draft-previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-06.txt   draft-previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-07.txt 
Network Working Group S. Previdi, Ed. Network Working Group S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: December 17, 2017 P. Mattes Expires: December 24, 2017 P. Mattes
Microsoft Microsoft
E. Rosen E. Rosen
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
S. Lin S. Lin
Google Google
June 15, 2017 June 22, 2017
Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP
draft-previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-06 draft-previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-07
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a new BGP SAFI with a new NLRI in order to This document defines a new BGP SAFI with a new NLRI in order to
advertise a candidate path of a Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). advertise a candidate path of a Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy).
An SR Policy is a set of candidate paths consisting of one or more An SR Policy is a set of candidate paths consisting of one or more
segment lists. The headend of an SR Policy may learn multiple segment lists. The headend of an SR Policy may learn multiple
candidate paths for an SR Policy. Candidate paths may be learned via candidate paths for an SR Policy. Candidate paths may be learned via
a number of different mechanisms, e.g., CLI, NetConf, PCEP, or BGP. a number of different mechanisms, e.g., CLI, NetConf, PCEP, or BGP.
This document specifies the way in which BGP may be used to This document specifies the way in which BGP may be used to
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 December 17, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 24, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
skipping to change at page 5, line 37 skipping to change at page 5, line 37
2. SR TE Policy Encoding 2. SR TE Policy Encoding
2.1. SR TE Policy SAFI and NLRI 2.1. SR TE Policy SAFI and NLRI
A new SAFI is defined: the SR Policy SAFI, (codepoint 73 assigned by A new SAFI is defined: the SR Policy SAFI, (codepoint 73 assigned by
IANA (see Section 8) from the "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers IANA (see Section 8) from the "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers
(SAFI) Parameters" registry). (SAFI) Parameters" registry).
The SR Policy SAFI uses a new NLRI defined as follows: The SR Policy SAFI uses a new NLRI defined as follows:
+-----------------------------------------------+ +------------------+
| Distinguisher (4 octets) | | NLRI Length | 1 octet
+-----------------------------------------------+ +------------------+
| Policy Color (4 octets) | | Distinguisher | 4 octets
+-----------------------------------------------+ +------------------+
| Endpoint (4 or 16 octets) | | Policy Color | 4 octets
+-----------------------------------------------+ +------------------+
| Endpoint | 4 or 16 octets
+------------------+
where: where:
o NLRI Length: 1 octet of length expressed in bits as defined in
[RFC4760].
o Distinguisher: 4-octet value uniquely identifying the policy in o Distinguisher: 4-octet value uniquely identifying the policy in
the context of <color, endpoint> tuple. The distinguisher has no the context of <color, endpoint> tuple. The distinguisher has no
semantic value and is solely used by the SR Policy originator to semantic value and is solely used by the SR Policy originator to
make unique (from an NLRI perspective) multiple occurrences of the make unique (from an NLRI perspective) multiple occurrences of the
same SR Policy. same SR Policy.
o Policy Color: 4-octet value identifying (with the endpoint) the o Policy Color: 4-octet value identifying (with the endpoint) the
policy. The color is used to match the color of the destination policy. The color is used to match the color of the destination
prefixes to steer traffic into the SR Policy prefixes to steer traffic into the SR Policy
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy]. [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy].
skipping to change at page 28, line 31 skipping to change at page 28, line 31
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>. February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., [RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009, Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. [RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
skipping to change at page 29, line 30 skipping to change at page 29, line 30
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip] [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip]
Uttaro, J., Haas, J., Texier, M., Andy, A., Ray, S., Uttaro, J., Haas, J., Texier, M., Andy, A., Ray, S.,
Simpson, A., and W. Henderickx, "BGP Flow-Spec Redirect to Simpson, A., and W. Henderickx, "BGP Flow-Spec Redirect to
IP Action", draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 (work IP Action", draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 (work
in progress), February 2015. in progress), February 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf- and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
spring-segment-routing-11 (work in progress), February spring-segment-routing-12 (work in progress), June 2017.
2017.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006, (IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
14 lines changed or deleted 18 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/