draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-04.txt   draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-05.txt 
Network Working Group S. Previdi, Ed. Network Working Group S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils, Ed. Internet-Draft C. Filsfils, Ed.
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: October 29, 2015 B. Decraene Expires: April 21, 2016 B. Decraene
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
M. Horneffer M. Horneffer
Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom
R. Shakir R. Shakir
British Telecom Jive Communications
April 27, 2015 October 19, 2015
SPRING Problem Statement and Requirements SPRING Problem Statement and Requirements
draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-04 draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-05
Abstract Abstract
The ability for a node to specify a forwarding path, other than the The ability for a node to specify a forwarding path, other than the
normal shortest path, that a particular packet will traverse, normal shortest path, that a particular packet will traverse,
benefits a number of network functions. Source-based routing benefits a number of network functions. Source-based routing
mechanisms have previously been specified for network protocols, but mechanisms have previously been specified for network protocols, but
have not seen widespread adoption. In this context, the term have not seen widespread adoption. In this context, the term
'source' means 'the point at which the explicit route is imposed' and 'source' means 'the point at which the explicit route is imposed' and
therefore it is not limited to the originator of the packet (i.e.: therefore it is not limited to the originator of the packet (i.e.:
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 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 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 October 29, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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 4, line 50 skipping to change at page 4, line 50
/ \ / \
A---CE1---PE1 PE2---CE2---Z A---CE1---PE1 PE2---CE2---Z
\ / \ /
P3---P4 P3---P4
Figure 1: IGP-based MPLS Tunneling Figure 1: IGP-based MPLS Tunneling
In Figure 1 above, the four nodes A, CE1, CE2 and Z are part of the In Figure 1 above, the four nodes A, CE1, CE2 and Z are part of the
same VPN. CE2 advertises to PE2 a route to Z. PE2 binds a local same VPN. CE2 advertises to PE2 a route to Z. PE2 binds a local
label LZ to that route and propagates the route and its label via label LZ to that route and propagates the route and its label via
MPBGP to PE1 with nhop 192.168.0.2 (i.e.: the local address of PE2). MPBGP to PE1 with nhop 192.0.2.2 (i.e.: the local address of PE2).
PE1 installs the VPN prefix Z in the appropriate VRF and resolves the PE1 installs the VPN prefix Z in the appropriate VRF and resolves the
next-hop onto the node segment associated with PE2. next-hop onto the node segment associated with PE2.
In order to cope with the reality of current deployments, the SPRING In order to cope with the reality of current deployments, the SPRING
architecture SHOULD allow PE to PE forwarding according to the IGP architecture SHOULD allow PE to PE forwarding according to the IGP
shortest path without the addition of any other signaling protocol. shortest path without the addition of any other signaling protocol.
The packet each PE forwards across the network will contain (within The packet each PE forwards across the network will contain (within
their label stack) the necessary information derived from the their label stack) the necessary information derived from the
topology database in order to deliver the packet to the remote PE. topology database in order to deliver the packet to the remote PE.
skipping to change at page 13, line 48 skipping to change at page 13, line 48
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter for his contribution to The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter for his contribution to
this document. this document.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and [RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers", M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
RFC 6564, April 2012. RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>.
[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing [RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, December 2013. of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] [I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03 (work in Model", draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03 (work in
progress), October 2013. progress), October 2013.
[I-D.geib-spring-oam-usecase] [I-D.geib-spring-oam-usecase]
Geib, R., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., and N. Kumar, "Use Geib, R., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., and N. Kumar, "Use
case for a scalable and topology aware MPLS data plane case for a scalable and topology aware MPLS data plane
monitoring system", draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase-04 (work monitoring system", draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase-06 (work
in progress), March 2015. in progress), July 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T. Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-09 (work in System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-09 (work in
progress), March 2015. progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths] [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths]
Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", draft-ietf-idr- "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-
add-paths-10 (work in progress), October 2014. add-paths-11 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10 Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-13
(work in progress), January 2015. (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Filsfils, C., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Filsfils, C., Crabbe, E.,
Lopez, V., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, Lopez, V., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick,
"PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-pce- "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-pce-
segment-routing-03 (work in progress), April 2015. segment-routing-06 (work in progress), August 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-11 (work in progress), April 2015. pce-11 (work in progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases] [I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases]
Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir, Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir,
"Use-cases for Resiliency in SPRING", draft-ietf-spring- "Use-cases for Resiliency in SPRING", draft-ietf-spring-
resiliency-use-cases-01 (work in progress), March 2015. resiliency-use-cases-01 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement] [I-D.kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement]
Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Geib, R., Mirsky, G., Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Geib, R., Mirsky, G.,
and S. Litkowski, "OAM Requirements for Segment Routing and S. Litkowski, "OAM Requirements for Segment Routing
Network", draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement-03 (work Network", draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement-03 (work
in progress), March 2015. in progress), March 2015.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Trammell, B., and P. Aitken, "Specification of [RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011, September Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
2013. RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stefano Previdi (editor) Stefano Previdi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Del Serafico, 200 Via Del Serafico, 200
Rome 00142 Rome 00142
Italy Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
skipping to change at page 16, line 4 skipping to change at page 16, line 15
Orange Orange
FR FR
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Stephane Litkowski Stephane Litkowski
Orange Orange
FR FR
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Martin Horneffer Martin Horneffer
Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom
Hammer Str. 216-226 Hammer Str. 216-226
Muenster 48153 Muenster 48153
DE DE
Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de
Rob Shakir Rob Shakir
British Telecom Jive Communications, Inc.
London 1275 West 1600 North, Suite 100
UK Orem, UT 84057
Email: rob.shakir@bt.com Email: rjs@rob.sh
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 31 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/