Internet DRAFT - draft-dukes-lisp-colored-engineered-underlays
draft-dukes-lisp-colored-engineered-underlays
Network Working Group D. Dukes
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track J. Arango
Expires: June 21, 2018 Microsoft
December 18, 2017
LISP Colored Engineered Underlays
draft-dukes-lisp-colored-engineered-underlays-01
Abstract
This document defines a LISP control plane extension that associates
a locator record with a color value that can be used to select an
engineered underlay path to the corresponding RLOC.
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 June 21, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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.
Dukes & Arango Expires June 21, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP Colored Engineered Underlays December 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Color LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
LISP [RFC6830] provides reachability to overlay addresses called
Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) via one or more underlay addresses called
Routing Locators (RLOCs). For each destination RLOC, it may be
desirable for the control plane to select one of potentially multiple
underlay paths.
For traffic traversing an Ingress Transit Router (ITR) to an Egress
Transit Router (ETR), the ITR may be able to reach a particular ETR
RLOC through multiple underlay paths available via one or more
locally connected service providers. Furthermore, the ITR may be
able to select which of these paths per provider to use, for example
different paths may have unique bandwidth and latency metrics making
them more or less suitable for traffic destined to some EIDs. When
the ITR requests and obtains an EID mapping, it needs to know how to
choose an underlay path for each remote RLOC. If the ETR can provide
a hint in terms of an opaque color attribute for each RLOC the EID
maps to, then the ITR would be able to select a policy matching that
<RLOC,color> tuple to satisfy the needs of the application or
endpoint associated with this particular EID.
One expected use of the <RLOC,color> tuple is to select a Segment
Routing policy as defined in
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy].
This draft specifies an LCAF type [RFC8060] that encodes the color
for each RLOC in an EID mapping record. The ITR MAY use the color to
determine the underlay path to reach the EID via the corresponding
RLOC.
A locator record now has an RLOC and color, and both fields are part
of the comparison to determine if two locator records are the same.
Dukes & Arango Expires June 21, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP Colored Engineered Underlays December 2017
The definition of how the color is chosen or configured at the ETR,
or how policies are distributed and configured at the ITR is outside
the scope of this document.
2. Requirements Notation
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].
3. Color LCAF
When a color is stored in the LISP Mapping Database System for
selection of an appropriate policy to reach an EID via a destination
RLOC it MAY be encoded in a LISP Canonical Address.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = LCAF (16887) | Rsvd1 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD |C|O| Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Color ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... Color |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI | Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
CO Flags: The CO Flags are as defined in
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy] and have the
following impact on how the subsequent Color is interpreted. 00 is
their default value.
When 00, the traffic destined to EID is preferably steered onto a
valid policy <RLOC, C> where RLOC is the IPv4/6 destination RLOC
address and C is a color value, else it is steered on the shortest
path to the RLOC.
When 01, the traffic destined to EID is preferably steered onto a
valid policy <RLOC, C> else onto a valid policy (null endpoint, C)
else on the shortest path to the RLOC.
When 10, the traffic destined to EID is preferably steered onto a
valid policy <RLOC, C> else onto a valid policy (null endpoint, C)
else on any valid SR-TE policy <any endpoint, C> else on the IGP
path to the RLOC.
Dukes & Arango Expires June 21, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP Colored Engineered Underlays December 2017
The null endpoint is 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 and ::0 for IPv6 (all bits
set to 0).
Color: A 64-bit color value.
AFI: The address family of the locator. Valid values are 1 for
IPv4 and 2 for IPv6.
Address: The address of the locator.
The Color Canonical Address Type can be used to encode RLOC
addresses.
Usage: This encoding can be used in RLOC records in Map-Requests,
Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When LISP-DDT
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended
EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.
4. IANA Considerations
An assignment is requested from IANA "LISP LCAF Type" registry for
the "Color LCAF", value is TBD.
5. Security Considerations
The Color LCAF may indirectly indicate association of the type of
service offered by some subsets of endpoints to ITRs that was not
previously disclosed to the ITR.
6. References
6.1. Informative References
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Raza, K., Liste, J., Clad,
F., Hegde, S., Lin, S., bogdanov@google.com, b.,
Horneffer, M., Steinberg, D., Decraene, B., and S.
Litkowski, "Segment Routing Policy for Traffic
Engineering", draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-
policy-03 (work in progress), October 2017.
6.2. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]
Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-
ddt-09 (work in progress), January 2017.
Dukes & Arango Expires June 21, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP Colored Engineered Underlays December 2017
[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>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
Authors' Addresses
Darren Dukes
Cisco Systems
Canada
Email: ddukes@cisco.com
Jesus Arango
Microsoft
USA
Email: jearango@microsoft.com
Dukes & Arango Expires June 21, 2018 [Page 5]
