--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-00.txt 2017-02-09 01:13:35.282449366 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-01.txt 2017-02-09 01:13:35.350450984 -0800 @@ -1,25 +1,25 @@ Inter-Domain Routing S. Previdi, Ed. Internet-Draft P. Psenak Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils -Expires: May 18, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc. +Expires: August 13, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc. H. Gredler RtBrick Inc. M. Chen Huawei Technologies J. Tantsura Individual - November 14, 2016 + February 9, 2017 BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-00 + draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-01 Abstract Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and OSPFv3). This draft defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in @@ -38,25 +38,25 @@ 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/. 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 May 18, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2017. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + 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 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 @@ -87,33 +87,34 @@ 3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.1. Advertisement of a IS-IS Prefix SID TLV . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2. Advertisement of a OSPF/OSPFv3 Prefix-SID TLV . . . . . . 25 3.3. Advertisement of a range of prefix-to-SID mappings in OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.4. Advertisement of a range of IS-IS SR bindings . . . . . . 26 3.5. Advertisement of a path and its attributes from IS-IS protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.6. Advertisement of a path and its attributes from OSPFv2/OSPFv3 protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 4.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 5.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 5.1.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 9.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + 4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 5.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 6.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 6.1.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 10.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 1. Introduction Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by combining sub-paths called "segments". A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service-based. A segment can have a local semantic to an SR node or global within a domain. Within IGP topologies an SR path is encoded as a sequence of topological sub-paths, called "IGP segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and @@ -323,23 +324,25 @@ 2.1.4. SRMS Preference TLV The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference sub-TLV is used in order to associate a preference with SRMS advertisements from a particular source. The SRMS Preference sub-TLV has 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 | Preference | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Type | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Preference | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: TBD, suggested value 1037. Length: 1. Preference: 1 octet. Unsigned 8 bit SRMS preference. The use of the SRMS Preference TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. @@ -1146,26 +1149,61 @@ Advertisement of an SR path for range of prefixes: the OSPF/OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV is encoded in the BGP-LS Prefix Attribute Range TLV as defined in Section 2.3.5. The original OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Binding SID TLV is encoded into the BGP-LS Binding Sub-TLV as defined in Section 2.3.6. The set of Sub-TLVs from the original OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Binding TLV are encoded as Sub-TLVs of the BGP-LS Binding TLV as defined in Section 2.3.6. This includes the SID/Label TLV defined in Section 2.3. -4. IANA Considerations +4. Implementation Status + + Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication, + as well as the reference to RFC 7942. + + This section records the status of known implementations of the + protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this + Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. + The description of implementations in this section is intended to + assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to + RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation + here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort + has been spent to verify the information presented here that was + supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not + be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their + features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may + exist. + + According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups + to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of + running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation + and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. + It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as + they see fit". + + Several early implementations exist and will be reported in detail in + a forthcoming version of this document. For purposes of early + interoperability testing, when no FCFS code point was available, + implementations have made use of the values described in Table 8. + + It will ease implementation interoperability and deployment if the + value could be preserved also due to the large amount of codepoints + this draft requires. However, when IANA-assigned values are + available, implementations will be updated to use them. + +5. IANA Considerations This document requests assigning code-points from the registry for BGP-LS attribute TLVs based on table Table 8. -4.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary +5.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary This section contains the global table of all TLVs/Sub-TLVs defined in this document. +-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+ | TLV Code | Description | Length | Section | | Point | | | | +-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+ | 1034 | SR Capabilities | variable | Section 2.1.1 | | 1035 | SR Algorithm | variable | Section 2.1.2 | @@ -1190,59 +1228,59 @@ | | | octets | | | 1168 | Unnumbered Interface ID | 12 | 1 [49] | | | Backup ERO TLV | octets | | | 1169 | IPv6 Prefix SID | variable | Section 2.3.2 | | 1170 | IGP Prefix Attributes | variable | Section 2.3.3 | | 1171 | Source Router-ID | variable | Section 2.3.4 | +-----------+--------------------------+----------+-----------------+ Table 8: Summary Table of TLV/Sub-TLV Codepoints -5. Manageability Considerations +6. Manageability Considerations This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706]. -5.1. Operational Considerations +6.1. Operational Considerations -5.1.1. Operations +6.1.1. Operations Existing BGP and BGP-LS operational procedures apply. No additional operation procedures are defined in this document. -6. Security Considerations +7. Security Considerations Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations' section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP. -7. Contributors +8. Contributors The following people have substantially contributed to the editing of this document: Acee Lindem Cisco Systems Email: acee@cisco.com Saikat Ray Individual Email: raysaikat@gmail.com -8. Acknowledgements +9. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg and Ketan Jivan Talaulikar for their review of this document. -9. References +10. References -9.1. Normative References +10.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis- segment-routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), October 2016. [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., @@ -1281,43 +1319,49 @@ S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, . [RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794, March 2016, . -9.2. Informative References +10.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf- - spring-segment-routing-09 (work in progress), July 2016. + spring-segment-routing-10 (work in progress), November + 2016. [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, . [RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions", RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009, . [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, . -9.3. URIs + [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running + Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, + RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, + . + +10.3. URIs [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-05#section-3.1 [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-05#section-3.2 [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-05#section-2.2.1