--- 1/draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-00.txt 2017-09-25 11:13:29.830902480 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-01.txt 2017-09-25 11:13:29.934904956 -0700 @@ -1,23 +1,23 @@ BESS Working Group A. Farrel Internet-Draft J. Drake Intended status: Standards Track E. Rosen -Expires: September 28, 2017 Juniper Networks +Expires: March 29, 2018 Juniper Networks J. Uttaro AT&T L. Jalil Verizon - March 27, 2017 + September 25, 2017 BGP Control Plane for NSH SFC - draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-00 + draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-01 Abstract This document describes the use of BGP as a control plane for networks that support Service Function Chaining (SFC). The document 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 that it hosts a particular instance of a specified service function. 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 @@ -35,37 +35,37 @@ document are to be interpreted as described in [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 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 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 September 28, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on March 29, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 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 - (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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 @@ -2106,21 +2106,21 @@ IANA maintains a registry of "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters". IANA is request to create a new subregistry called the "SFP Attribute TLVs" registry. Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535. o Values 0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be allocated". 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. The new registry should track: o Type o Name o Reference Document or Contact @@ -2140,21 +2140,21 @@ IANA maintains a registry of "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters". IANA is request to create a new subregistry called the "SFP Association Type" registry. Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535. o Values 0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be allocated". 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. The new registry should track: o Association Type o Name o Reference Document or Contact @@ -2171,24 +2171,24 @@ IANA is request to create a new top-level registry called "Service Function Chaining Service Function Types". Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535. o Values 0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be allocated". 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 - 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. The new registry should track: o Value o Name o Reference Document or Contact @@ -2233,82 +2233,83 @@ Thanks to Tony Przygienda for helpful comments, and to Joel Halpern for discussions that improved this document. 13. References 13.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel - Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-03 - (work in progress), November 2016. + Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07 + (work in progress), July 2017. [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] - Quinn, P. and U. Elzur, "Network Service Header", draft- - ietf-sfc-nsh-12 (work in progress), February 2017. + Quinn, P., Elzur, U., and C. Pignataro, "Network Service + Header (NSH)", draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-23 (work in progress), + September 2017. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, - . + . [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, - . + . [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, - . + . [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February - 2006, . + 2006, . [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, - . - - [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, - . + . [RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009, - . + . + + [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, + . 13.2. Informative References [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, - . + . [RFC7498] Quinn, P., Ed. and T. Nadeau, Ed., "Problem Statement for Service Function Chaining", RFC 7498, DOI 10.17487/RFC7498, April 2015, - . + . [RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black, "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510, DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015, - . + . [RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015, - . + . Authors' Addresses Adrian Farrel Juniper Networks Email: afarrel@juniper.net John Drake Juniper Networks