draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-00.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-01.txt 
Inter-Domain Routing G. Dawra, Ed. Inter-Domain Routing G. Dawra, Ed.
Internet-Draft LinkedIn Internet-Draft LinkedIn
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: April 25, 2022 K. Talaulikar, Ed. Expires: October 26, 2022 Cisco Systems
K. Talaulikar, Ed.
Arrcus Inc
F. Clad F. Clad
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
D. Bernier D. Bernier
Bell Canada Bell Canada
J. Uttaro J. Uttaro
AT&T AT&T
B. Decraene B. Decraene
Orange Orange
H. Elmalky H. Elmalky
Ericsson Ericsson
X. Xu X. Xu
Capitalonline Capitalonline
J. Guichard J. Guichard
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
C. Li C. Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
October 22, 2021 April 24, 2022
BGP-LS Advertisement of Segment Routing Service Segments BGP-LS Advertisement of Segment Routing Service Segments
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-00 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-01
Abstract Abstract
Service functions are deployed as, physical or virtualized elements Service functions are deployed as, physical or virtualized elements
along with network nodes or on servers in data centers. Segment along with network nodes or on servers in data centers. Segment
Routing (SR) brings in the concept of segments which can be Routing (SR) brings in the concept of segments which can be
topological or service instructions. Service segments are SR topological or service instructions. Service segments are SR
segments that are associated with service functions. SR Policies are segments that are associated with service functions. SR Policies are
used for the setup of paths for steering of traffic through service used for the setup of paths for steering of traffic through service
functions using their service segments. functions using their service segments.
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
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 April 25, 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 26, 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 26 skipping to change at page 3, line 26
policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] instantiation. policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] instantiation.
Consider the network represented in Figure 1 below where: Consider the network represented in Figure 1 below where:
o A and B are two end hosts using IPv4. o A and B are two end hosts using IPv4.
o S1 is an SR-aware firewall Service. o S1 is an SR-aware firewall Service.
o S2 is an SR-unaware DPI Service. o S2 is an SR-unaware DPI Service.
SR-C --3-- SR-C --3--
| / \ / \
| / \ / \
A----1----2----4----5----6----B A----1----2----4----5----6----B
| | | |
| | | |
S1 S2 S1 S2
Figure 1: Network with Services Figure 1: Network with Services
SR Controller (SR-C) is connected to Node 1, but may be attached to SR Controller (SR-C) is connected to the network.
any node 1-6 in the network.
SR-C can receive BGP-LS updates to discover topology, and calculate SR-C can receive BGP-LS updates to discover topology, and calculate
constrained paths between nodes 1 and 6. constrained paths between nodes 1 and 6.
However, if SR-C is configured to compute a constrained path from 1 However, if SR-C is configured to compute a constrained path from 1
and 6, including a DPI service (i.e., S2) it is not yet possible due and 6, including a DPI service (i.e., S2) it is not yet possible due
to the lack of service distribution. SR-C does not know where a DPI to the lack of service distribution. SR-C does not know where a DPI
service is nor the SID for it. It does not know that S2 is a service service is nor the SID for it. It does not know that S2 is a service
it needs. it needs.
skipping to change at page 4, line 20 skipping to change at page 4, line 18
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. BGP-LS Extensions for Service Chaining 2. BGP-LS Extensions for Service Chaining
For an attached service, following data needs to be shared with SR-C: For an attached service, following data needs to be shared with SR-C:
o Service SID value (e.g. MPLS label or IPv6 address). Service SID o Service SID value (e.g. MPLS label or IPv6 address). Service SID
MAY only be encoded as LOC:FUNCT, where LOC is the L most MAY be encoded as LOC:FUNCT:ARG as specified in [RFC8986].
significant bits and FUNCT is the 128-L least significant
bits[RFC8986]. ARGs bits, if any, MAY be set to 0 in the
advertised service SID.
o Function Identifier (Static Proxy, Dynamic Proxy, Shared Memory o Function Identifier (Static Proxy, Dynamic Proxy, Shared Memory
Proxy, Masquerading Proxy, SR Aware Service etc.). Proxy, Masquerading Proxy, SR Aware Service etc.).
o Service Type (DPI, Firewall, Classifier, LB etc.). o Service Type (DPI, Firewall, Classifier, LB etc.).
o Traffic Type (IPv4 OR IPv6 OR Ethernet) o Traffic Type (IPv4 OR IPv6 OR Ethernet)
o Opaque Data (Such as brand and version, other extra information) o Opaque Data (Such as brand and version, other extra information)
skipping to change at page 5, line 10 skipping to change at page 5, line 10
SRv6 SID Information TLV [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] encodes SRv6 SID Information TLV [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] encodes
behavior along with associated SID Flags. behavior along with associated SID Flags.
A Service Chaining (SC) TLV in Figure 2 is defined as: A Service Chaining (SC) TLV in Figure 2 is defined as:
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Type (2 octet) | | Type (2 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Length (2 octet) | | Length (2 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Service Type(ST) (2 octet | | Service Type (ST) (2 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) | | Flags (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| Traffic Type(1 octet) | | Traffic Type (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
| RESERVED (2 octet) | | RESERVED (2 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Service Chaining (SC) TLV Figure 2: Service Chaining (SC) TLV
Where: Where:
Type: 16 bit field. TBD Type: 16 bit field. TBD
skipping to change at page 9, line 28 skipping to change at page 9, line 28
The authors would like to thank Krishnaswamy Ananthamurthy for his The authors would like to thank Krishnaswamy Ananthamurthy for his
review of this document. review of this document.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M., Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M.,
Bernier, D., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link State Extensions Bernier, D., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link State Extensions
for SRv6", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-08 (work in for SRv6", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-09 (work in
progress), June 2021. progress), November 2021.
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming] [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming]
Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., Bernier, D., Li, C., Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., Bernier, D., Li, C.,
Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C., Henderickx, W., and Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C., Henderickx, W., and
S. Salsano, "Service Programming with Segment Routing", S. Salsano, "Service Programming with Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-programming-05 (work in draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-programming-05 (work in
progress), September 2021. progress), September 2021.
[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,
skipping to change at page 10, line 26 skipping to change at page 10, line 26
[RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, [RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
(BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085, (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9085>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9085>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,
Rosen, E., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing
Routing Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing- Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-
te-policy-13 (work in progress), June 2021. policy-17 (work in progress), April 2022.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-13 (work in progress), ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22 (work in progress),
May 2021. March 2022.
[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>.
[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>.
skipping to change at page 11, line 26 skipping to change at page 11, line 26
Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Belgium Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Ketan Talaulikar (editor) Ketan Talaulikar (editor)
Cisco Systems Arrcus Inc
India India
Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
Francois Clad Francois Clad
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
France France
Email: fclad@cisco.com Email: fclad@cisco.com
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
24 lines changed or deleted 22 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/