 2016. (work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]
Quinn, P. and U. Elzur, "Network Service Header", draft- Quinn, P., Elzur, U., and C. Pignataro, "Network Service
ietf-sfc-nsh-12 (work in progress), February 2017. Header (NSH)", draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-23 (work in progress),
September 2017.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001, Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., [RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009, Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
[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>.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7498] Quinn, P., Ed. and T. Nadeau, Ed., "Problem Statement for [RFC7498] Quinn, P., Ed. and T. Nadeau, Ed., "Problem Statement for
Service Function Chaining", RFC 7498, Service Function Chaining", RFC 7498,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7498, April 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7498, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7498>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7498>.
[RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black, [RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
"Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510, "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function [RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Email: afarrel@juniper.net Email: afarrel@juniper.net
John Drake John Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
29 lines changed or deleted 30 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/