draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16.txt   draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-17.txt 
IS-IS for IP Internets S. Previdi, Ed. IS-IS for IP Internets S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft L. Ginsberg, Ed. Internet-Draft L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: October 21, 2018 A. Bashandy Expires: December 17, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc. A. Bashandy
H. Gredler H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
B. Decraene B. Decraene
Orange Orange
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Individual Nuage Networks
April 19, 2018 June 15, 2018
IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-17
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of
topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are
advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be
introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane. introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane.
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
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 October 21, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 20 skipping to change at page 3, line 23
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of
topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are
advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). Two advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
types of segments are defined, Prefix segments and Adjacency Prefix segments represent an ecmp-aware shortest-path to a prefix (or
segments. Prefix segments represent an ecmp-aware shortest-path to a a node), as per the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments
prefix, as per the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments
represent a hop over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the represent a hop over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the
IGP. A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path while an IGP. A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path while an
adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path. SR's adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path. SR's
control-plane can be applied to both IPv6 and MPLS data-planes, and control-plane can be applied to both IPv6 and MPLS data-planes, and
do not require any additional signaling (other than the regular IGP). do not require any additional signaling (other than the regular IGP).
For example, when used in MPLS networks, SR paths do not require any For example, when used in MPLS networks, SR paths do not require any
LDP or RSVP-TE signaling. Still, SR can interoperate in the presence LDP or RSVP-TE signaling. Still, SR can interoperate in the presence
of LSPs established with RSVP or LDP. of LSPs established with RSVP or LDP.
There are additional segment types, e.g., Binding SID defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. This draft also defines an
advertisement for one type of BindingSID: the Mirror Context segment.
This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be
introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane. introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane.
Segment Routing architecture is described in Segment Routing architecture is described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
Segment Routing use cases are described in [RFC7855]. Segment Routing use cases are described in [RFC7855].
2. Segment Routing Identifiers 2. Segment Routing Identifiers
skipping to change at page 4, line 40 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
and MAY be present in any of the following TLVs: and MAY be present in any of the following TLVs:
TLV-135 (Extended IPv4 reachability) defined in [RFC5305]. TLV-135 (Extended IPv4 reachability) defined in [RFC5305].
TLV-235 (Multitopology IPv4 Reachability) defined in [RFC5120]. TLV-235 (Multitopology IPv4 Reachability) defined in [RFC5120].
TLV-236 (IPv6 IP Reachability) defined in [RFC5308]. TLV-236 (IPv6 IP Reachability) defined in [RFC5308].
TLV-237 (Multitopology IPv6 IP Reachability) defined in [RFC5120]. TLV-237 (Multitopology IPv6 IP Reachability) defined in [RFC5120].
Binding-TLV defined in Section 2.4. Binding-TLV and Multi-Topology Binding-TLV defined in Section 2.4
and Section 2.5 respectively.
When the IP Reachability TLV is propagated across level boundaries, When the IP Reachability TLV is propagated across level boundaries,
the Prefix-SID sub-TLV SHOULD be kept. the Prefix-SID sub-TLV SHOULD be kept.
The Prefix-SID sub-TLV has the following format: The Prefix-SID sub-TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | Flags | Algorithm | | Type | Length | Flags | Algorithm |
skipping to change at page 32, line 13 skipping to change at page 32, line 13
Email: sluong@cisco.com Email: sluong@cisco.com
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-24 (work in progress), December 2017. routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), January 2018. in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and
S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP", S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11 (work in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13 (work in
progress), April 2018. progress), June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14
(work in progress), April 2018. (work in progress), June 2018.
[ISO10589] [ISO10589]
International Organization for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization,
"Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain
routeing information exchange protocol for use in routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/ connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/
IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, Nov 2002. IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, Nov 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 34, line 39 skipping to change at page 34, line 39
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels Brussels
BE BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Ahmed Bashandy Ahmed Bashandy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170, West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: bashandy@cisco.com Email: abashandy.ietf@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
Stephane Litkowski Stephane Litkowski
Orange Orange
FR FR
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Bruno Decraene Bruno Decraene
Orange Orange
FR FR
skipping to change at page 35, line 22 skipping to change at page 35, line 17
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Bruno Decraene Bruno Decraene
Orange Orange
FR FR
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Individual Nuage Networks
Email: jefftant@gmail.com Email: jefftant@gmail.com
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 24 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/