IDR Working Group | J. Tantsura |
Internet-Draft | Apstra, Inc. |
Intended status: Standards Track | U. Chunduri |
Expires: August 23, 2019 | Huawei USA |
G. Mirsky | |
ZTE Corp. | |
S. Sivabalan | |
Cisco | |
N. Triantafillis | |
Apstra, Inc. | |
February 19, 2019 |
Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using Border Gateway Protocol Link-State
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-03
This document defines a way for a Border Gateway Protocol Link-State (BGP-LS) speaker to advertise multiple types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity.
Such advertisements allow logically centralized entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to determine whether a particular SID stack can be supported in a given network.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 August 23, 2019.
Copyright (c) 2019 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 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
When Segment Routing tunnels are computed by a centralized controller, it is critical that the controller learns the MSD "Maximum SID Depth" of the node or link SR tunnel exits over, so the SID stack depth of a path computed doesn't exceed the number of SIDs the node is capable of imposing. This document describes how to use BGP-LS to signal the MSD of a node or link to a centralized controller.
PCEP SR extensions draft [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] signals MSD in SR PCE Capability TLV and METRIC Object. However, if PCEP is not supported/configured on the head-end of a SR tunnel or a Binding-SID anchor node and controller does not participate in IGP routing, it has no way to learn the MSD of nodes and links which has been configured. BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines a way to expose topology and associated attributes and capabilities of the nodes in that topology to a centralized controller.
Other types of MSD are known to be useful. For example, [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] and [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] define Readable Label Depth Capability (RLDC) that is used by a head-end to insert an Entropy Label (EL) at a depth that can be read by transit nodes.
BGP-LS: Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using Border Gateway Protocol
MSD: Maximum SID Depth
PCC: Path Computation Client
PCE: Path Computation Element
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol
SID: Segment Identifier
SR: Segment routing
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here .
In existing technology only PCEP has extension to signal the MSD (SR PCE Capability TLV/ METRIC Object as defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing],If PCEP is not supported by the node (head-end of the SR tunnel) controller has no way to learn the MSD of the node/link configured. OSPF and IS-IS extensions are defined in:
Node MSD is encoded in a new Node Attribute TLV, as defined in [RFC7752]
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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-Type and Value ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...
Figure 1: Node attribute format
Type : A 2-octet field specifying code-point of the new TLV type. Code-point:(TBD1) from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry
Length: A 2-octet field that indicates the length of the value portion
Sub-Type and value fields are as defined in corresponding OSPF [RFC8476] and IS-IS [RFC8491] extensions.
Link MSD is encoded in a New Link Attribute TLV, as defined in [RFC7752]
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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-Type and Value ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...
Figure 2: Link attribute format
Type : A 2-octet field specifying code-point of the new TLV type. Code-point:(TBD2) from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry
Length: A 2-octet field that indicates the length of the value portion
Sub-Type and value fields are as defined in corresponding OSPF [RFC8476] and IS-IS [RFC8491] extensions.
We request IANA assign code points from the registry BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs, as follows: TLV Code Point Description IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV Reference TBD1 Node MSD 242/23 (this document) TBD2 Link MSD (22,23,25,141,222,223)/15 (this document)
Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document that is false, e.g., an MSD that is incorrect, may result in a path computation failing, having a service unavailable, or instantiation of a path that can't be supported by the head-end (the node performing the imposition).
This document does not introduce security issues beyond those discussed in [RFC7752], [RFC8476] and [RFC8491] extensions.
We like to thank Acee Lindem, Ketan Talaulikar, Stephane Litkowski and Bruno Decraene for their reviews and valuable comments.
[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] | Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C. and S. Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-06, September 2018. |
[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", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-22, December 2018. |
[I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] | Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C. and S. Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-07, September 2018. |
[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", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-27, December 2018. |
[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", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-18, December 2018. |