--- 1/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt 2020-10-08 07:13:39.788080529 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11.txt 2020-10-08 07:13:39.872082650 -0700 @@ -1,24 +1,24 @@ Networking Working Group P. Psenak, Ed. Internet-Draft C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems -Expires: March 27, 2021 A. Bashandy +Expires: April 11, 2021 A. Bashandy Individual B. Decraene Orange Z. Hu Huawei Technologies - September 23, 2020 + October 8, 2020 IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt + draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11 Abstract Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called "segments". Segment routing architecture can be implemented over an MPLS data plane as well as an IPv6 data plane. This draft describes the IS-IS extensions required to support Segment Routing over an IPv6 data plane. @@ -38,21 +38,21 @@ 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 March 27, 2021. + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 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 @@ -75,21 +75,21 @@ 5. SRv6 SIDs and Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Advertising Anycast Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Advertising Locators and End SIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. SRv6 Locator TLV Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. SRv6 End SID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Advertising SRv6 Adjacency SIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.2. SRv6 LAN End.X SID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Advertising Endpoint Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 11. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 11. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.1. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.2. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.3. Juniper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.4. Arrcus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.5. Interoperability Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.1. SRv6 Locator TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.1.1. SRv6 End SID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.1.2. Revised sub-TLV table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.2. SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 @@ -369,21 +369,21 @@ 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length |R|R|R|R| MTID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 27 Length: variable. - R bits: reserved for future use. They SHOULD be + R bits: reserved for future use. They MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. MTID: Multitopology Identifier as defined in [RFC5120]. Note that the value 0 is legal. Followed by one or more locator entries of the form: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -405,21 +405,21 @@ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |D| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ where: D bit: When the Locator is leaked from level-2 to level-1, the D bit MUST be set. Otherwise, this bit MUST be clear. Locators with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from level-1 to level-2. This is to prevent looping. - The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They SHOULD be + The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Algorithm: 1 octet. Associated algorithm. Algorithm values are defined in the IGP Algorithm Type registry. Loc-Size: 1 octet. Number of bits in the SRv6 Locator field. (1 - 128) Locator: 1-16 octets. This field encodes the advertised SRv6 Locator. The Locator is encoded in the minimal number of @@ -721,34 +721,34 @@ table below, and MUST NOT be advertised in the TLV[s] as indicated by "N" in the table below. Endpoint |Endpoint | End | End.X | Lan End.X | Behavior |Behavior Codepoint| SID | SID | SID | ----------------------|------------------|-----|-------|-----------| End (PSP, USP, USD)| 1-4, 28-31 | Y | N | N | ----------------------|------------------|-----|-------|-----------| End.X (PSP, USP, USD)| 5-8, 32-35 | N | Y | Y | ----------------------|------------------|-----|-------|-----------| - End.T (PSP, USP, USD)| 9-12, 36-39 | Y | N | N | - ----------------------|------------------|-----|-------|-----------| End.DX6 | 16 | N | Y | Y | ----------------------|------------------|-----|-------|-----------| End.DX4 | 17 | N | Y | Y | ----------------------|------------------|-----|-------|-----------| End.DT6 | 18 | Y | N | N | ----------------------|------------------|-----|-------|-----------| End.DT4 | 19 | Y | N | N | ----------------------|------------------|-----|-------|-----------| End.DT64 | 20 | Y | N | N | 11. Implementation Status + RFC Ed.: Please remove this section prior to publication. + This section describes the implementation status of the ISIS SRv6 extensions. 11.1. Cisco Cisco's ISIS SRv6 implementation supports following functionalities: Types of SID supported: End, End.X, LAN End.X, END.OP Intra/Inter area/level support: Yes @@ -853,21 +854,21 @@ TLV 242 registry": Type: 25 Description: SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV. Reference: This document (Section 2). This document requests the creation of a new IANA managed registry for sub-sub-TLVs of the SRv6 Capability sub-TLV. The registration - procedure is "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC7370]. Suggested + procedure is "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC8126]. Suggested registry name is "sub-sub-TLVs for SRv6 Capability sub-TLV". No sub- sub-TLVs are defined by this document except for the reserved value. 0: Reserved 1-255: Unassigned 12.3. SRv6 End.X SID and SRv6 LAN End.X SID sub-TLVs This document makes the following registrations in the "sub- TLVs for @@ -897,46 +898,41 @@ Type Description ------------------ 41 SRH Max SL 42 SRH Max End Pop 44 SRH Max H.encaps 45 SRH Max End D 12.5. Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs - This document creates the following Sub-Sub-TLV Registry within the - "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry: - - Registry: Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs - - Registration Procedure: Expert review - - Reference: This document (Section 7.2, Section 8.1, Section 8.2). - - This document defines the following Sub-Sub-TLV in the "Sub-Sub-TLVs - for SID Sub-TLVs" registry: - - Type: 1 + This document requests a new IANA registry be created under the IS-IS + TLV Codepoints Registry to control the assignment of sub-TLV types + for the SID Sub-TLVs specified in this document - Section 7.2, + Section 8.1, Section 8.2. The suggested name of the new registry is + "Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs". The registration procedure is + "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC8126]. The following assignments + are made by this document: - Description: SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV. + 0: Reserved - Reference: This document (Section 9). + 1: SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV (Section 9). 12.6. Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV This document adds a new bit in the "Bit Values for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV" registry: Bit #: 4 Description: A bit + Reference: This document (Section 6). 13. Security Considerations Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [ISO10589], [RFC5304], and [RFC5310]. 14. Contributors The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content @@ -988,22 +984,22 @@ [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam] Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Matsushima, S., Voyer, D., and M. Chen, "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)", draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-07 (work in progress), July 2020. [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming", - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20 (work in - progress), September 2020. + draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-24 (work in + progress), October 2020. [ISO10589] Standardization", I. ". O. F., "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473), ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, @@ -1036,20 +1032,25 @@ [RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794, March 2016, . [RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981, DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016, . + [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for + Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, + RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, + . + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491, DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018, . [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., @@ -1061,21 +1062,21 @@ [RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020, . 15.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex- - algo-11 (work in progress), September 2020. + algo-12 (work in progress), October 2020. [RFC8355] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir, "Resiliency Use Cases in Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Networks", RFC 8355, DOI 10.17487/RFC8355, March 2018, . [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,