Internet DRAFT - draft-filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane
draft-filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane
SPRING C. Filsfils, Ed.
Internet-Draft F. Clad, Ed.
Intended status: Informational K. Talaulikar
Expires: May 14, 2022 Cisco Systems
November 10, 2021
SR-MPLS Data Plane with IPv6 Control Plane
draft-filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane-05
Abstract
This document reminds the existence of the "Segment Routing (SR) MPLS
data-plane with IPv6 control-plane" solution that is mature from a
standardization, productization and commercial deployment viewpoint.
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 May 14, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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.
Filsfils, et al. Expires May 14, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS DP with IPv6 CP November 2021
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Reference diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Packet processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
This document reminds the existence of the "Segment Routing (SR) MPLS
dataplane with IPv6 control-plane". This solution is mature from a
standardization, productization and commercial deployment viewpoint.
Other proposed source routing solutions with MPLS-like label lookup
or mapping ids should list all their data-plane and control-plane
differences with respect to this mature solution and should justify
these differences with genuine benefits not available in the mature
solution described in this document and others referenced here that
are published by the SPRING and MPLS WGs.
2. Context
This is an existing solution.
o Mature IETF standardization
o Mature productization
o Commercially deployed
The IETF standardization references are:
o Architecture:
* Segment Routing [RFC8402]
o Data-plane:
* Homogenous MPLS deployment: [RFC8660]
* Hopping over IP-only parts of network: [RFC8663]
o Control-plane:
Filsfils, et al. Expires May 14, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS DP with IPv6 CP November 2021
* IS-IS: [RFC8667]
* OSPFv3: [RFC8666]
* BGP: [RFC4364]
* BGP-LS: [RFC9085]
* SR Policy headend: [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
o Service programming: [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming]
o OAM: [RFC8287]
3. Reference diagram
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| +-------------------+ +-------------------+ |
| | | | | |
| | +-+-+ +-+-+ | |
| | |121| |231| | |
| | +-+-+ +-+-+ | |
| | +---+ | | +---+ | |
| | |PE1| | | |PE2| | |
| | +---+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +---+ | |
| | |122| |232| | |
| | +-+-+ +-+-+ | |
| | (MPLS island 1) | | (MPLS island 2) | |
| +-------------------+ (IPv6 network) +-------------------+ |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: IPv6 network with SR-MPLS islands
o Single IGP domain, IPv6 only
* PE1 is configured with a loopback IP address 2001:db8::1
* PE2 is configured with a loopback IP address 2001:db8::2
* Each other node k is configured with a loopback IP address
2001:db8::k
o 2 SR-MPLS islands running with an IPv6 control plane
* PE1 is configured with a Prefix-SID 16001 associated with
2001:db8::1
Filsfils, et al. Expires May 14, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS DP with IPv6 CP November 2021
* PE2 is configured with a Prefix-SID 16002 associated with
2001:db8::2
4. Packet processing
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| +-------------------+ +-------------------+ |
| | | | | |
| | +-+-+ +-+-+ | |
| | +---->+121+----->------+231+-----+ | |
| | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | |
| | +---+ | | | | +---+ | |
A +-----+PE1+-----+ | | +---->+PE2+-----> B
| | +---+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +---+ | |
| | |122| |232| | |
| | +-+-+ +-+-+ | |
| | (MPLS island 1) | | (MPLS island 2) | |
| +-------------------+ (IPv6 network) +-------------------+ |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------+ +----------+ +--------------+ +----------+ +----------+
| IP4(A,B) | | 16002 | |IP6( | | 16002 | | IP4(A,B) |
+----------+ +----------+ |2001:db8::121,| +----------+ +----------+
| 12345 | |2001:db8::231)| | 12345 |
+----------+ +--------------+ +----------+
| IP4(A,B) | | 16002 | | IP4(A,B) |
+----------+ +--------------+ +----------+
| 12345 |
+--------------+
| IP4(A,B) |
+--------------+
Figure 2: Packet processing in IPv6 network with SR-MPLS islands
o PE1 receives IPv4 traffic from A and headed to B
o PE1 PUSHes the VPN label 12345 and the prefix-SID 16002 of PE2
o Traffic is steered in MPLS island 1 according to the top label
16002
o Traffic reaches node 121, whose next-hop towards 16002 is not
MPLS-enabled
* Node 121 has determined(*) that traffic to 16002 should be sent
over an IPv6 encapsulation to node 231
Filsfils, et al. Expires May 14, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS DP with IPv6 CP November 2021
* Node 121 encapsulates the traffic with IPv6 header (Next Header
137 [RFC4023]) to 2001:db8::231
o Node 231 removes the IPv6 encapsulation, exposes the MPLS label
16002 and forwards the traffic accordingly
o Traffic is steered in MPLS island 2 according to the top label
16002
o (PHP: Penultimate node POPs label 16002 and sends the traffic to
PE2)
o PE2 looks up the exposed VPN label 12345 and forwards the traffic
accordingly.
(*) Node 121 determines that node 231 is the closest MPLS- and IPv6-
pop-capable node on the shortest path to PE2 using a technique
outside the scope of the document.
5. Security Considerations
None
6. IANA Considerations
None
7. Acknowledgements
TBD
8. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-14 (work in progress),
October 2021.
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming]
Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., Bernier, D., Li, C.,
Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C., Henderickx, W., and
S. Salsano, "Service Programming with Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-programming-05 (work in
progress), September 2021.
Filsfils, et al. Expires May 14, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS DP with IPv6 CP November 2021
[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>.
[RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.
[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>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8663] Xu, X., Bryant, S., Farrel, A., Hassan, S., Henderickx,
W., and Z. Li, "MPLS Segment Routing over IP", RFC 8663,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8663, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8663>.
[RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.
[RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
(BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9085>.
Filsfils, et al. Expires May 14, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SR-MPLS DP with IPv6 CP November 2021
Authors' Addresses
Clarence Filsfils (editor)
Cisco Systems
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Francois Clad (editor)
Cisco Systems
Email: fclad@cisco.com
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
Filsfils, et al. Expires May 14, 2022 [Page 7]
