--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-01.txt 2018-12-18 04:13:36.031573003 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02.txt 2018-12-18 04:13:36.063573779 -0800 @@ -1,27 +1,27 @@ Network Working Group X. Xu -Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc. +Internet-Draft Alibaba, Inc Intended status: Standards Track S. Bryant -Expires: April 21, 2019 Huawei +Expires: June 21, 2019 Huawei A. Farrel Old Dog Consulting S. Hassan Cisco W. Henderickx Nokia Z. Li Huawei - October 18, 2018 + December 18, 2018 SR-MPLS over IP - draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-01 + draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02 Abstract MPLS Segment Routing (SR-MPLS) is an MPLS data plane-based source routing paradigm in which the sender of a packet is allowed to partially or completely specify the route the packet takes through the network by imposing stacked MPLS labels on the packet. SR-MPLS could be leveraged to realize a source routing mechanism across MPLS, IPv4, and IPv6 data planes by using an MPLS label stack as a source routing instruction set while preserving backward compatibility with @@ -39,21 +39,21 @@ 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 April 21, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 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 @@ -150,21 +150,21 @@ allow encoding of entropy, such as MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation [RFC7510] where the source port of the UDP header is used as an entropy field, may be used to maximize the utilization of ECMP and/or LAG, especially when it is difficult to make use of entropy label mechanism. Refer to [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]) for more discussion about using entropy label in SR-MPLS. o Tunneling MPLS into IP provides a technology that enables SR in an IPv4 and/or IPv6 network where the routers do not support SRv6 capabilities [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] and where MPLS - forwarding is not an option. This is shown in Figure Figure 2. + forwarding is not an option. This is shown in Figure 2. __________________________________ __( IP Network )__ __( )__ ( -- -- -- ) -------- -- -- |SR| -- |SR| -- |SR| -- -------- | Ingress| |IR| |IR| | | |IR| | | |IR| | | |IR| | Egress | --->| Router |===========| |======| |======| |======| Router |---> | SR | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SR | -------- -- -- | | -- | | -- | | -- -------- @@ -188,21 +188,21 @@ Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 assume that OSPF or ISIS is enabled: in fact, other mechanisms of discovery and advertisement could be used including other routing protocols (such as BGP) or a central controller. 3.1. Forwarding Entry Construction This sub-section describes the how to construct the forwarding information base (FIB) entry on an SR-MPLS-capable router when some or all of the next-hops along the shortest path towards a prefix - Segment Identifier （prefix-SID） are IP-only routers. + Segment Identifier (prefix-SID) are IP-only routers. Consider router A that receives a labeled packet with top label L(E) that corresponds to the prefix-SID SID(E) of prefix P(E) advertised by router E. Suppose the i-th next-hop router (termed NHi) along the shortest path from router A toward SID(E) is not SR-MPLS capable while both routers A and E are SR-MPLS capable. The following processing steps apply: o Router E is SR-MPLS capable so it advertises the SRGB as described in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and @@ -484,23 +484,23 @@ It is difficult for an attacker to pass a raw MPLS encoded packet into a network and operators have considerable experience at excluding such packets at the network boundaries. It is easy for an ingress node to detect any attempt to smuggle an IP packet into the network since it would see that the UDP destination port was set to MPLS. SR packets not having a destination address terminating in the network would be transparently carried and would pose no security risk to the network under consideration. - Where control plane techniques are used (as described in - Authors' Addresses it is important that these protocols are - adequately secured for the environment in which they are run. + Where control plane techniques are used (as described in Section 3), + it is important that these protocols are adequately secured for the + environment in which they are run. 6. Contributors Ahmed Bashandy Individual Email: abashandy.ietf@gmail.com Clarence Filsfils Cisco Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com @@ -555,22 +555,22 @@ Eric Rosen, Jim Guichard, and Gunter Van De Velde for their insightful comments on this draft. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS - data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14 - (work in progress), June 2018. + data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-18 + (work in progress), December 2018. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, . @@ -606,47 +606,70 @@ [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . 8.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header - (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-14 (work in - progress), June 2018. + (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-15 (work in + progress), October 2018. + + [I-D.ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap] + Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras, + L., and L. Jalil, "Advertising Tunnelling Capability in + IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap-01 (work in + progress), April 2017. + + [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] + Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., + Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for + Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- + extensions-22 (work in progress), December 2018. [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S., Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy label for SPRING tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12 (work in progress), July 2018. + [I-D.ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap] + Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Contreras, L., and L. + Jalil, "The Tunnel Encapsulations OSPF Router + Information", draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-09 (work + in progress), October 2017. + + [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] + Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., + Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF + Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- + routing-extensions-27 (work in progress), December 2018. + [RFC8354] Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Maglione, R., Ed., and M. Townsley, "Use Cases for IPv6 Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING)", RFC 8354, DOI 10.17487/RFC8354, March 2018, . Authors' Addresses Xiaohu Xu - Alibaba Inc. + Alibaba, Inc Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com Stewart Bryant Huawei Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com - Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Syed Hassan Cisco Email: shassan@cisco.com