--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-00.txt 2022-04-24 03:13:10.619722639 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-01.txt 2022-04-24 03:13:10.647723347 -0700 @@ -1,35 +1,37 @@ Inter-Domain Routing G. Dawra, Ed. Internet-Draft LinkedIn 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 Cisco Systems D. Bernier Bell Canada J. Uttaro AT&T B. Decraene Orange H. Elmalky Ericsson X. Xu Capitalonline J. Guichard Futurewei Technologies C. Li Huawei Technologies - October 22, 2021 + April 24, 2022 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 Service functions are deployed as, physical or virtualized elements along with network nodes or on servers in data centers. Segment Routing (SR) brings in the concept of segments which can be topological or service instructions. Service segments are SR segments that are associated with service functions. SR Policies are used for the setup of paths for steering of traffic through service functions using their service segments. @@ -51,25 +53,25 @@ 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 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 April 25, 2022. + This Internet-Draft will expire on October 26, 2022. 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. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (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 @@ -107,31 +109,30 @@ Consider the network represented in Figure 1 below where: o A and B are two end hosts using IPv4. o S1 is an SR-aware firewall Service. o S2 is an SR-unaware DPI Service. SR-C --3-- - | / \ - | / \ + / \ + / \ A----1----2----4----5----6----B | | | | S1 S2 Figure 1: Network with Services - SR Controller (SR-C) is connected to Node 1, but may be attached to - any node 1-6 in the network. + SR Controller (SR-C) is connected to the network. SR-C can receive BGP-LS updates to discover topology, and calculate constrained paths between nodes 1 and 6. 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 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 it needs. @@ -147,24 +148,21 @@ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 2. BGP-LS Extensions for Service Chaining 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 - MAY only be encoded as LOC:FUNCT, where LOC is the L most - 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. + MAY be encoded as LOC:FUNCT:ARG as specified in [RFC8986]. o Function Identifier (Static Proxy, Dynamic Proxy, Shared Memory Proxy, Masquerading Proxy, SR Aware Service etc.). o Service Type (DPI, Firewall, Classifier, LB etc.). o Traffic Type (IPv4 OR IPv6 OR Ethernet) o Opaque Data (Such as brand and version, other extra information) @@ -183,21 +181,21 @@ SRv6 SID Information TLV [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] encodes behavior along with associated SID Flags. A Service Chaining (SC) TLV in Figure 2 is defined as: +---------------------------------------+ | Type (2 octet) | +---------------------------------------+ | Length (2 octet) | +---------------------------------------+ - | Service Type(ST) (2 octet | + | Service Type (ST) (2 octet) | +---------------------------------------+ | Flags (1 octet) | +---------------------------------------+ | Traffic Type(1 octet) | +---------------------------------------+ | RESERVED (2 octet) | +---------------------------------------+ Figure 2: Service Chaining (SC) TLV @@ -383,22 +381,22 @@ The authors would like to thank Krishnaswamy Ananthamurthy for his review of this document. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M., Bernier, D., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link State Extensions - for SRv6", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-08 (work in - progress), June 2021. + for SRv6", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-09 (work in + progress), November 2021. [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming] Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., Bernier, D., Li, C., Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C., Henderickx, W., and S. Salsano, "Service Programming with Segment Routing", draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-programming-05 (work in progress), September 2021. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, @@ -429,29 +427,29 @@ [RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085, DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021, . 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., - Rosen, E., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment - Routing Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing- - te-policy-13 (work in progress), June 2021. + Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing + Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te- + policy-17 (work in progress), April 2022. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- - ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-13 (work in progress), - May 2021. + ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22 (work in progress), + March 2022. [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, . [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, . @@ -474,21 +472,21 @@ Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com Clarence Filsfils Cisco Systems Belgium Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Ketan Talaulikar (editor) - Cisco Systems + Arrcus Inc India Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com Francois Clad Cisco Systems France Email: fclad@cisco.com