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/