Internet DRAFT - draft-brockners-lisp-sr
draft-brockners-lisp-sr
Internet Engineering Task Force F. Brockners
Internet-Draft S. Bhandari
Intended status: Standards Track F. Maino
Expires: August 17, 2014 D. Lewis
Cisco
February 13, 2014
LISP Extensions for Segment Routing
draft-brockners-lisp-sr-01
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) combines source routing and tunneling to steer
traffic through the transit network. The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) separates IP addresses into Endpoint Identifiers
(EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs) and also leverages tunneling
mechanisms. Mapping between EIDs and RLOCs is facilitated by the
LISP mapping system. Combining LISP and SR enables the LISP mapping
system to provide SR information to encapsulating routers so that
traffic can be steered in the transit network or the list of segments
a particular packet traverses is recorded in the packet header.
This document describes extensions required to the Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) to enable a LISP mapping system to
communicate list of segment identifiers or the request to record the
list of segments a particular packet traverses to the encapsulating
router.
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 http://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 17, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP and SR integration February 2014
Copyright (c) 2014 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
(http://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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use cases that combine LISP and SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Traffic steering/traffic engineering . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Traffic tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. LISP extensions to support SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Deployment Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Example ELPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Example: ELP with only SR used . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Example: ELP with SR and reencapsulating routers
combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP and SR integration February 2014
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
paths within network topologies by encoding paths as sequences of
topological sub-paths, called "segments" as described in
[I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing]. Segment routing can be applied
to IPv6 with a new type of routing extension header. The Locator/ID
Separation Protocol [RFC6830] specifies an architecture and mechanism
for replacing the addresses currently used by IP with two separate
name spaces: Endpoint IDs (EIDs), used within sites; and Routing
Locators (RLOCs), used on the transit networks that make up the
Internet infrastructure. To achieve this separation, LISP defines
protocol mechanisms for mapping from EIDs to RLOCs. In addition,
LISP assumes the existence of a database to store and propagate those
mappings globally.
When LISP is combined with SR, the EID to RLOC mapping information
can be extended with segment routing information. This allows for a
closer correlation between the transit network, that is sometimes
also referred to as the underlay network, and the overlay network.
It is beyond the scope of this document to describe how the LISP
mapping system obtains a segment list for a particular EID-to-RLOC
mapping. This draft outlines use-cases for combining LISP and SR as
well as extensions to the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) for
traffic engineering (LCAF type 10) [I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf]. These
extensions are to be integrated into a future revision of
[I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf].
2. Conventions
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 [RFC2119].
This document uses the Terminology as defined in
[I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf].
Abbreviations used in this document:
AFI: Address Family Identifier
EID: Endpoint Identifier
ELP: Explicit Locator Path
ETR: Egress Tunnel Router
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP and SR integration February 2014
ITR: Ingress Tunnel Router
LCAF: LISP Canonical Address Format
LISP: Locator/ID Separation Protocol
OAM: Operation Administration Maintenance
RLOC: Routing Locator
SR: Segment Routing
SID: Segment Identifier
Segment List: Ordered list of segment identifiers
3. Use cases that combine LISP and SR
Use-cases that combine LISP and SR include traffic steering/traffic
engineering as well as traffic tracing in the underlay network.
3.1. Traffic steering/traffic engineering
LISP combined with SR can be used to steer traffic in the underlay
network: The mapping system communicates a segment list to the LISP
ingress tunnel router (ITR) when resolving the EID-to-RLOC mapping as
part of a LISP Map-Reply. This extension allows the LISP mapping
system to provide a list of segment identifiers to encapsulating
routers so that traffic can be steered in the transit network. In a
typical setup the LISP ingress tunnel router would retrieve the
segment list from the mapping system along with the associated RLOC
using the EID as the lookup key. The ITR encapsulates the packet to
the RLOC, also including the segment list in the segment routing
extension header. The packet is forwarded to the ETR using segment
routing techniques. The ETR decapsulates the packet and delivers the
packet to the destination EID. Given that in SR with IPv6 transport
the entire segment list is available in the SR-specific extension
header of the outer IPv6 header, the LISP egress tunnel router, which
is the tunnel endpoint is also informed about the path a particular
packet took in the transport network.
LISP with SR for traffic engineering adds to the LISP traffic
engineering use-cases described in [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te]. LISP
combined with SR offers traffic engineering without using
reencapsulating tunnels [RFC6830]. Reencapsulating tunnels and SR
with LISP are complementary traffic engineering techniques and could
be combined. SR could for example be used in an explicit locator
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP and SR integration February 2014
path (ELP) to further traffic engineer a path between two
reencapsulating routers.
3.2. Traffic tracing
LISP combined with SR can be used to get more information about the
path a packet took in the underlay network without sending extra
probe traffic. When SR is applied to IPv6, the segment list
describing the path that a packet takes through the network can be
recorded in the SR-specific extension header of the outer IPv6 packet
header. This activity is referred to as segment tracing. Segment
tracing can be performed independently from steering traffic using SR
techniques. It can also be used in a transit network which performs
normal IPv6 routing. When tracing is enabled, the segment ID of
every segment that a packet traverses is recorded in the SR-specific
extension header. This means that the egress tunnel router receives
information about the path, represented by the segment list, a
particular packet has taken in the underlay network. Different from
OAM mechanisms which send active probe packets, tracing information
can be made available for production traffic. The egress tunnel
router can choose to provide the traced segment list back to the
mapping system, for example through a LISP Map-Register. This
information can be used to ensure path symmetry send/receive traffic
in the transit network, or can serve other OAM or statistical
purposes.
4. LISP extensions to support SR
Segment routing information can be contained within the LISP mapping
system. A segment identifier is a 32-bit identification either for a
topological instruction or a service instruction. See
[I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] for details.
An EID can be associated with one or multiple ordered lists of
segment identifiers, also referred to as "segment lists", encoding
the topological and service source route of a packet. The segment
list can serve either traffic engineering or operational purposes.
In case of traffic engineering purposes, the segment list describes
the set of segments a packet visits when traversing the transit
network. The segment list enables the ITR to steer traffic using
segment routing techniques. For operations and maintenance use, the
segment list documents the set of segments a packet visited on its
way through the transit network. It is beyond the scope of this
document to describe the detailed procedures how the LISP mapping
system obtains a segment list for a particular EID-to-RLOC mapping.
Segment routing extensions for LISP extend the Explicit Locator Path
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP and SR integration February 2014
(ELP) Canonical Address Format, which is LCAF type 10,
see[I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf] for details. A new Address Family Identifier
(AFI) in LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) type
[I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf] is required to carry the 32-bit segment
identifier. For a given EID lookup in the mapping database, the
segment routing list in ELP LCAF type can be returned to provide a
segment list to each locator in the Map-Reply locator set. The ELP
LCAF type can also be used to send the segment list that a particular
packet traversed to the LISP mapping system using a Map-Register
message defined in [RFC6833].
The segment identification AFI to be allocated is described below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = TBD_SID | Rsvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AFI=TBD_SID: TBD_SID is a value allocated from [AFI] for segment
identifiers.
Rsvd: should be set to zero and ignored.
SID: 4 byte segment identifier
The explicit path to be followed in the underlay is then encoded
using the AFI for segment ID in the LISP LCAF type 10 described in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf].
T-Bit: An additional bit in the Rsvd3 field is to be allocated in
LCAF type 10. The T-bit (T=1) is used by the LISP mapping system to
indicate to an ITR that for particular EID-to-RLOC mapping the
segments traversed by packets SHOULD be recorded as a segment list in
the SR IPv6 extension header. This bit is ignored if present in a
Map-Register message. A Map-Register message could be used by the
ETR to inform the mapping system about the segments that a packet
visited in the transit network.
S-Bit: The S-bit SHOULD be set when AFI = TBD_SID.
P-Bit: The P-bit SHOULD be ignored when AFI = TBD_SID.
L-Bit: The L-bit SHOULD be ignored when AFI = TBD_SID.
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP and SR integration February 2014
4.1. Deployment Scenario
As described in [RFC6833] LISP Mapping Service defines: the Map-
Resolver, which accepts Map-Requests from an Ingress Tunnel Router
(ITR) and "resolves" the EID-to-RLOC mapping using a mapping
database; and the Map-Server, which learns authoritative EID-to-RLOC
mappings from an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) and publishes them in a
database. The LISP Extensions for Segment Routing described in this
document primarily apply to deployment scenarios where MAP-Server and
MAP-Resolver have visibility into or interface with a system that has
knowledge of the network topology and can determine paths from source
to destination RLOCs. Implementations of the LISP mapping systems
which complement Software Defined Networking (SDN) architectures,
such as the implementation as part of the OpenDaylight
project[ODLLISP] fall into this category. In these deployments the
LISP mapping system can retrieve the necessary information related to
topology and path selection to implement the extensions defined in
this document. It allows the mapping system to provide the required
information in the MAP resolve response to correlate overlay with
underlay network and offer solutions to control the path taken in the
underlay network.
4.2. Example ELPs
4.2.1. Example: ELP with only SR used
This example shows the Explicit Locator Path (ELP) Canonical Address
Format in a setup where segment routing is used in the transit
network between ITR and ETR. Traffic engineering using
reencapsulating routers is not used.
The reply to an EID-to-RLOC lookup contains the SIDs to be visited in
the underlay network to reach the RLOC address returned in AFI=x. In
the example below SID_1,...,SID_p are to be used for segment routing
towards the "Address" RLOC. SID_p is the identifier of the last
segment which takes the packet to the "Address" RLOC.
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP and SR integration February 2014
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 10 | Rsvd2 | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = TBD_SID | Rsvd3 |T|L|P|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID_1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = TBD_SID | Rsvd3 |T|L|P|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID_p |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Rsvd3 |T|L|P|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4.2.2. Example: ELP with SR and reencapsulating routers combined
This example shows the Explicit Locator Path (ELP) Canonical Address
Format when using SR combined with reencapsulation routers.
Segment routing and traffic engineering using reencapsulating routers
can be combined. In the example below, segment routing is used to
steer traffic in the underlay between reencapsulating routers "f" and
"g". There is no segment routing used between any of the other
reencapsulating router hops.
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP and SR integration February 2014
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 10 | Rsvd2 | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Rsvd3 |T|L|P|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reencap Hop 1 ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Rsvd3 |T|L|P|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reencap Hop f ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = TBD_SID | Rsvd3 |T|L|P|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID_1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = TBD_SID | Rsvd3 |T|L|P|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID_p |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Rsvd3 |T|L|P|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reencap Hop g ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Rsvd3 |T|L|P|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reencap Hop k ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5. IANA Considerations
TBD.
6. Manageability Considerations
Manageability considerations will be addressed in a later version of
this document..
7. Security Considerations
Security considerations will be addressed in a later version of this
document.
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP and SR integration February 2014
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dino Farinacci, Erik Nordmark and
participants of the LISP wg for their input on this document.
9. Change log
Changes from 00 - 01
o Added a section on deployment scenario to clarify the
applicability of the extension described in this draft.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[AFI] "IANA, Address Family Identifier (AFIs), http://
www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/
address-family-numbers.xhtml", July 2013.
[I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing Architecture",
draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-00 (work in
progress), June 2013.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf]
Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02 (work in
progress), March 2013.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-te]
Farinacci, D., Lahiri, P., and M. Kowal, "LISP Traffic
Engineering Use-Cases", draft-farinacci-lisp-te-03 (work
in progress), July 2013.
[I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP and SR integration February 2014
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing Use Cases",
draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-00 (work in
progress), June 2013.
[I-D.sivabalan-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Medved, J., Crabbe, E., and
R. Raszuk, "PCE-Initiated Traffic Engineering Path Setup
in Segment Routed Networks",
draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-00 (work in progress),
June 2013.
[ODLLISP] "Open Day Light Lisp Flow Mapping, https://
wiki.opendaylight.org/view/
OpenDaylight_Lisp_Flow_Mapping:Architecture", Feb 2014.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
January 2013.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
January 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Frank Brockners
Cisco
Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor
DUESSELDORF, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40549
Germany
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
Shwetha Bhandari
Cisco
Cessna Business Park, Sarjapura Marathalli Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 087
India
Email: shwethab@cisco.com
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP and SR integration February 2014
Fabio Maino
Cisco
San Jose
USA
Email: fmaino@cisco.com
Darrel Lewis
Cisco
San Jose
USA
Email: darlewis@cisco.com
Brockners, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 12]
