Internet DRAFT - draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking
draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking
SPRING S. Agrawal, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: 5 September 2024 D. Voyer
Bell Canada
G. Dawra
LinkedIn
Z. Li
Huawei Technologies
S. Hegde
Juniper Networks
4 March 2024
SRv6 and MPLS interworking
draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-14
Abstract
This document describes SRv6 and MPLS/SR-MPLS interworking and co-
existence procedures.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
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 5 September 2024.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Interworking(IW) scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. IW scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Transport IW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Service IW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. SRv6 SID behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. End.DTM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. End.DPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. SRv6 Policy Headend Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. H.Encaps.M: H.Encaps applied to MPLS label stack . . . . 8
5.2. H.Encaps.M.Red: H.Encaps.Red applied to MPLS label
stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Interconnecting Binding SIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Interworking Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Transport IW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1.1. SR-PCE multi-domain On Demand Nexthop . . . . . . . . 9
7.1.2. BGP inter domain routing procedures . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Service IW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2.1. Gateway Interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2.2. Translation between Service labels and SRv6 service
SIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Migration and co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction
The incremental deployment of SRv6 into existing networks require
SRv6 to interwork and co-exist with SR-MPLS/MPLS. This document
introduces interworking scenarios and building blocks for solutions
to inter connect them.
This document assumes SR-MPLS-IPv4 for MPLS domains but the design
equally works for SR-MPLS-IPv6, LDP-IPv4/IPv6 and RSVP-TE-MPLS label
binding protocols.
1.1. Requirements Language
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.
2. Interworking(IW) scenarios
A multi-domain network (Figure 1) can be generalized as a central
domain C with many leaf domains around it. Specifically, the
document looks at a service flow from an ingress PE in an ingress
leaf domain (LI), through the C domain and up to an egress PE of the
egress leaf domain (LE). Each domain runs its own IGP instance. A
domain has a single data plane type applicable both for its overlay
and its underlay.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
+-----+ +-----+ RD:V/v via 10 +-----+
.......|S-RR1|<...............|S-RR2|<.................|S-RR3| <..
: +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ :
: :
: :
+--:-------------------+----------------------+---------------------:-+
| : | 2 | | | 5 | | | 8 | : |
| : +---+ | +---+ | +---+ : |
| : | | : |
| : | | : |
| : | | : |
|----+ IGP1 +---+ IGP2 +---+ IGP3 +----|
| 1 | | 4 | | 7 | | 10 |
|----+ +---+ +---+ +----|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| +---+ | +---+ | +---+ |
| | 3 | | | 6 | | | 9 | |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
iPE iBR eBR ePE
<----------LI---------><----------C----------><-----------LE---------->
Figure 1: Reference multi-domain network topology
There are various SRv6 and SR-MPLS-IPv4 interworking scenarios
possible.
Below scenarios cover various cascading of SRv6 and MPLS networks,
e.g., SR-MPLS-IPv4 <-> SRv6 <-> SR-MPLS-IPv4 <-> SRv6 <-> SR-MPLS-
IPv4 etc, though not all combinations are described for brevity.
2.1. IW scenarios
2.1.1. Transport IW
Provider edge devices run MPLS based [RFC4364] or SRv6 Service SID
based [RFC9252] BGP L3(e.g.VPN) or L2(e.g.EVPN) services through
service Route Reflectors. Service endpoint signaling through borders
routers and corresponding forwarding state provide interworking over
intermediate transport domain.
* SRv6 over MPLS (6oM)
- LI and LE domains are SRv6 data plane, C is MPLS data plane
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
- L3/L2 BGP SRv6 services [RFC9252] extend between PEs. The
ingress PE encapsulates the payload in an outer IPv6 header
where the SRv6 Service SID is the last segment or destination
address(DA).
- Transport IW border nodes forward SRv6 encapsulated traffic
destined to egress PE over MPLS C domain.
* MPLS over SRv6 (Mo6)
- LI and LE domains are MPLS data plane, C is SRv6 data plane
- L3/L2 BGP MPLS services [RFC4364], [RFC7432]. The ingress PE
encapsulates the payload in an MPLS service label and sends it
through MPLS LSP to egress PE.
- Transport IW nodes forward encapsulated label stack to egress
PE over SRv6 C domain.
Note: Easiest and most probable deployment is ships in the night i.e.
supporting dual stack and IPv4 MPLS in each domain.
2.1.2. Service IW
L3/L2 service signaling discontinuity i.e. SRv6 service SID based PE
interworks with BGP MPLS based PE for service connectivity. L3/L2
service BGP signaling and forwarding state provide interworking over
intermediate domain.
* SRv6 to MPLS(6toM): The ingress PE encapsulates the payload in an
outer IPv6 header where the destination address is the SRv6
Service SID[RFC9252]. Payload is delivered to egress PE with MPLS
service label[RFC4364] that it advertised with service prefixes.
* MPLS to SRv6 (Mto6): The ingress PE encapsulates the payload in an
MPLS service label. Payload is delivered to egress PE with IPv6
header with destination address as SRv6 service SID that it
advertised with service prefixes.
3. Terminology
The following terms used within this document are defined in
[RFC8402]: Segment Routing, SR-MPLS, SRv6, SR Domain, Segment ID
(SID), SRv6 SID, Prefix-SID.
Domain: Without loss of the generality, domain is assumed to be
instantiated by a single IGP instance or a network within IGP if
there is clear separation of data plane.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
Node k has a classic IPv6 loopback address Ak::1/128.
A SID at node k with locator block B and function F is represented by
B:k:F::
A SID list is represented as <S1, S2, S3> where S1 is the first SID
to visit, S2 is the second SID to visit and S3 is the last SID to
visit along the SR path.
(SA,DA) (S3, S2, S1; SL) represents an IPv6 packet with:
IPv6 header with source address SA, destination addresses DA and SRH
as next-header
SRH with SID list <S1, S2, S3> with SegmentsLeft = SL
Note the difference between the <> and () symbols: <S1, S2, S3>
represents a SID list where S1 is the first SID and S3 is the last
SID to traverse. (S3, S2, S1; SL) represents the same SID list but
encoded in the SRH format where the rightmost SID in the SRH is the
first SID and the leftmost SID in the SRH is the last SID. When
referring to an SR policy in a high-level use-case, it is simpler to
use the <S1, S2, S3> notation. When referring to an illustration of
the detailed packet behavior, the (S3, S2, S1; SL) notation is more
convenient.
4. SRv6 SID behavior
This document introduces a new SRv6 SID behavior. This behavior is
executed on border routers between the SRv6 and MPLS domain.
4.1. End.DTM
The "Endpoint with decapsulation and MPLS table lookup" behavior.
The End.DTM SID MUST be the last segment in a SR Policy, and a SID
instance is associated with an MPLS table.
When N receives a packet destined to S and S is a local End.DTM SID,
N does:
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
S01. When an SRH is processed {
S02. If (Segments Left != 0) {
S03. Send an ICMP Parameter Problem to the Source Address,
Code 0 (Erroneous header field encountered),
Pointer set to the Segments Left field,
interrupt packet processing and discard the packet.
S04. }
S05. Proceed to process the next header in the packet
S06. }
When processing the Upper-layer header of a packet matching a FIB
entry locally instantiated as an End.DTM SID, N does:
S01. If (Upper-Layer Header type == 137(MPLS) ) {
S02. Remove the outer IPv6 Header with all its extension headers
S03. Set the packet's associated FIB table to T
S04. Submit the packet to the MPLS FIB lookup for
transmission according to the lookup result.
S05. } Else {
S06. Process as per [ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] section 4.1.1
S07. }
4.2. End.DPM
The "Endpoint with decapsulation and MPLS label push" behavior.
The End.DPM SID MUST be the last segment and a SID instance is
associated with label stack.
When N receives a packet destined to S and S is a local End.DPM SID,
N does:
S01. When an SRH is processed {
S02. If (Segments Left != 0) {
S03. Send an ICMP Parameter Problem to the Source Address,
Code 0 (Erroneous header field encountered),
Pointer set to the Segments Left field,
interrupt packet processing and discard the packet.
S04. }
S05. Proceed to process the next header in the packet
S06. }
When processing the Upper-layer header of a packet matching a FIB
entry locally instantiated as an End.DPM SID, N does:
S01. Remove the outer IPv6 Header with all its extension headers
S02. Push the MPLS label stack associated with S
S03. Submit the packet to the MPLS engine for transmission
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
5. SRv6 Policy Headend Behaviors
5.1. H.Encaps.M: H.Encaps applied to MPLS label stack
The H.Encaps.M behavior encapsulates a received MPLS Label stack
[RFC3032] packet in an IPv6 header with an SRH. Together MPLS label
stack and its payload becomes the payload of the new IPv6 packet.
The Next Header field of the SRH MUST be set to 137 [RFC4023].
5.2. H.Encaps.M.Red: H.Encaps.Red applied to MPLS label stack
The H.Encaps.M.Red behavior is an optimization of the H.Encaps.M
behavior. H.Encaps.M.Red reduces the length of the SRH by excluding
the first SID in the SRH of the pushed IPv6 header. The first SID is
only placed in the Destination Address field of the pushed IPv6
header. The push of the SRH MAY be omitted when the SRv6 Policy only
contains one segment and there is no need to use any flag, tag or
TLV. In such case, the Next Header field of the IPv6 header MUST be
set to 137 [RFC4023].
6. Interconnecting Binding SIDs
Binding Segment (BSID) is bound to SR policy [RFC8402]. Further an
SR-MPLS label can be bound to an SRv6 Policy and an SRv6 SID can be
bound to an SR-MPLS Policy. The IW SR-PCE solution Section 7.1.1
leverage these BSIDs as segments of SR policy on headend domain to
represent intermediate domain of different dataplane type. In
summary, an intermediate domain of different data plane type is
represented by BSID of ingress domain data plane type in SID list.
7. Interworking Procedures
Figure 1 shows reference multi-domain network topology and Section 2
its description. The procedure in this section are illustrated using
the topology.
Following is assumed for data plane support of various nodes:
* Nodes 2,3,5,6,8,9 are provider(P) routers which need to support
single data plane type.
* 1 and 10 are PEs. They support single data plane type in overlay
and underlay.
* Border routers 4 and 7 need to support both the SRv6 and SR-MPLS-
IPv4 data plane.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
A VPN route is advertised via service RRs (S-RR) between an egress
PE(node 10) and an ingress PE (node 1).
For illustrations, the SRGB range starts from 16000 and prefix SID of
a node is 16000 plus node number
7.1. Transport IW
As described in Section 2.1.1, transport IW requires:
* For 6oM, tunnel traffic destined to SRv6 Service SID of egress PE
over MPLS C domain.
* For Mo6, tunnel MPLS label stack bound to IPv4 loopback address of
egress PE over SRv6 C domain.
This draft enhances two well-known solutions to achieve above:
* An SR-PCE [RFC8664] multi-domain On Demand Next-hop (ODN) SR
policy [RFC9256] stitching end to end across different data plane
domains using interconnecting binding SIDs. These procedures can
be used when overlay prefixes are signaled with a color extended
community [RFC9012].
* BGP Inter-Domain routing procedures advertising PE locator or IPv4
Loopback address for best effort or intent aware end to end
connectivity.
7.1.1. SR-PCE multi-domain On Demand Nexthop
This procedure provides a best-effort path as well as a path that
satisfies the intent (e.g. low latency), across multiple domains.
Service routes (VPN/EVPN) are received on ingress PE with color
extended community from egress PE. A Color is a 32-bit numerical
value that associates an SR Policy with an intent [RFC9256]. Ingress
PE does not know how to compute the traffic engineered path through
the multi-domain network to egress PE and requests SR-PCE for it.
The SR-PCE is aware of interworking requirement at border nodes as
its fed with BGP-LS topological information from each domain. It
programs intermediate domain data plane specific policy on border
nodes for the given intent and represents it in end to end path SID
list on ingress PE leveraging Section 6.
Below sections describe 6oM and Mo6 IW with SR-PCE
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
7.1.1.1. 6oM
Service prefix (e.g. VPN or EVPN) is received on head-end (node 1)
with color extended community (C1) from egress PE (node 10) with SRv6
service SID. The PCE computes (C1,10) path via node 2, 5 and 8. It
programs an SR policy at border node 4 with segment list node 5 and 7
bounded to an End.BM BSID [RFC8986]. SR-PCE responds back to node 1
with SRv6 segments along required SLA including End.BM at node 4 to
traverse SR-MPLS-IPv4 C domain.
For example, SR-PCE create SR-MPLS policy (C1,7) at node 4 with
segments <16005,16007>. It is bound to End.BM behavior with SRv6
BSID as B:4:BM-C1-7::
The data plane operations for the above-mentioned interworking
example are:
* Node 1 performs SRv6 function H.Encaps.Red with VPN service SID
and SRv6 Policy (C1,10):
Packet leaving node 1 IPv6 ((A:1::, B:2:E::) (B:10::DT4, B:8:E::,
B:4:BM-C1-7:: ; SL=3))
* Node 2 performs End function
Packet leaving node 2 IPv6 ((A:1::, B:4:BM-C1-7::) (B:10::DT4,
B:8:E::, B:4:BM-C1-7:: ; SL=2))
* Node 4(border rout4er) performs End.BM function
Packet leaving node 4 MPLS (16005,16007,2)((A:1::, B:8:E::)
(B:10::DT4, B:8:E::, B:4:BM-C1-7-:: ; SL=1)).
* Node 7 performs a native IPv6 lookup on due PHP behavior for 16007
Packet leaving node 7 IPv6 ((A:1::, B:8:E::) (B:10::DT4, B:8:E::,
B:4:BM-C1-7:: ; SL=1))
* Node 8 performs End(PSP) function
Packet leaving node 8 IPv6 ((A:1::, B:10::DT4))
* Node 10 performs End.DT function and lookups IP in VRF and send
traffic to CE.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
7.1.1.2. Mo6
Refer Section 2.1.1 for Mo6 scenario. MPLS Service prefix (e.g. VPN
or EVPN) is received on head-end(node 1) with color extended
community(C1) from egress PE(node 10). The PCE computes color-aware
C1 path via node 2, 5 and 8. It programs a SRv6 policy bound to MPLS
BSID at border node 4 with SRv6 segment list along required color-
aware path with last segment of behavior End.DTM Section 4.1. SR-PCE
responds back to node 1 with MPLS segment list including MPLS BSID of
SRv6 policy at node 4 to traverse SRv6 core domain.
For example, SR-PCE create SRv6 policy (C1,7) at node 4 with segments
<B:5:E::,B:7:DTM::>. It is bound to MPLS BSID 24407.
The data plan operations for the above-mentioned interworking example
are:
1. Node 1 performs MPLS label stack encapsulation with VPN label and
SR-MPLS Policy (C1,10):
Packet leaving node 1 towards 2 (Note: PHP of node 2 prefix SID):
MPLS packet (16004,24407,16008,16010,vpn_label)
2. Node 2 forwards traffic towards 4 (PHP of 16004)
Packet leaving node 2 MPLS packet (24407,16008,16010,vpn_label)
3. Node 4 steers MPLS traffic into SRv6 policy bound to 24407
Packet leaving node 4 IPv6(A:4::, B:5:E::) (B:7:DTM:: ;
SL=1)NH=137) MPLS((16008,16010,vpn_label)
4. Node 7 receive IPv6 packet with DA=B:7:DTM::. It performs DTM
behavior to remove IPv6 header and perform 16008 lookup in MPLS
table.
Packet leaves node 7 towards node 8(PHP of 16008) MPLS packet
(16010,vpn_label)
5. Node 8 forwards traffic towards 10 (PHP of 16010)
Packet leaving node 8 MPLS packet (vpn_label)
6. Node 10 performs vpn_label lookup and send traffic to CE.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
7.1.2. BGP inter domain routing procedures
Procedures described below build upon BGP 3107
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] and [RFC4798] to advertise transport
reachability for PE IPv4 loopbacks or SRv6 locators across a multi-
domain network. The procedures leverage existing SAFIs ( for
example, BGP-LU(1/4, 2/4)) and IPv6 (2/1)). Nexthop self on border
routers provide independence of intra domain tunnel technology in
different domains.
The sections below describe 6oM and Mo6 IW with BGP procedures for
best effort paths to a locator or loopback prefix. The procedures
are equally applicable to intent aware paths, i.e., locator assigned
for a given intent, for instance from an IGP-FlexAlgo. They are also
applicable to color-aware routes [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-car] recursing
over intent aware intra-domain paths.
7.1.2.1. 6oM
Refer Section 2.1.1 for 6oM scenario. SRv6 based L3/L2 BGP services
are signaled with SRv6 Service SID allocated from egress PE locator
prefix and with no BGP Color Extended community. Ingress PE learns
the service routes and need to resolve SRv6 Service SID over egress
PE locator or its summary. Below describes propagation of locators
or its summary to create end to end underlay path.
* Egress border router learns LE domain PE locators through IGP.
These are redistributed in BGP like any IPv6 global prefixes.
Alternatively, locator is originated by egress PE in the BGP IPv6
unicast address family (AFI=2,SAFI=1) to border nodes.
* Egress border router advertise these locators in BGP IPv6 LU
[AFI=2/SAFI=4] with locally allocated label or explicit NULL to
ingress border router with IPv4 next hop. Next hop has SR MPLS
IPv4 LSP paths built in C domain. Note: Egress border router may
advertise summary prefix covering all PE locators in LE domain.
* Ingress border router advertise these remote locators in LI
domain. Options to advertise are:
- To ingress PE in BGP address family (AFI=2,SAFI=1) with SRv6
transport SID of local End behavior in Prefix-SID attribute TLV
type 5 [RFC9252]. This option will result in additional SRv6
encapsulation at ingress PE.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
- Alternatively, leak remote locators or their summary in LI IGP
or propagate using BGP hop by hop routing model to each of P
and PE routers through infrastructure route reflector. This
option will avoid additional SRv6 transport SID encapsulation.
* Ingress PE learn remote locators or their summary with or without
SRv6 SID encapsulation. When learnt with SRv6 SID, it builds the
packet encapsulation that contains the SRv6 Service SID and SRv6
transport SID in the SID list and tunnels traffic to ingress
border node in LI domain (P routers (node 2 and 3) does not need
remote prefix). When learnt without SRv6 SID, the packet
encapsulation contains the SRv6 Service SID and forwarded hop by
hop based on remote locator IPv6 prefix lookup.
Control plane example:
1. Routing Protocol(RP) @10:
* In ISIS advertise locator B:10::/48
* BGP AFI=1,SAFI=128 originates a VPN route RD:V/v via B:10::1
and Prefix-SID attribute B:10:DT4::. This route is advertised
to service RR.
2. RP @ 7:
* ISIS redistribute B:10::/48 into BGP
* BGP Originates B:10::/48 in AFI=2/SAFI=4 with next hop node 7
and label explicit null among border routers.
3. RP @ 4:
* BGP learns B:10::/48 with next hop node 7 and outgoing label.
* BGP advertise B:10::/48 in AFI=2/SAFI=1 with next hop B:4::1
and Prefix-SID attribute tlv type 5 carrying local End
behavior function B:4:END:: to node 1
* Alternatively, BGP redistributes remote locator or summary
route in LI domain IGP.
4. RP @ 1:
* BGP learns B:10::/48 via B:4::1 and Prefix-SID attribute TLV
type 5 with SRv6 SID B:4:END::
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
* Alternatively, B:10::/48 or summary route reachability is
learned through ISIS
* BGP AFI=1, SAFI=128 learn service prefix RD:V/v, next hop
B:10::1 and PrefixSID attribute TLV type 5 with SRv6 SID
B:10:DT4
FIB state
@1: IPv4 VRF V/v => H.Encaps.red <B:4:END::, B:10:DT4::> with SRH, SRH.NH=IPv4
@4: IPv6 Table: B:4:END:: => Update DA with B:10:DT4::,set IPv6.NH=IPv4, pop the SRH
@4: IPv6 Table: B:10::/48 => push MPLS label 2 (Explicit NULL), push MPLS Label 16007
@7: MPLS label 2 => pop and lookup next IPv6 DA
@7: IPv6 Table B:10::/48 => forward via ISIS path to 10
@10: IPv6 Table B:10:DT4:: => pop the outer header and lookup the inner IPv4 DA in the VRF
7.1.2.2. Mo6
Refer Section 2.1.1 for Mo6 scenario. MPLS based L3/L2 BGP services
are signaled with IPv4 next-hop of egress PE through Service RRs with
no color extended community. Ingress PE need labelled reachability
to remote PE IPv4 loopback address advertised as next hop with
service routes.
BGP LU [RFC8277] advertise IPv4 PE loopbacks. Next hop self is
performed on the border routers.
Following are options and protocol extensions to tunnel IPv4 PE
loopback LSP through SRv6 C domain
7.1.2.2.1. Tunnel BGP LU LSP across SRv6 C domain
Intuitive solution for an MPLS-minded operator
* Existing BGP-LU label cross-connect on border routers for each PE
IPv4 loopback address.
* The lookups at the ingress border router are based on BGP3107
label as usual
* Just the SR-MPLS IGP label to next hop is replaced by an IPv6
tunnel with DA = SRv6 SID associated with DTM behavior in C
domain.
* Ingress border router forwarding perform 3107 label swap and
H.Encaps.M with DA = SRv6 SID associated with DTM behavior
* Similar to MPLS-over-IP
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
Existing BGP LU updates between border routers need to signal SRv6
SID associated with DTM behavior.
[I-D.agrawal-bess-bgp-srv6-mpls-interworking] proposes "SRv6 tunnel
for label route" TLV of the BGP Prefix-SID Attribute to signal SRv6
SID to tunnel MPLS packet with label in NLRI at the top of its label
stack through SRv6/IPv6 domain. Below describes the control plane
and corresponding FIB state to achieve such tunneling:
Control plane example
1. Routing Protocol(RP) @10:
* ISIS originates its IPv4 PE loopback with Node SID 16010
* BGP AFI=1,SAFI=4 originate IPv4 loopback address with next hop
node 10 and optionally label index=10 in Label-Index TLV of
Prefix-SID attribute.
* BGP AFI=1, SAFI=128 originates a VPN route RD:V/v next hop
node 10. This route is advertised to service RR.
2. RP @ 7:
* ISIS v6, advertise locator B:7::/48 in C domain
* BGP learns node 10 IPv4 loopback address with outgoing label.
It allocates local label (based on label index if present) and
programs label swap to outgoing label and MPLS LSP to next
hop.
* BGP AFI=1, SAFI=4 advertise IPv4 loopback address of node 10
to node 4. NLRI label is set to local label and SRv6 SID
B:7:DTM:: carried in SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV of "SRv6
tunnel for label route" TLV in Prefix-Sid attribute. If
received, label index=10 in Label-Index TLV of Prefix-SID
attribute is also signaled.
3. RP @ 4:
* ISIS v4 originates its IPv4 loopback with prefix SID 16004 in
LI domain.
* BGP learns node10 IPv4 loopback address from node 7 with
outgoing label. It allocate local label (based on label index
if present) and programs label swap and H.Encaps.M.red with
IPv6 header destination address as SRv6 SID received in "SRv6
tunnel for label route" TLV of Prefix-Sid attribute i.e.
B:7:DTM::.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
* BGP AFI=1, SAFI=4 advertise IPv4 Loopback address of node 10
to node 1. NLRI label is set to local label and do not signal
"SRv6 tunnel for label route" TLV in Prefix-SID attribute.
4. RP @ 1:
* BGP learns IPv4 loopback address of node 10 from node 4 with
outgoing label. It programs route to push outgoing label and
MPLS LSP to next hop i.e. node 4
* BGP AFI=1, SAFI=128 learn service prefix RD:V/v, next hop IPv4
loopback address of node 10 and service label.
Forwarding state at different nodes:
@1: IPv4 VRF: V/v => out label=vpn_label, next hop=IPv4 address of node 10
@1: IPv4 table: IPv4 address of node 10 => out label=16010, next hop=node4
@1: IPv4 table: IPv4 address of node 4 => out label=16004, next hop=interface to reach 2
@4: MPLS Table: 16010 => out label=16010, H.Encaps.M.red with DA=B:7:DTM::
@4: IPv6 table: B:7::/48 => next hop=interface to reach 5
@7: SRv6 My SID table: B:7:DTM:: => decaps IPv6 header and lookup top label.
@7: MPLS table: 16010 => out label=16010, next hop=interface to reach 8
@10: MPLS table: vpn label => pop label and lookup the inner IPv4 DA in the VRF
During transition when MPLS data plane is still enabled in C domain,
an ABR that does not understand "SRv6 tunnel for label route" TLV in
BGP Prefix-SID Attribute or based on operator configured local policy
can continue MPLS encapsulation using label in NLRI and LSP to next
hop.
7.1.2.2.2. Label and SRv6 SID translation per BGP LU route
For each PE IPv4 loopback address, existing BGP 3107 label cross-
connect on area border router is replaced by label to SRv6 SID cross-
connect or vice versa. In effect, it creates a translation between
from 3107 label to SRv6 SID at ingress of SRv6 domain and SRv6 SID to
3107 label on egress.
* For each BGP LU route (IPv4 loopback address of PE) received from
LE domain on egress border router, allocate SRv6 SID of DPM
behavior bound to the PE address. Lookup of SRv6 SID result in
decapsulation of IPv6 header and push of BGP LU outgoing label and
MPLS LSP to next hop.
* Advertise BGP route to PE address with SRv6 SID to ingress border
router.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
* Ingress border router allocate local label and advertise to LI
domain.
* The lookups at the ingress border router are based on BGP 3107
label as usual. Lookup results SRv6 SID of DPM behavior signaled
by egress border node. Decap BGP3107 label and perform H.Encaps.M
with DA = SRv6 SID.
Section 2.2 of [I-D.agrawal-bess-bgp-srv6-mpls-interworking]
describes how existing BGP advertisement can signal SRv6 SID
associated with DPM behavior from egress to ingress border router.
7.2. Service IW
As described in Section 2.1.2 Service IW need BGP SRv6 based L2/L3 PE
interworking with BGP MPLS based L2/L3 PE.
There are a number of different ways of handling this scenario as
detailed below.
7.2.1. Gateway Interworking
Gateway is router which supports both BGP SRv6 based L2/L3 services
and BGP MPLS based L2/L3 services for a service instance (e.g. L3
VRF, EVPN EVI). It terminates service encapsulation and perform L2/
L3 destination lookup in service instance.
* A border router between SRv6 domain and SR-MPLS-IPv4 domain is
suitable for Gateway role.
* Transport reachability to SRv6 PE and gateway locators in SRv6
domain or MPLS LSP to PE/gateway IPv4 Loopbacks can be exchanged
in IGP or through mechanism detailed in Section 2.1.1.
* Gateway exchange BGP L2/L3 service prefix with SRv6 based Service
PEs via set of service RRs. This session will learn/advertise L3/
L2 service prefixes with SRv6 service SID in prefix SID attribute
[RFC9252].
* Gateway exchange BGP L2/L3 service prefix with MPLS based Service
PEs via set of distinct service RRs. This session will learn/
advertise L3/L2 service prefixes with service labels [RFC4364]
[RFC7432].
* L2/L3 prefix received from a domain is locally installed in
service instance and re advertised to other domain with modified
service encapsulation information.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
* Prefix learned with SRv6 service SID from SRv6 PE is installed in
service instance with instruction to perform H.Encaps. It is
advertised to MPLS service PE with service label. When gateway
receives traffic with service label from MPLS service PE, it
perform destination lookup in service instance. Lookup result in
instruction to perform H.Encaps with DA being SRv6 Service SID
learnt with prefix from SRv6 PE.
* Prefix learned with MPLS service label from MPLS service PE is
installed in service instance with instruction to perform service
label encapsulation and send to MPLS LSP to nexthop. It is
advertised to SRv6 service PE with SRv6 service SID of behavior
(e.g. DT4/DT6/DT2U) [RFC8986]. When gateway receives traffic
with SRv6 Service SID as DA of IPv6 header from SRv6 service PE,
it perform destination lookup in service instance after decaps of
IPv6 header. Lookup result in instruction to push service label
and send it to nexthop.
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| ....|S-RR|.... | | ....|S-RR|..... |
| : +----+ : | | : +----+ : |
| : : | | : : |
|----+ +-------------------------------------+ +----|
|PE1 | | IW border node | | PE2|
|----+ | VPN Label<->L2/L3 lookup<->SRv6 SID | +----|
| | | |
| +-------------------------------------+ |
| MPLS | | SRv6 |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
<------MPLS VPN-----> <------SRv6 VPN----->
Figure 2: Gateway IW
Couple of border routers can act as gateway for redundancy. It can
scale horizontally by distributing service instance among them.
7.2.2. Translation between Service labels and SRv6 service SIDs
This is similar to inter-as option B procedures described in
[RFC4364] just that service label cross-connect on border router is
replaced with service label to SRv6 service SID or vice verse
translation on IW node.
* IW node does not need service instance like VRF or EVI.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
* IW node exchange BGP L2/L3 service prefix with SRv6 based Service
PEs via set of service RRs. This BGP session will learn/advertise
L3/L2 service prefixes with SRv6 service SID in prefix SID
attribute [RFC9252].
* IW node exchange BGP L2/L3 service prefix with MPLS based service
PEs via set of distinct service RRs. This BGP session will learn/
advertise L3/L2 service prefixes with service labels [RFC4364]
[RFC7432].
* IW node allocates SRv6 SID of behavior End.DPM that result in
pushing service label and MPLS label stack to service nexthop for
BGP L2/L3 service learnt from MPLS PE. It advertises the service
to SRv6 domain.
* IW node allocates service label that results in H.Encaps with IPv6
header DA set to SRv6 SID signaled in BGP L2/L3 service learnt
from SRv6 PE. Advertises the service to MPLS domain with
allocated service label.
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| ....|S-RR|.... | | ....|S-RR|..... |
| : +----+ : | | : +----+ : |
| : : | | : : |
|----+ +-------------------------------------+ +----|
|PE1 | | IW border node | | PE2|
|----+ | VPN Label -> SRv6 SID | +----|
| | VPN label, LSP PE1 <- SRv6 SID | |
| +-------------------------------------+ |
| MPLS | | SRv6 |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
<------MPLS VPN-----> <------SRv6 VPN----->
Figure 3: Service translation
Certain L2 service specific information (eg. control word)
translation is out of the scope. It will be covered in separate
document.
8. Migration and co-existence
In addition, the draft also addresses migration and coexistence of
the SRv6 and SR-MPLS-IPv4. Co-existence means a network that
supports both SRv6 and MPLS in a given domain. This may be a
transient state when brownfield SR-MPLS-IPv4 network upgrades to SRv6
(migration) or permanent state when some devices are not capable of
SRv6 but supports native IPv6 and SR-MPLS-IPv4.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
These procedures would be detailed in a future revision
9. Availability
* Failure within domain are taken care by existing FRR mechanisms
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa].
* Procedures listed in [RFC9256] provides protection in SR-PCE
multi-domain On Demand Nexthop (ODN) SR policy based approach.
* Convergence on failure of border routers can be achieved by well
known methods for BGP inter domain routing approach:
- BGP Add Path provide diverse path visibility
- BGP backup path pre-programming
- Sub-second convergence on border router failure notified by
local IGP.
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors
This document introduces a new SRv6 Endpoint behaviors "End.DTM" and
"End.DPM". IANA is requested to assign identifier value in the "SRv6
Endpoint Behaviors" sub-registry under "Segment Routing Parameters"
registry.
+-------------+--------+-------------------------+------------------+
| Value | Hex | Endpoint behavior | Reference |
+-------------+--------+-------------------------+------------------+
| TBD | TBD | End.DTM | <this document> |
+-------------+--------+-------------------------+------------------+
| TBD | TBD | End.DPM | <this document> |
+-------------+--------+-------------------------+------------------+
11. Security Considerations
12. Contributors
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems
Email: zali@cisco.com
Srihari Sangli
Juniper Networks
Email: ssangli@juniper.net
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
13. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Kamran Raza, Dhananjaya Rao,
Stephane Litkowski, Pablo Camarillo, Ketan Talaulikar, Jorge Rabadan
for their comments and review.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[I-D.agrawal-bess-bgp-srv6-mpls-interworking]
Agrawal, S., Rao, D., Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D.,
and Z. Li, "BGP extensions for SRv6 and MPLS
interworking", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
agrawal-bess-bgp-srv6-mpls-interworking-00, 24 October
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
agrawal-bess-bgp-srv6-mpls-interworking-00>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-car]
Rao, D., Agrawal, S., and Co-authors, "BGP Color-Aware
Routing (CAR)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-idr-bgp-car-06, 2 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
car-06>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, Ed.,
"Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE)", RFC 4023, DOI 10.17487/RFC4023, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4023>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
[RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur,
"Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6
Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4798, February 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
[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,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[RFC9252] Dawra, G., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Raszuk, R., Decraene,
B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "BGP Overlay Services
Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9252, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9252>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
14.2. Informative References
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]
Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz,
M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-
mpls-07, 28 June 2014,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
seamless-mpls-07>.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Bashandy, A., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-
13, 16 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-
segment-routing-ti-lfa-13>.
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
Authors' Addresses
Swadesh Agrawal (editor)
Cisco Systems
Email: swaagraw@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Gaurav dawra
LinkedIn
United States of America
Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft SRv6 and MPLS interworking March 2024
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Shraddha Hegde
Juniper Networks
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
Agrawal, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 24]
