draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-03.txt   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-04.txt 
Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed. Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed. Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: May 24, 2017 E. Aries Expires: August 20, 2017 E. Aries
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
D. Afanasiev D. Afanasiev
Yandex Yandex
November 20, 2016 February 16, 2017
Segment Routing Centralized BGP Peer Engineering Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer Engineering
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-03 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-04
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a
packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by
prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any
instruction topological or service-based. SR allows to enforce a instruction topological or service-based. SR allows to enforce a
flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining
per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain. per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain.
The Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to the MPLS The Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to the MPLS
dataplane with no change on the forwarding plane. It requires minor dataplane with no change on the forwarding plane. It requires minor
extension to the existing link-state routing protocols. extension to the existing link-state routing protocols.
This document illustrates the application of Segment Routing to solve This document illustrates the application of Segment Routing to solve
the BGP Peer Engineering (BGP-PE) requirement. The SR-based BGP-PE the BGP Egress Peer Engineering (BGP-EPE) requirement. The SR-based
solution allows a centralized (SDN) controller to program any egress BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized (SDN) controller to program any
peer policy at ingress border routers or at hosts within the domain. egress peer policy at ingress border routers or at hosts within the
This document is on the informational track. domain.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
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 May 24, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Segment Routing Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Segment Routing Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. BGP Peering Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. BGP Peering Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Distribution of External Topology and TE Information using 3. Distribution of Topology and TE Information using BGP-LS . . 7
BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. PeerNode SID to D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer D and its PeerNode SID 7 3.2. PeerNode SID to E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer E and its PeerNode SID 7 3.3. PeerNode SID to F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer F and its PeerNode SID 8 3.4. First PeerAdj to F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. BGP-PE Router advertising a first PeerAdj to Peer F . . . 8 3.5. Second PeerAdj to F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. BGP-PE Router advertising a second PeerAdj to Peer F . . 8
3.6. Fast Reroute (FRR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.6. Fast Reroute (FRR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. BGP-PE Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. BGP-EPE Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Valid Paths From Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Valid Paths From Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Intra-Domain Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Intra-Domain Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. External Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. External Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. SLA characteristics of each peer . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. SLA characteristics of each peer . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Traffic Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.5. Traffic Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Business Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.6. Business Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.7. BGP-PE Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.7. BGP-EPE Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Programming an input policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Programming an input policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. At a Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. At a Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. At a router - SR Traffic Engineering tunnel . . . . . . . 13 5.2. At a router - SR Traffic Engineering tunnel . . . . . . . 13
5.3. At a Router - RFC3107 policy route . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3. At a Router - RFC3107 policy route . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. At a Router - VPN policy route . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.4. At a Router - VPN policy route . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. At a Router - Flowspec route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.5. At a Router - Flowspec route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The document is structured as follows: The document is structured as follows:
o Section 1 states the BGP-PE problem statement and provides the key o Section 1 states the BGP-EPE problem statement and provides the
references. key references.
o Section 2 defines the different BGP Peering Segments and the o Section 2 defines the different BGP Peering Segments and the
semantic associated to them. semantic associated to them.
o Section 3 describes the automated allocation of BGP Peering SID's o Section 3 describes the automated allocation of BGP Peering SID's
by the BGP-PE enabled egress border router and the automated by the BGP-EPE enabled egress border router and the automated
signaling of the external peering topology and the related BGP signaling of the external peering topology and the related BGP
Peering SID's to the collector Peering SID's to the collector
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe].
o Section 4 overviews the components of a centralized EPE o Section 4 overviews the components of a centralized BGP-EPE
controller. The definition of the EPE controller is outside the controller. The definition of the BGP-EPE controller is outside
scope of this document. the scope of this document.
o Section 5 overviews the methods that could be used by the o Section 5 overviews the methods that could be used by the
centralized BGP-PE controller to implement a BGP-PE policy at an centralized BGP-EPE controller to implement a BGP-EPE policy at an
ingress border router or at a source host within the domain. The ingress border router or at a source host within the domain. The
exhaustive definition of all the means to program an BGP-PE input exhaustive definition of all the means to program an BGP-EPE input
policy is outside the scope of this document. policy is outside the scope of this document.
For editorial reasons, the solution is described for IPv4. A later For editorial reasons, the solution is described for IPv4 and MPLS
section describes how the same solution is applicable to IPv6. SID. This solution is equally applicable to IPv6 with either MPLS-SR
or IPv6 SR.
1.1. Segment Routing Documents 1.1. Segment Routing Documents
The main references for this document are: The main references for this document are:
o SR Problem Statement: [RFC7855]. o SR Problem Statement: [RFC7855].
o SR Architecture: [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. o SR Architecture: [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
o Distribution of External Topology and TE Information using BGP: o Distribution of External Topology and TE Information using BGP:
skipping to change at page 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 23
The SR IGP protocol extensions are defined in The SR IGP protocol extensions are defined in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].
The Segment Routing PCE protocol extensions are defined in The Segment Routing PCE protocol extensions are defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
1.2. Problem Statement 1.2. Problem Statement
The BGP-PE problem statement is defined in [RFC7855]. The BGP-EPE problem statement is defined in [RFC7855].
A centralized controller should be able to instruct an ingress A centralized controller should be able to instruct an ingress
Provider Edge router (PE) or a content source within the domain to Provider Edge router (PE) or a content source within the domain to
use a specific egress PE and a specific external interface/neighbor use a specific egress PE and a specific external interface/neighbor
to reach a particular destination. to reach a particular destination.
We call this solution "BGP-PE" for "BGP Peer Engineering". The We call this solution "BGP-EPE" for "BGP Egress Peer Engineering".
centralized controller is called the "BGP-PE Controller". The egress The centralized controller is called the "BGP-EPE Controller". The
border router where the BGP-PE traffic-steering functionality is egress border router where the BGP-EPE traffic steering functionality
implemented is called a BGP-PE-enabled border router. The input is implemented is called a BGP-EPE enabled border router. The input
policy programmed at an ingress border router or at a source host is policy programmed at an ingress border router or at a source host is
called a BGP-PE policy. called a BGP-EPE policy.
The requirements that have motivated the solution described in this The requirements that have motivated the solution described in this
document are listed here below: document are listed here below:
o The solution MUST apply to the Internet use-case where the o The solution MUST apply to the Internet use-case where the
Internet routes are assumed to use IPv4 unlabeled or IPv6 Internet routes are assumed to use IPv4 unlabeled or IPv6
unlabeled. It is not required to place the Internet routes in a unlabeled. It is not required to place the Internet routes in a
VRF and allocate labels on a per route, or on a per-path basis. VRF and allocate labels on a per route, or on a per-path basis.
o The solution MUST NOT make any assumption on the currently o The solution MUST NOT make any assumption on the currently
deployed iBGP schemes (RRs, confederations or iBGP full meshes) deployed iBGP schemes (RRs, confederations or iBGP full meshes)
and MUST be able to support all of them. and MUST be able to support all of them.
o The solution MUST be applicable to iBGP as well as eBGP peerings. o The solution MUST be applicable to any type of EPE router. While
"Egress Peer Engineering" refers to "External" peering, the
solution MUST also be applicable to a router having internal
peers.
o The solution SHOULD minimize the need for new BGP capabilities at o The solution SHOULD minimize the need for new BGP capabilities at
the ingress PEs. the ingress PEs.
o The solution MUST accommodate an ingress BGP-PE policy at an o The solution MUST accommodate an ingress BGP-EPE policy at an
ingress PE or directly at an source host within the domain. ingress EPE or directly at an source host within the domain.
o The solution MUST support automated Fast Reroute (FRR) and fast o The solution MUST support automated Fast Reroute (FRR) and fast
convergence mechanisms. convergence mechanisms.
The following reference diagram is used throughout this document. The following reference diagram is used throughout this document.
+---------+ +------+ +---------+ +------+
| | | | | | | |
| H B------D G | H B------D G
| | +---/| AS 2 |\ +------+ | | +---/| AS 2 |\ +------+
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 44
o C's interface to E: 198.51.100.5/30, E's interface: o C's interface to E: 198.51.100.5/30, E's interface:
198.51.100.6/30 198.51.100.6/30
o C's upper interface to F: 198.51.100.9/30, F's interface: o C's upper interface to F: 198.51.100.9/30, F's interface:
198.51.100.10/30 198.51.100.10/30
o C's lower interface to F: 198.51.100.13/30, F's interface: o C's lower interface to F: 198.51.100.13/30, F's interface:
198.51.100.14/30 198.51.100.14/30
o BGP router-ID of D: 192.0.2.4/32
o BGP router-ID of E: 192.0.2.3/32
o Loopback of F used for eBGP multi-hop peering to C: 192.0.2.2/32 o Loopback of F used for eBGP multi-hop peering to C: 192.0.2.2/32
o C's loopback is 203.0.113.3/32 with SID 64 o C's loopback is 203.0.113.3/32 with SID 64
C's BGP peering: C's BGP peering:
o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.2 (D) o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.2 (D)
o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.6 (E) o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.6 (E)
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 6, line 10
o C's loopback is 203.0.113.3/32 with SID 64 o C's loopback is 203.0.113.3/32 with SID 64
C's BGP peering: C's BGP peering:
o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.2 (D) o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.2 (D)
o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.6 (E) o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.6 (E)
o Multi-hop eBGP peering with F on IP address 192.0.2.2 (F) o Multi-hop eBGP peering with F on IP address 192.0.2.2 (F)
C's resolution of the multi-hop eBGP session to F: C's resolution of the multi-hop eBGP session to F:
o Static route 192.0.2.2/32 via 198.51.100.10 o Static route 192.0.2.2/32 via 198.51.100.10
o Static route 192.0.2.2/32 via 198.51.100.14 o Static route 192.0.2.2/32 via 198.51.100.14
C is configured with local policy that defines a BGP PeerSet as the C is configured with local policy that defines a BGP PeerSet as the
set of peers (198.51.100.6 and 192.0.2.2) set of peers (198.51.100.6 for E and 192.0.2.2 for F)
X is the BGP-PE controller within AS1 domain. X is the BGP-EPE controller within AS1 domain.
H is a content source within AS1 domain. H is a content source within AS1 domain.
2. BGP Peering Segments 2. BGP Peering Segments
As defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], certain segments are As defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], certain segments are
defined by BGP-PE capable node and corresponding to its attached defined by BGP-EPE capable node and corresponding to its attached
peers. These segments are called BGP peering segments or BGP Peering peers. These segments are called BGP peering segments or BGP Peering
SIDs. They enable the expression of source-routed inter-domain SIDs. They enable the expression of source-routed inter-domain
paths. paths.
An ingress border router of an AS may compose a list of segments to An ingress border router of an AS may compose a list of segments to
steer a flow along a selected path within the AS, towards a selected steer a flow along a selected path within the AS, towards a selected
egress border router C of the AS and through a specific peer. At egress border router C of the AS and through a specific peer. At
minimum, a BGP Peering Engineering policy applied at an ingress PE minimum, a BGP Egress Peering Engineering policy applied at an
involves two segments: the Node SID of the chosen egress PE and then ingress EPE involves two segments: the Node SID of the chosen egress
the BGP Peering Segment for the chosen egress PE peer or peering EPE and then the BGP Peering Segment for the chosen egress EPE peer
interface. or peering interface.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] defines three types of BGP peering [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] defines three types of BGP peering
segments/SID's: PeerNodeSID, PeerAdjSID and PeerSetSID. segments/SID's: PeerNode SID, PeerAdj SID and PeerSet SID.
The BGP extensions to signal these BGP peering segments are outlined A Peer Node Segment is a segment describing a peer, including the SID
in the following section. (PeerNode SID) allocated to it.
3. Distribution of External Topology and TE Information using BGP-LS A Peer Adjacency Segment is a segment describing a link, including
the SID (PeerAdj SID) allocated to it.
A Peer Set Segment is a segment describing a link or a node that is
part of the set, including the SID (PeerSet SID) allocated to the
set.
3. Distribution of Topology and TE Information using BGP-LS
In ships-in-the-night mode with respect to the pre-existing iBGP In ships-in-the-night mode with respect to the pre-existing iBGP
design, a BGP-LS session is established between the BGP-PE enabled design, a BGP-LS session is established between the BGP-EPE enabled
border router and the BGP-PE controller. border router and the BGP-EPE controller.
As a result of its local configuration and according to the behavior As a result of its local configuration and according to the behavior
described in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe], node C described in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe], node C
allocates the following BGP Peering Segments allocates the following BGP Peering Segments
([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]): ([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]):
o A PeerNode segment for each of its defined peer (D, E and F). o A PeerNode segment for each of its defined peer (D, E and F).
o A PeerAdj segment for each recursing interface to a multi-hop peer o A PeerAdj segment for each recursing interface to a multi-hop peer
(e.g.: the upper and lower interfaces from C to F in figure 1). (e.g.: the upper and lower interfaces from C to F in figure 1).
o A PeerSet segment to the set of peers (E and F). o A PeerSet segment to the set of peers (E and F). In this case the
PeerSet represents a set of peers (E, F) belonging to the same AS
(AS 3).
C programs its forwarding table accordingly: C programs its forwarding table accordingly:
Incoming Outgoing Incoming Outgoing
Label Operation Interface Label Operation Interface
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
1012 POP link to D 1012 POP link to D
1022 POP link to E 1022 POP link to E
1032 POP upper link to F 1032 POP upper link to F
1042 POP lower link to F 1042 POP lower link to F
1052 POP load balance on any link to F 1052 POP load balance on any link to F
1060 POP load balance on any link to E or to F 1060 POP load balance on any link to E or to F
C signals the related BGP-LS NLRI's to the BGP-PE controller. Each C signals the related BGP-LS NLRI's to the BGP-EPE controller. Each
such BGP-LS route is described in the following subsections according such BGP-LS route is described in the following subsections according
to the encoding details defined in to the encoding details defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe].
3.1. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer D and its PeerNode SID 3.1. PeerNode SID to D
Descriptors: Descriptors:
o Node Descriptors (router-ID, ASN): 203.0.113.3 , AS1 o Node Descriptors (router-ID, ASN): 203.0.113.3 , AS1
o Peer Descriptors (peer ASN): AS2 o Peer Descriptors (peer router-ID, peer ASN): 192.0.2.4, AS2
o Link Descriptors (IPv4 interface address, neighbor IPv4 address): o Link Descriptors (IP interface address, neighbor IP address):
198.51.100.1, 198.51.100.2 198.51.100.1, 198.51.100.2
Attributes: Attributes:
o PeerNode-SID: 1012 o PeerNode SID: 1012
3.2. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer E and its PeerNode SID 3.2. PeerNode SID to E
Descriptors: Descriptors:
o Node Descriptors (router-ID, ASN): 203.0.113.3 , AS1 o Node Descriptors (router-ID, ASN): 203.0.113.3 , AS1
o Peer Descriptors (peer ASN): AS3 o Peer Descriptors (peer router-ID, peer ASN): 192.0.2.3, AS3
o Link Descriptors (IPv4 interface address, neighbor IPv4 address): o Link Descriptors (IP interface address, neighbor IP address):
198.51.100.5, 198.51.100.6 198.51.100.5, 198.51.100.6
Attributes: Attributes:
o PeerNode-SID: 1022 o PeerNode SID: 1022
o PeerSetSID: 1060 o PeerSetSID: 1060
o Link Attributes: see section 3.3.2 of [RFC7752] o Link Attributes: see section 3.3.2 of [RFC7752]
3.3. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer F and its PeerNode SID 3.3. PeerNode SID to F
Descriptors: Descriptors:
o Node Descriptors (router-ID, ASN): 203.0.113.3 , AS1 o Node Descriptors (router-ID, ASN): 203.0.113.3 , AS1
o Peer Descriptors (peer ASN): AS3 o Peer Descriptors (peer router-ID, peer ASN): 192.0.2.2, AS3
o Link Descriptors (IPv4 interface address, neighbor IPv4 address): o Link Descriptors (IP interface address, neighbor IP address):
203.0.113.3, 192.0.2.2 203.0.113.3, 192.0.2.2
Attributes: Attributes:
o PeerNode-SID: 1052 o PeerNode SID: 1052
o PeerSetSID: 1060 o PeerSetSID: 1060
3.4. BGP-PE Router advertising a first PeerAdj to Peer F 3.4. First PeerAdj to F
Descriptors: Descriptors:
o Node Descriptors (router-ID, ASN): 203.0.113.3 , AS1 o Node Descriptors (router-ID, ASN): 203.0.113.3 , AS1
o Peer Descriptors (peer ASN): AS3 o Peer Descriptors (peer router-ID, peer ASN): 192.0.2.2, AS3
o Link Descriptors (IP interface address, neighbor IP address):
o Link Descriptors (IPv4 interface address, neighbor IPv4 address):
198.51.100.9, 198.51.100.10 198.51.100.9, 198.51.100.10
Attributes: Attributes:
o PeerAdj-SID: 1032 o PeerAdj-SID: 1032
o LinkAttributes: see section 3.3.2 of [RFC7752] o LinkAttributes: see section 3.3.2 of [RFC7752]
3.5. BGP-PE Router advertising a second PeerAdj to Peer F 3.5. Second PeerAdj to F
Descriptors: Descriptors:
o Node Descriptors (router-ID, ASN): 203.0.113.3 , AS1 o Node Descriptors (router-ID, ASN): 203.0.113.3 , AS1
o Peer Descriptors (peer ASN): AS3
o Link Descriptors (IPv4 interface address, neighbor IPv4 address): o Peer Descriptors (peer router-ID, peer ASN): 192.0.2.2, AS3
o Link Descriptors (IP interface address, neighbor IP address):
198.51.100.13, 198.51.100.14 198.51.100.13, 198.51.100.14
Attributes: Attributes:
o PeerAdj-SID: 1042 o PeerAdj-SID: 1042
o LinkAttributes: see section 3.3.2 of [RFC7752] o LinkAttributes: see section 3.3.2 of [RFC7752]
3.6. Fast Reroute (FRR) 3.6. Fast Reroute (FRR)
An BGP-PE enabled border router should allocate a FRR backup entry on An BGP-EPE enabled border router SHOULD allocate a FRR backup entry
a per BGP Peering SID basis: on a per BGP Peering SID basis:
o PeerNode SID o PeerNode SID
1. If multi-hop, backup via the remaining PeerADJ SIDs to the 1. If multi-hop, backup via the remaining PeerADJ SIDs (if
same peer. available) to the same peer.
2. Else backup via local PeerNode SID to the same AS. 2. Else backup via another PeerNode SID to the same AS.
3. Else pop the PeerNode SID and perform an IP lookup. 3. Else pop the PeerNode SID and perform an IP lookup.
o PeerAdj SID o PeerAdj SID
1. If to a multi-hop peer, backup via the remaining PeerADJ SIDs 1. If to a multi-hop peer, backup via the remaining PeerADJ SIDs
to the same peer. (if available) to the same peer.
2. Else backup via PeerNode SID to the same AS. 2. Else backup via a PeerNode SID to the same AS.
3. Else pop the PeerNode SID and perform an IP lookup. 3. Else pop the PeerNode SID and perform an IP lookup.
o PeerSet SID o PeerSet SID
1. Backup via remaining PeerNode SIDs in the same PeerSet. 1. Backup via remaining PeerNode SIDs in the same PeerSet.
2. Else pop the PeerNode SID and IP lookup. 2. Else pop the PeerNode SID and IP lookup.
We illustrate the different types of possible backups using the We illustrate the different types of possible backups using the
skipping to change at page 10, line 30 skipping to change at page 10, line 44
For specific business reasons, the operator might not want the For specific business reasons, the operator might not want the
default FRR behavior applied to a PeerNode SID or any of its default FRR behavior applied to a PeerNode SID or any of its
dependent PeerADJ SID. dependent PeerADJ SID.
The operator should be able to associate a specific backup PeerNode The operator should be able to associate a specific backup PeerNode
SID for a PeerNode SID: e.g., 1022 (E) must be backed up by 1012 (D) SID for a PeerNode SID: e.g., 1022 (E) must be backed up by 1012 (D)
which overrules the default behavior which would have preferred F as which overrules the default behavior which would have preferred F as
a backup for E. a backup for E.
4. BGP-PE Controller 4. BGP-EPE Controller
In this section, we provide a non-exhaustive set of inputs that an In this section, we provide a non-exhaustive set of inputs that an
BGP-PE controller would likely collect such as to perform the BGP-PE BGP-EPE controller would likely collect such as to perform the BGP-
policy decision. EPE policy decision.
The exhaustive definition is outside the scope of this document. The exhaustive definition is outside the scope of this document.
4.1. Valid Paths From Peers 4.1. Valid Paths From Peers
The BGP-PE controller should collect all the paths advertised by all The BGP-EPE controller should collect all the BGP paths (i.e.: IP
the engineered peers. destination prefixes) advertised by all the engineered peers.
This could be realized by setting an iBGP session with the BGP-PE This could be realized by setting an iBGP session with the BGP-EPE
enabled border router, with "add-path all" and the original next-hop enabled border router, with "add-path all" and the original next-hop
preserved. preserved.
In this case, C would advertise the following Internet routes to the In this case, C would advertise the following Internet routes to the
BGP-PE controller: BGP-EPE controller:
o NLRI <L/8>, nhop 198.51.100.2, AS Path {AS 2, 4} o NLRI <L/8>, nhop 198.51.100.2, AS Path {AS 2, 4}
* X (i.e.: the BGP-PE controller) knows that C receives a path to
L/8 via neighbor 198.51.100.2 of AS2. * X (i.e.: the BGP-EPE controller) knows that C receives a path
to L/8 via neighbor 198.51.100.2 of AS2.
o NLRI <L/8>, nhop 198.51.100.6, AS Path {AS 3, 4} o NLRI <L/8>, nhop 198.51.100.6, AS Path {AS 3, 4}
* X knows that C receives a path to L/8 via neighbor 198.51.100.6 * X knows that C receives a path to L/8 via neighbor 198.51.100.6
of AS2. of AS2.
o NLRI <L/8>, nhop 192.0.2.2, AS Path {AS 3, 4} o NLRI <L/8>, nhop 192.0.2.2, AS Path {AS 3, 4}
* X knows that C has an eBGP path to L/8 via AS3 via neighbor * X knows that C has an eBGP path to L/8 via AS3 via neighbor
192.0.2.2 192.0.2.2
An alternative option would be for an BGP-PE collector to use BGP An alternative option would be for an BGP-EPE collector to use BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP) to track the Adj-RIB-In of BGP-PE enabled Monitoring Protocol (BMP) to track the Adj-RIB-In of BGP-EPE enabled
border routers. border routers.
4.2. Intra-Domain Topology 4.2. Intra-Domain Topology
The BGP-PE controller should collect the internal topology and the The BGP-EPE controller should collect the internal topology and the
related IGP SIDs. related IGP SIDs.
This could be realized by collecting the IGP LSDB of each area or This could be realized by collecting the IGP LSDB of each area or
running a BGP-LS session with a node in each IGP area. running a BGP-LS session with a node in each IGP area.
4.3. External Topology 4.3. External Topology
Thanks to the collected BGP-LS routes described in the section 2 Thanks to the collected BGP-LS routes described in the section 2
(BGP-LS advertisements), the BGP-PE controller is able to maintain an (BGP-LS advertisements), the BGP-EPE controller is able to maintain
accurate description of the egress topology of node C. Furthermore, an accurate description of the egress topology of node C.
the BGP-PE controller is able to associate BGP Peering SIDs to the Furthermore, the BGP-EPE controller is able to associate BGP Peering
various components of the external topology. SIDs to the various components of the external topology.
4.4. SLA characteristics of each peer 4.4. SLA characteristics of each peer
The BGP-PE controller might collect SLA characteristics across peers. The BGP-EPE controller might collect SLA characteristics across
This requires an BGP-PE solution as the SLA probes need to be steered peers. This requires an BGP-EPE solution as the SLA probes need to
via non-best-path peers. be steered via non-best-path peers.
Unidirectional SLA monitoring of the desired path is likely required. Unidirectional SLA monitoring of the desired path is likely required.
This might be possible when the application is controlled at the This might be possible when the application is controlled at the
source and the receiver side. Unidirectional monitoring dissociates source and the receiver side. Unidirectional monitoring dissociates
the SLA characteristic of the return path (which cannot usually be the SLA characteristic of the return path (which cannot usually be
controlled) from the forward path (the one of interest for pushing controlled) from the forward path (the one of interest for pushing
content from a source to a consumer and the one which can be content from a source to a consumer and the one which can be
controlled). controlled).
Alternatively, Extended Metrics, as defined in [RFC7810] could also Alternatively, Extended Metrics, as defined in [RFC7810] could also
be advertised using new BGP-LS attributes. be advertised using BGP-LS ([I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp]).
4.5. Traffic Matrix 4.5. Traffic Matrix
The BGP-PE controller might collect the traffic matrix to its peers The BGP-EPE controller might collect the traffic matrix to its peers
or the final destinations. IPFIX is a likely option. or the final destinations. IPFIX is a likely option.
An alternative option consists in collecting the link utilization An alternative option consists in collecting the link utilization
statistics of each of the internal and external links, also available statistics of each of the internal and external links, also available
in the current definition of [RFC7752]. in the current definition of [RFC7752].
4.6. Business Policies 4.6. Business Policies
The BGP-PE controller should collect business policies. The BGP-EPE controller should collect business policies.
4.7. BGP-PE Policy 4.7. BGP-EPE Policy
On the basis of all these inputs (and likely others), the BGP-PE On the basis of all these inputs (and likely others), the BGP-EPE
Controller decides to steer some demands away from their best BGP Controller decides to steer some demands away from their best BGP
path. path.
The BGP-PE policy is likely expressed as a two-entry segment list The BGP-EPE policy is likely expressed as a two-entry segment list
where the first element is the IGP prefix SID of the selected egress where the first element is the IGP prefix SID of the selected egress
border router and the second element is a BGP Peering SID at the border router and the second element is a BGP Peering SID at the
selected egress border router. selected egress border router.
A few examples are provided hereafter: A few examples are provided hereafter:
o Prefer egress PE C and peer AS AS2: {64, 1012}. o Prefer egress PE C and peer AS AS2: {64, 1012}.
o Prefer egress PE C and peer AS AS3 via eBGP peer 198.51.100.6: o Prefer egress PE C and peer AS AS3 via eBGP peer 198.51.100.6:
{64, 1022}. {64, 1022}.
skipping to change at page 12, line 50 skipping to change at page 13, line 16
1052}. 1052}.
o Prefer egress PE C and peer AS AS3 via interface 198.51.100.14 of o Prefer egress PE C and peer AS AS3 via interface 198.51.100.14 of
multi-hop eBGP peer 192.0.2.2: {64, 1042}. multi-hop eBGP peer 192.0.2.2: {64, 1042}.
o Prefer egress PE C and any interface to any peer in the group o Prefer egress PE C and any interface to any peer in the group
1060: {64, 1060}. 1060: {64, 1060}.
Note that the first SID could be replaced by a list of segments. Note that the first SID could be replaced by a list of segments.
This is useful when an explicit path within the domain is required This is useful when an explicit path within the domain is required
for traffic-engineering purposes. For example, if the Prefix SID of for traffic engineering purposes. For example, if the Prefix SID of
node B is 60 and the BGP-PE controller would like to steer the node B is 60 and the BGP-EPE controller would like to steer the
traffic from A to C via B then through the external link to peer D traffic from A to C via B then through the external link to peer D
then the segment list would be {60, 64, 1012}. then the segment list would be {60, 64, 1012}.
5. Programming an input policy 5. Programming an input policy
The detailed/exhaustive description of all the means to implement an The detailed/exhaustive description of all the means to implement an
BGP-PE policy are outside the scope of this document. A few examples BGP-EPE policy are outside the scope of this document. A few
are provided in this section. examples are provided in this section.
5.1. At a Host 5.1. At a Host
A static IP/MPLS route can be programmed at the host H. The static A static IP/MPLS route can be programmed at the host H. The static
route would define a destination prefix, a next-hop and a label stack route would define a destination prefix, a next-hop and a label stack
to push. The global property of the IGP Prefix SID is particularly to push. Assuming a global SRGB, at least on all access routers
convenient: the same policy could be programmed across hosts connecting the hosts, the same policy can be programmed across all
connected to different routers. hosts, which is convenient.
5.2. At a router - SR Traffic Engineering tunnel 5.2. At a router - SR Traffic Engineering tunnel
The BGP-PE controller can configure the ingress border router with an The BGP-EPE controller can configure the ingress border router with
SR traffic engineering tunnel T1 and a steering-policy S1 which an SR traffic engineering tunnel T1 and a steering-policy S1 which
causes a certain class of traffic to be mapped on the tunnel T1. causes a certain class of traffic to be mapped on the tunnel T1.
The tunnel T1 would be configured to push the required segment list. The tunnel T1 would be configured to push the required segment list.
The tunnel and the steering policy could be configured via PCEP The tunnel and the steering policy could be configured via PCEP
according to [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] and according to [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] or via Netconf ([RFC6241]). [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] or via Netconf ([RFC6241]).
Example: at A Example: at A
Tunnel T1: push {64, 1042} Tunnel T1: push {64, 1042}
IP route L/8 set nhop T1 IP route L/8 set nhop T1
5.3. At a Router - RFC3107 policy route 5.3. At a Router - RFC3107 policy route
The BGP-PE Controller could build a RFC3107 ([RFC3107]) route (from The BGP-EPE Controller could build a RFC3107 ([RFC3107]) route (from
scratch) and send it to the ingress router: scratch) and send it to the ingress router:
o NLRI: the destination prefix to engineer: e.g., L/8. o NLRI: the destination prefix to engineer: e.g., L/8.
o Next-Hop: the selected egress border router: C. o Next-Hop: the selected egress border router: C.
o Label: the selected egress peer: 1042. o Label: the selected egress peer: 1042.
o AS path: reflecting the selected valid AS path. o AS path: reflecting the selected valid AS path.
o Some BGP policy to ensure it will be selected as best by the o Some BGP policy to ensure it will be selected as best by the
ingress router. ingress router.
This RFC3107 policy route "overwrites" an equivalent or less-specific This RFC3107 policy route "overwrites" an equivalent or less-specific
"best path". As the best-path is changed, this EPE input policy "best path". As the best-path is changed, this BGP-EPE input policy
option influences the path propagated to the upstream peer/customers. option may influence the path propagated to the upstream peer/
customers. Indeed, implementations treating the SAFI-1 and SAFI-4
routes for a given prefix as comparable would trigger a BGP WITHDRAW
of the SAFI-1 route to them BGP upstream peers.
5.4. At a Router - VPN policy route 5.4. At a Router - VPN policy route
The EPE Controller could build a VPNv4 route (from scratch) and send The BGP-EPE Controller could build a VPNv4 route (from scratch) and
it to the ingress router: send it to the ingress router:
o NLRI: the destination prefix to engineer: e.g., L/8. o NLRI: the destination prefix to engineer: e.g., L/8.
o Next-Hop: the selected egress border router: C. o Next-Hop: the selected egress border router: C.
o Label: the selected egress peer: 1042. o Label: the selected egress peer: 1042.
o Route-Target: selecting the appropriate VRF at the ingress router. o Route-Target: selecting the appropriate VRF at the ingress router.
o AS path: reflecting the selected valid AS path. o AS path: reflecting the selected valid AS path.
o Some BGP policy to ensure it will be selected as best by the o Some BGP policy to ensure it will be selected as best by the
ingress router in the related VRF. ingress router in the related VRF.
The related VRF must be preconfigured. A VRF fallback to the main The related VRF must be preconfigured. A VRF fallback to the main
FIB might be beneficial to avoid replicating all the "normal" FIB might be beneficial to avoid replicating all the "normal"
Internet paths in each VRF. Internet paths in each VRF.
5.5. At a Router - Flowspec route 5.5. At a Router - Flowspec route
An EPE Controller builds a FlowSpec route and sends it to the ingress A BGP-EPE Controller builds a FlowSpec route and sends it to the
router to engineer: ingress router to engineer:
o Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules ([RFC5575]. o Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules ([RFC5575].
o Destination/Source IP Addresses, IP Protocol, Destination/Source o Destination/Source IP Addresses, IP Protocol, Destination/Source
port (+1 component). port (+1 component).
o ICMP Type/Code, TCP Flags, Packet length, DSCP, Fragment. o ICMP Type/Code, TCP Flags, Packet length, DSCP, Fragment.
6. IPv6 6. IPv6
The described solution is applicable to IPv6, either with MPLS-based The described solution is applicable to IPv6, either with MPLS-based
or IPv6-Native segments. In both cases, the same three steps of the or IPv6-Native segments. In both cases, the same three steps of the
solution are applicable: solution are applicable:
o BGP-LS-based signaling of the external topology and BGP Peering o BGP-LS-based signaling of the external topology and BGP Peering
Segments to the BGP-PE controller. Segments to the BGP-EPE controller.
o Collection of various inputs by the BGP-PE controller to come up o Collection of various inputs by the BGP-EPE controller to come up
with a policy decision. with a policy decision.
o Programming at an ingress router or source host of the desired o Programming at an ingress router or source host of the desired
BGP-PE policy which consists in a list of segments to push on a BGP-EPE policy which consists in a list of segments to push on a
defined traffic class. defined traffic class.
7. Benefits 7. Benefits
The BGP-PE solutions described in this document have the following The BGP-EPE solutions described in this document have the following
benefits: benefits:
o No assumption on the iBGP design within AS1. o No assumption on the iBGP design within AS1.
o Next-Hop-Self on the Internet routes propagated to the ingress o Next-Hop-Self on the Internet routes propagated to the ingress
border routers is possible. This is a common design rule to border routers is possible. This is a common design rule to
minimize the number of IGP routes and to avoid importing external minimize the number of IGP routes and to avoid importing external
churn into the internal routing domain. churn into the internal routing domain.
o Consistent support for traffic-engineering within the domain and o Consistent support for traffic engineering within the domain and
at the external edge of the domain. at the external edge of the domain.
o Support both host and ingress border router BGP-PE policy o Support both host and ingress border router BGP-EPE policy
programming. programming.
o BGP-PE functionality is only required on the BGP-PE enabled egress o BGP-EPE functionality is only required on the BGP-EPE enabled
border router and the BGP-PE controller: an ingress policy can be egress border router and the BGP-EPE controller: an ingress policy
programmed at the ingress border router without any new can be programmed at the ingress border router without any new
functionality. functionality.
o Ability to deploy the same input policy across hosts connected to o Ability to deploy the same input policy across hosts connected to
different routers (avail the global property of IGP prefix SIDs). different routers (avail the global property of IGP prefix SIDs).
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document does not request any IANA allocations. This document does not request any IANA allocations.
9. Manageability Considerations 9. Manageability Considerations
TBD The BGP-EPE use-case described in this document requires BGP-LS
([RFC7752]) extensions that are described in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. The required extensions
consists of additional BGP-LS descriptors and TLVs that will follow
the same. Manageability functions of BGP-LS, described in [RFC7752]
also apply to the extensions required by the EPE use-case.
The operator MUST be capable of configuring, enabling, disabling the
advertisement of the EPE information as well as to control which
information is advertised to which internal or external peer. This
is not different from what is required by a BGP speaker in terms of
information origination and advertisement. In addition, the
advertisement of EPE information MUST conform to standard BGP
advertisement and propagation rules (iBGP, eBGP, Route-Reflectors,
Confederations).
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
TBD [RFC7752] defines BGP-LS NLRIs and their associated security aspects.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] defines the BGP-LS
extensions required by the BGP-EPE mechanisms described in this
document. BGP-EPE BGP-LS extensions also include the related
security.
11. Contributors 11. Contributors
Daniel Ginsburg substantially contributed to the content of this Daniel Ginsburg substantially contributed to the content of this
document. document.
12. Acknowledgements 12. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem for his comments and The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem for his comments and
contribution. contribution.
skipping to change at page 16, line 45 skipping to change at page 17, line 31
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Ray, S., Patel, K., Dong, J., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, S., Dong, J.,
and M. Chen, "Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering and M. Chen, "Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering
BGP-LS Extensions", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing- BGP-LS Extensions", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-
epe-06 (work in progress), November 2016. epe-09 (work in progress), February 2017.
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp]
Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Gredler, H., Ray, S.,
jefftant@gmail.com, j., Filsfils, C., and L. Ginsberg,
"BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering
Performance Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-
bgp-04 (work in progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com, Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis- "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), October segment-routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), October
2016. 2016.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
skipping to change at page 17, line 49 skipping to change at page 18, line 42
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-10 (work in progress), November spring-segment-routing-10 (work in progress), November
2016. 2016.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R.,
jefftant@gmail.com, j., and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing jefftant@gmail.com, j., and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing
with MPLS data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- with MPLS data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
mpls-05 (work in progress), July 2016. mpls-07 (work in progress), February 2017.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and [RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016, RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
 End of changes. 95 change blocks. 
145 lines changed or deleted 192 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/