Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services
BESS Working Group G. Dawra, Ed.
Internet-Draft LinkedIn
Intended status: Standards Track K. Talaulikar, Ed.
Expires: September 23, 2022 Cisco Systems
R. Raszuk
NTT Network Innovations
B. Decraene
Orange
S. Zhuang
Huawei Technologies
J. Rabadan
Nokia
March 22, 2022
SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15
Abstract
This document defines procedures and messages for SRv6-based BGP
services including L3VPN, EVPN, and Internet services. It builds on
RFC4364 "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" and RFC7432
"BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN".
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 September 23, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. SRv6 Services TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. SRv6 Service Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Encoding SRv6 SID Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. BGP based L3 Service over SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. IPv4 VPN Over SRv6 Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. IPv6 VPN Over SRv6 Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Global IPv4 over SRv6 Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. Global IPv6 over SRv6 Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. BGP based Ethernet VPN (EVPN) over SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Ethernet Auto-discovery Route over SRv6 Core . . . . . . 16
6.1.1. Ethernet A-D per ES Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.2. Ethernet A-D per EVI Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. MAC/IP Advertisement Route over SRv6 Core . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.1. MAC/IP Advertisement Route with MAC Only . . . . . . 19
6.2.2. MAC/IP Advertisement Route with MAC+IP . . . . . . . 19
6.3. Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route over SRv6 Core . . 20
6.4. Ethernet Segment Route over SRv6 Core . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.5. IP Prefix Route over SRv6 Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.6. EVPN Multicast Routes (Route Types 6, 7, 8) over SRv6
Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.1. BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.2. SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.3. SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Types Registry . . . . . . 25
9.4. BGP SRv6 Service SID Flags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.5. Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.1. BGP Session Related Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
10.2. BGP Services Related Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.3. SR over IPv6 Data Plane Related Considerations . . . . . 27
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Introduction
SRv6 refers to Segment Routing instantiated on the IPv6 dataplane
[RFC8402].
BGP is used to advertise the reachability of prefixes of a particular
service from an egress PE to ingress PE nodes.
SRv6 based BGP services refers to the Layer-3 and Layer-2 overlay
services with BGP as control plane and SRv6 as dataplane. This
document defines procedures and messages for SRv6-based BGP services
including L3VPN, EVPN, and Internet services. It builds on [RFC4364]
"BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" and [RFC7432] "BGP
MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN".
SRv6 SID refers to an SRv6 Segment Identifier as defined in
[RFC8402].
SRv6 Service SID refers to an SRv6 SID associated with one of the
service-specific SRv6 Endpoint behaviors on the advertising Provider
Edge (PE) router, such as (but not limited to), End.DT (Table lookup
in a VRF) or End.DX (cross-connect to a nexthop) behaviors in the
case of Layer-3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN) service as defined in
[RFC8986]. This document describes how existing BGP messages between
PEs may carry SRv6 Service SIDs to interconnect PEs and form VPNs.
To provide SRv6 service with best-effort connectivity, the egress PE
signals an SRv6 Service SID with the BGP overlay service route. The
ingress PE encapsulates the payload in an outer IPv6 header where the
destination address is the SRv6 Service SID provided by the egress
Provider Edge (PE). The underlay between the PEs only needs to
support plain IPv6 forwarding [RFC8200].
To provide SRv6 service in conjunction with an underlay SLA from the
ingress PE to the egress PE, the egress PE colors the overlay service
route with a Color Extended Community
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] for steering of flows for
those routes as specified in section 8 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. The ingress PE
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
encapsulates the payload packet in an outer IPv6 header with the
segment list of SR policy associated with the related SLA along with
the SRv6 Service SID associated with the route using the Segment
Routing Header (SRH) [RFC8754]. The underlay nodes whose SRv6 SID's
are part of the SRH segment list MUST support SRv6 data plane.
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. SRv6 Services TLVs
This document extends the use of the BGP Prefix-SID attribute
[RFC8669] to carry SRv6 SIDs and their associated information with
the BGP address-families that are listed further in this section.
The SRv6 Service TLVs are defined as two new TLVs of the BGP Prefix-
SID Attribute to achieve signaling of SRv6 SIDs for L3 and L2
services.
o SRv6 L3 Service TLV: This TLV encodes Service SID information for
SRv6 based L3 services. It corresponds to the equivalent
functionality provided by an MPLS Label when received with a Layer
3 service route as defined in [RFC4364] [RFC4659] [RFC8950]
[RFC9136]. Some SRv6 Endpoint behaviors which may be encoded, but
not limited to, are End.DX4, End.DT4, End.DX6, End.DT6, and
End.DT46.
o SRv6 L2 Service TLV: This TLV encodes Service SID information for
SRv6 based L2 services. It corresponds to the equivalent
functionality provided by an MPLS Label1 for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)
Route-Types as defined in [RFC7432]. Some SRv6 Endpoint behaviors
which may be encoded, but not limited to, are End.DX2, End.DX2V,
End.DT2U, and End.DT2M.
When an egress PE is enabled for BGP Services over SRv6 data-plane,
it signals one or more SRv6 Service SIDs enclosed in SRv6 Service
TLV(s) within the BGP Prefix-SID Attribute attached to MP-BGP NLRIs
defined in [RFC4760] [RFC4659] [RFC8950] [RFC7432] [RFC4364]
[RFC9136] where applicable as described in Section 5 and Section 6.
The support for BGP Multicast VPN (MVPN) Services [RFC6513] with SRv6
is outside the scope of this document.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
The following depicts the SRv6 Service TLVs encoded in the BGP
Prefix-SID Attribute:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV Type | TLV Length | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRv6 Service Sub-TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: SRv6 Service TLVs
o TLV Type (1 octet): This field is assigned values from the IANA
registry "BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types". It is set to 5 for SRv6 L3
Service TLV. It is set to 6 for SRv6 L2 Service TLV.
o TLV Length (2 octets): Specifies the total length, in octets, of
the TLV Value.
o RESERVED (1 octet): This field is reserved; it MUST be set to 0 by
the sender and ignored by the receiver.
o SRv6 Service Sub-TLVs (variable): This field contains SRv6 Service
related information and is encoded as an unordered list of Sub-
TLVs whose format is described below.
A BGP speaker receiving a route containing BGP Prefix-SID Attribute
with one or more SRv6 Service TLVs observes the following rules when
advertising the received route to other peers:
o if the nexthop is unchanged during the advertisement, the SRv6
Service TLVs, including any unrecognized Types of Sub-TLV and Sub-
Sub-TLV, SHOULD be propagated further. In addition, all Reserved
fields in the TLV or Sub-TLV or Sub-Sub-TLV MUST be propagated
unchanged.
o if the nexthop is changed, the TLVs, Sub-TLVs, and Sub-Sub-TLVs
SHOULD be updated with the locally allocated SRv6 SID information.
Any unrecognized received Sub-TLVs and Sub-Sub-TLVs MUST be
removed.
3. SRv6 Service Sub-TLVs
The format of a single SRv6 Service Sub-TLV is depicted below:
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRv6 Service | SRv6 Service | SRv6 Service //
| Sub-TLV | Sub-TLV | Sub-TLV //
| Type | Length | value //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: SRv6 Service Sub-TLVs
o SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Type (1 octet): Identifies the type of SRv6
service information. It is assigned values from the IANA Registry
"SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Types".
o SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Length (2 octets): Specifies the total
length, in octets, of the Sub-TLV Value field.
o SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Value (variable): Contains data specific to
the Sub-TLV Type. In addition to fixed-length data, it contains
other properties of the SRv6 Service encoded as a set of SRv6
Service Data Sub-Sub-TLVs whose format is described in Section 3.2
below.
3.1. SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV
SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Type 1 is assigned for SRv6 SID Information Sub-
TLV. This Sub-TLV contains a single SRv6 SID along with its
properties. Its encoding is depicted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRv6 Service | SRv6 Service | |
| Sub-TLV | Sub-TLV | |
| Type=1 | Length | RESERVED1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRv6 SID Value (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Svc SID Flags | SRv6 Endpoint Behavior | RESERVED2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV
o SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Type (1 octet): This field is set to 1 to
represent SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
o SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Length (2 octets): This field contains the
total length, in octets, of the Value field of the Sub-TLV.
o RESERVED1 (1 octet): MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by
the receiver.
o SRv6 SID Value (16 octets): Encodes an SRv6 SID as defined in
[RFC8986]
o SRv6 Service SID Flags (1 octet): Encodes SRv6 Service SID Flags -
none are currently defined. SHOULD be set to 0 by the sender and
any unknown flags MUST be ignored by the receiver.
o SRv6 Endpoint Behavior (2 octets): Encodes SRv6 Endpoint behavior
codepoint value that is associated with SRv6 SID. The codepoints
used are from the "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior" registry under the IANA
"Segment Routing" parameters registry that was introduced by
[RFC8986]. The opaque endpoint behavior (i.e., value 0xFFFF) MAY
be used when the advertising router wishes to abstract the actual
behavior of it's locally instantiated SRv6 SID.
o RESERVED2 (1 octet): MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by
the receiver.
o SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Value (variable): Used to advertise
properties of the SRv6 SID. It is encoded as a set of SRv6
Service Data Sub-Sub-TLVs.
The choice of SRv6 Endpoint behavior of the SRv6 SID is entirely up
to the originator of the advertisement. While Section 5 and
Section 6 list the SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors that are normally expected
to be used by the specific route advertisements, the reception of
other SRv6 Endpoint behaviors (e.g., new behaviors that may be
introduced in the future) is not considered an error. An
unrecognized endpoint behavior MUST NOT be considered invalid by the
receiver except for behaviors that involve the use of arguments
(refer to Section 3.2.1 for details on argument validation). An
implementation MAY log a rate-limited warning when it receives an
unexpected behavior.
When multiple SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLVs are present, the ingress
PE SHOULD use the SRv6 SID from the first instance of the Sub-TLV.
An implementation MAY provide a local policy to override this
selection.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
3.2. SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLVs
The format of the SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV is depicted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Service Data | Sub-Sub-TLV Length |Sub-Sub TLV //
| Sub-Sub-TLV | | Value //
| Type | | //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLVs
o SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Type (1 octet): Identifies the type
of Sub-Sub-TLV. It is assigned values from the IANA Registry
"SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLVs".
o SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Length (2 octets): Specifies the
total length, in octets, of the Sub-Sub-TLV Value field.
o SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Value (variable): Contains data
specific to the Sub-Sub-TLV Type.
3.2.1. SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV
SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Type 1 is assigned for SRv6 SID
structure Sub-Sub-TLV. SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV is used to
advertise the lengths of the individual parts of the SRv6 SID as
defined in [RFC8986]. The terms Locator Block and Locator Node
correspond to the B and N parts respectively of the SRv6 Locator that
are defined in section 3.1 of [RFC8986]. It is carried as Sub-Sub-
TLV in SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRv6 Service | SRv6 Service | Locator Block |
| Data Sub-Sub | Data Sub-Sub-TLV | Length |
| -TLV Type=1 | Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Locator Node | Function | Argument | Transposition |
| Length | Length | Length | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transposition |
| Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV
o SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Type (1 octet): This field is set to
1 to represent SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV.
o SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Length (2 octets): This field
contains a total length of 6 octets.
o Locator Block Length (1 octet): Contains the length of SRv6 SID
Locator Block in bits.
o Locator Node Length (1 octet): Contains the length of SRv6 SID
Locator Node in bits.
o Function Length (1 octet): Contains the length of SRv6 SID
Function in bits.
o Argument Length (1 octet): Contains the length of SRv6 SID
Argument in bits.
o Transposition Length (1 octet): Size in bits for the part of SID
that has been transposed (or shifted) into a MPLS label field
o Transposition Offset (1 octet): The offset position in bits for
the part of SID that has been transposed (or shifted) into a MPLS
label field.
Section 4 describes mechanisms for signaling of the SRv6 Service SID
by transposing a variable part of the SRv6 SID value and carrying
them in existing MPLS label fields to achieve more efficient packing
of those service prefix NLRIs in BGP update messages. The SRv6 SID
Structure Sub-Sub-TLV contains appropriate length fields when the
SRv6 Service SID is signaled in split parts to enable the receiver to
put together the SID accurately.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
Transposition Offset indicates the bit position and Transposition
Length indicates the number of bits that are being taken out of the
SRv6 SID value and put into high order bits of MPLS label field. The
bits that have been shifted out MUST be set to 0 in the SID value.
Transposition Length of 0 indicates nothing is transposed and that
the entire SRv6 SID value is encoded in the SID Information Sub-TLV.
In this case, the Transposition Offset MUST be set to 0.
The size of the MPLS label field limits the bits transposed from the
SRv6 SID value into it. E.g., the size of MPLS label field in
[RFC4364] [RFC8277] is 20 bits while in [RFC7432] is 24 bits.
As defined in [RFC8986], the sum of the Locator Block Length (LBL),
Locator Node Length (LNL), Function Length (FL), and Argument Length
(AL) fields MUST be less than or equal to 128 and greater than the
sum of Transposition Offset and Transposition Length.
As an example, consider that the sum of the Locator Block and the
Locator Node parts is 64. For an SRv6 SID where the entire Function
part of size 16 bits is transposed, then the transposition offset is
set to 64 and the transposition length is set to 16. While for an
SRv6 SID where the Function length is 24 bits and only the lower
order 20 bits are transposed (e.g. due to the limit of the MPLS label
field size), then the transposition offset is set to 68 and the
transposition length is set to 20.
BGP speakers that do not support this specification may misinterpret,
on the reception of an SRv6-based BGP service route update, the part
of the SRv6 SID encoded in MPLS label field(s) as MPLS label values
for MPLS-based services. Implementations supporting this
specification MUST provide a mechanism to control the advertisement
of SRv6-based BGP service routes on a per-neighbor and per-service
basis. The details of deployment designs and implementation options
are outside the scope of this document.
Arguments may be generally applicable for SIDs of only specific SRv6
Endpoint behaviors (e.g., End.DT2M) and therefore the Argument length
MUST be set to 0 for SIDs where the Argument is not applicable. A
receiver is unable to validate the applicability of arguments for
SRv6 Endpoint behaviors that are unknown to it and hence MUST ignore
SRv6 SIDs with arguments (indicated by non-zero argument length) with
unknown endpoint behaviors. For SIDs corresponding to an endpoint
behavior that is known, a receiver MUST validate that the consistency
of the argument length with the specific endpoint behavior
definition.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
4. Encoding SRv6 SID Information
The SRv6 Service SID(s) for a BGP Service Prefix are carried in the
SRv6 Services TLVs of the BGP Prefix-SID Attribute.
For certain types of BGP Services like L3VPN where a per-VRF SID
allocation is used (i.e., End.DT4 or End.DT6 behaviors), the same SID
is shared across multiple NLRIs thus providing efficient packing.
However, for certain other types of BGP Services like EVPN VPWS where
a per-PW SID allocation is required (i.e., End.DX2 behavior), each
NLRI would have its own unique SID thereby resulting in inefficient
packing.
To achieve efficient packing, this document allows the encoding of
the SRv6 Service SID either as a whole in the SRv6 Services TLVs or
the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g., Locator)
in the SRv6 Services TLVs and encoding the variable (e.g., Function
or Argument parts) in the existing label fields specific to that
service encoding. This later form of encoding is referred to as the
Transposition Scheme where the SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV
describes the sizes of the parts of the SRv6 SID and also indicates
the offset of the variable part along with its length in SRv6 SID
value. The use of the Transposition Scheme is RECOMMENDED for the
specific service encodings that allow it as described further in
Section 5 and Section 6.
As an example, for the EVPN VPWS service prefix described further in
Section 6.1.2, the Function part of the SRv6 SID is encoded in the
MPLS Label field of the NLRI and the SID value in the SRv6 Services
TLV carries only the Locator part with the SRv6 SID Structure Sub-
Sub-TLV. The SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV defines the lengths of
Locator Block, Locator Node, and Function parts (Arguments are not
applicable for the End.DX2 behavior). Transposition Offset indicates
the bit position and Transposition Length indicates the number of
bits that are being taken out of the SID and put into the label
field.
In yet another example, for the EVPN Ethernet A-D per Ethernet
Segment (ES) route described further in Section 6.1.1, only the
Argument of the SID needs to be signaled. This Argument part of the
SRv6 SID MAY be transposed in the Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI)
Label field of the ESI Label Extended Community and the SID value in
the SRv6 Services TLV is set to 0 along with the inclusion of SRv6
SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV. The SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV
defines the lengths of Locator Block, Locator Node, Function and
Argument parts. The offset and length of the Argument part SID value
moved to label field is set in transposition offset and length of SID
structure TLV. The receiving router is then able to put together the
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
entire SRv6 Service SID (e.g., for the End.DT2M behavior) placing the
label value received in the ESI Label field of the Ethernet A-D per
ES route into the correct transposition offset and length in the SRv6
SID with the End.DT2M behavior received for an EVPN Route Type 3
value.
5. BGP based L3 Service over SRv6
BGP egress nodes (egress PEs) advertise a set of reachable prefixes.
Standard BGP update propagation schemes [RFC4271], which may make use
of route reflectors [RFC4456], are used to propagate these prefixes.
BGP ingress nodes (ingress PEs) receive these advertisements and may
add the prefix to the RIB in an appropriate VRF.
Egress PEs which supports SRv6 based L3 services advertises overlay
service prefixes along with a Service SID enclosed in an SRv6 L3
Service TLV within the BGP Prefix-SID Attribute. This TLV serves two
purposes - first, it indicates that the egress PE supports SRv6
overlay and the BGP ingress PE receiving this route MUST perform IPv6
encapsulation and insert an SRH [RFC8754] when required; second, it
indicates the value of the Service SID to be used in the
encapsulation.
The Service SID thus signaled only has local significance at the
egress PE, where it may be allocated or configured on a per-CE or
per-VRF basis. In practice, the SID may encode a cross-connect to a
specific Address Family table (End.DT) or next-hop/interface (End.DX)
as defined in [RFC8986].
The SRv6 Service SID SHOULD be routable (refer section 3.3 of
[RFC8986]) within the AS of the egress PE and serves the dual purpose
of providing reachability between ingress PE and egress PE while also
encoding the SRv6 Endpoint behavior.
When steering for SRv6 services is based on shortest path forwarding
(e.g., best-effort or IGP Flexible Algorithm
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]) to the egress PE, the ingress PE
encapsulates the IPv4 or IPv6 customer packet in an outer IPv6 header
(using H.Encaps or H.Encaps.Red flavors specified in [RFC8986]) where
the destination address is the SRv6 Service SID associated with the
related BGP route update. Therefore, the ingress PE MUST perform
resolvability check for the SRv6 Service SID before considering the
received prefix for the BGP best path computation. The resolvability
is evaluated as per [RFC4271]. If the SRv6 SID is reachable via more
than one forwarding table, local policy is used to determine which
table to use. The result of an SRv6 Service SID resolvability (e.g.,
when provided via IGP Flexible Algorithm) can be ignored if the
ingress PE has a local policy that allows an alternate steering
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
mechanism to reach the egress PE. The details of such steering
mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.
For service over SRv6 core, the egress PE sets the next-hop to one of
its IPv6 addresses. Such an address MAY be covered by the SRv6
Locator from which the SRv6 Service SID is allocated. The next-hop
is used for tracking the reachability of the egress PE based on
existing BGP procedures.
When the BGP route is received at an ingress PE is colored with a
Color Extended community and a valid SRv6 Policy is available, the
steering for service flows is performed as described in Section 8 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. When the ingress PE
determines (with the help of SRv6 SID Structure) that the Service SID
belongs to the same SRv6 Locator as the last SRv6 SID (of the egress
PE) in the SR Policy segment list, it MAY exclude that last SRv6 SID
when steering the service flow. For example, the effective segment
list of the SRv6 Policy associated with SID list <S1, S2, S3> would
be <S1, S2, S3-Service-SID>.
5.1. IPv4 VPN Over SRv6 Core
The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv4 VPN
Over IPv6 Core defined in [RFC8950].
Label field of IPv4-VPN NLRI is encoded as specified in [RFC8277]
with the 20-bit Label Value set to the whole or a portion of the
Function part of the SRv6 SID when the Transposition Scheme of
encoding (Section 4) is used and otherwise set to Implicit NULL.
When using the Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be
less than or equal to 20 and less than or equal to the Function
Length.
SRv6 Service SID is encoded as part of the SRv6 L3 Service TLV. The
SRv6 Endpoint behavior SHOULD be one of these: End.DX4, End.DT4,
End.DT46.
5.2. IPv6 VPN Over SRv6 Core
The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv6 VPN
over IPv6 Core is defined in [RFC4659].
Label field of the IPv6-VPN NLRI is encoded as specified in [RFC8277]
with the 20-bit Label Value set to the whole or a portion of the
Function part of the SRv6 SID when the Transposition Scheme of
encoding (Section 4) is used and otherwise set to Implicit NULL.
When using the Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
less than or equal to 20 and less than or equal to the Function
Length.
SRv6 Service SID is encoded as part of the SRv6 L3 Service TLV. The
SRv6 Endpoint behavior SHOULD be one of these: End.DX6, End.DT6,
End.DT46.
5.3. Global IPv4 over SRv6 Core
The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv4 over
IPv6 Core is defined in [RFC8950].
SRv6 Service SID is encoded as part of the SRv6 L3 Service TLV. The
SRv6 Endpoint behavior SHOULD be one of these: End.DX4, End.DT4,
End.DT46.
5.4. Global IPv6 over SRv6 Core
The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to [RFC2545]
SRv6 Service SID is encoded as part of the SRv6 L3 Service TLV. The
SRv6 Endpoint behavior SHOULD be one of these: End.DX6, End.DT6,
End.DT46.
6. BGP based Ethernet VPN (EVPN) over SRv6
[RFC7432] provides an extendable method of building an Ethernet VPN
(EVPN) overlay. It primarily focuses on MPLS based EVPNs and
[RFC8365] extends to IP-based EVPN overlays. [RFC7432] defines Route
Types 1, 2, and 3 which carry prefixes and MPLS Label fields; the
Label fields have a specific use for MPLS encapsulation of EVPN
traffic. Route Type 5 carrying MPLS label information (and thus
encapsulation information) for EVPN is defined in [RFC9136]. Route
Types 6, 7, and 8 are defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy].
o Ethernet Auto-discovery Route (Route Type 1)
o MAC/IP Advertisement Route (Route Type 2)
o Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route (Route Type 3)
o Ethernet Segment route (Route Type 4)
o IP prefix route (Route Type 5)
o Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag route (Route Type 6)
o Multicast Membership Report Synch route (Route Type 7)
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
o Multicast Leave Synch route (Route Type 8)
The specifications for other EVPN Route Types are outside the scope
of this document.
To support SRv6 based EVPN overlays, one or more SRv6 Service SIDs
are advertised with Route Type 1, 2, 3, and 5. The SRv6 Service
SID(s) per Route Type are advertised in SRv6 L3/L2 Service TLVs
within the BGP Prefix-SID Attribute. Signaling of SRv6 Service
SID(s) serves two purposes - first, it indicates that the BGP egress
device supports SRv6 overlay and the BGP ingress device receiving
this route MUST perform IPv6 encapsulation and insert an SRH
[RFC8754] when required; second, it indicates the value of the
Service SID(s) to be used in the encapsulation.
The SRv6 Service SID SHOULD be routable (refer section 3.3 of
[RFC8986]) within the AS of the egress PE and serves the dual purpose
of providing reachability between ingress PE and egress PE while also
encoding the SRv6 Endpoint behavior.
When steering for SRv6 services is based on shortest path forwarding
(e.g., best-effort or IGP Flexible Algorithm
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]) to the egress PE, the ingress PE
encapsulates the customer Layer 2 Ethernet packet in an outer IPv6
header (using H.Encaps.L2 or H.Encaps.L2.Red flavors specified in
[RFC8986]) where the destination address is the SRv6 Service SID
associated with the related BGP route update. Therefore, the ingress
PE MUST perform resolvability check for the SRv6 Service SID before
considering the received prefix for the BGP best path computation.
The resolvability is evaluated as per [RFC4271]. If the SRv6 SID is
reachable via more than one forwarding table, local policy is used to
determine which table to use. The result of an SRv6 Service SID
resolvability (e.g., when provided via IGP Flexible Algorithm) can be
ignored if the ingress PE has a local policy that allows an alternate
steering mechanism to reach the egress PE. The details of such
steering mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.
For service over SRv6 core, the egress PE sets the next-hop to one of
its IPv6 addresses. Such an address MAY be covered by the SRv6
Locator from which the SRv6 Service SID is allocated. The next-hop
is used for tracking the reachability of the egress PE based on
existing BGP procedures.
When the BGP route is received at an ingress PE is colored with a
Color Extended community and a valid SRv6 Policy is available, the
steering for service flows is performed as described in Section 8 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. When the ingress PE
determines (with the help of SRv6 SID Structure) that the Service SID
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
belongs to the same SRv6 Locator as the last SRv6 SID (of the egress
PE) in the SR Policy segment list, it MAY exclude that last SRv6 SID
when steering the service flow. For example, the effective segment
list of the SRv6 Policy associated with SID list <S1, S2, S3> would
be <S1, S2, S3-Service-SID>.
6.1. Ethernet Auto-discovery Route over SRv6 Core
Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) routes are Route Type 1 defined in
[RFC7432] and may be used to achieve split-horizon filtering, fast
convergence, and aliasing. EVPN Route Type 1 is also used in EVPN-
VPWS as well as in EVPN flexible cross-connect; mainly used to
advertise point-to-point services ID.
As a reminder, EVPN Route Type 1 is encoded as follows:
+---------------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
|Ethernet Segment Identifier (10 octets)|
+---------------------------------------+
| Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| MPLS label (3 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
Figure 6: EVPN Route Type 1
6.1.1. Ethernet A-D per ES Route
Ethernet A-D per ES route NLRI encoding over SRv6 core is as per
[RFC7432].
The 24-bit ESI label field of the ESI label extended community
carries the whole or a portion of the Argument part of the SRv6 SID
when the ESI filtering approach is used along with the Transposition
Scheme of encoding (Section 4) and otherwise set to Implicit NULL
value. In either case, the value is set in the high order 20 bits
(e.g., as 0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL). When using the
Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be less than or
equal to 24 and less than or equal to the Argument Length.
A Service SID enclosed in an SRv6 L2 Service TLV within the BGP
Prefix-SID attribute is advertised along with the A-D route. The
SRv6 Endpoint behavior SHOULD be End.DT2M. When the ESI filtering
approach is used, the Service SID is used to signal Arg.FE2 SID
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
Argument for applicable End.DT2M behavior [RFC8986]. When the local-
bias approach [RFC8365] is used, the Service SID MAY be of value 0.
6.1.2. Ethernet A-D per EVI Route
Ethernet A-D per EVI route NLRI encoding over SRv6 core is similar to
[RFC7432] and [RFC8214] with the following change:
o MPLS Label: 24-bit field carries the whole or a portion of the
Function part of the SRv6 SID when the Transposition Scheme of
encoding (Section 4) is used and otherwise set to Implicit NULL
value. In either case, the value is set in the high order 20 bits
(e.g., as 0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL). When using the
Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be less than
or equal to 24 and less than or equal to the Function Length.
A Service SID enclosed in an SRv6 L2 Service TLV within the BGP
Prefix-SID attribute is advertised along with the A-D route. The
SRv6 Endpoint behavior SHOULD be one of these: End.DX2, End.DX2V,
End.DT2U.
6.2. MAC/IP Advertisement Route over SRv6 Core
EVPN Route Type 2 is used to advertise unicast traffic MAC+IP address
reachability through MP-BGP to all other PEs in a given EVPN
instance.
As a reminder, EVPN Route Type 2 is encoded as follows:
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
+---------------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
|Ethernet Segment Identifier (10 octets)|
+---------------------------------------+
| Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| MAC Address Length (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+
| MAC Address (6 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| IP Address Length (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+
| IP Address (0, 4, or 16 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| MPLS Label1 (3 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| MPLS Label2 (0 or 3 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
Figure 7: EVPN Route Type 2
NLRI encoding over SRv6 core is similar to [RFC7432] with the
following changes:
o MPLS Label1: Is associated with the SRv6 L2 Service TLV. This
24-bit field carries the whole or a portion of the Function part
of the SRv6 SID when the Transposition Scheme of encoding
(Section 4) is used and otherwise set to Implicit NULL value. In
either case, the value is set in the high order 20 bits (e.g., as
0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL). When using the
Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be less than
or equal to 24 and less than or equal to the Function Length.
o MPLS Label2: Is associated with the SRv6 L3 Service TLV. This
24-bit field carries the whole or a portion of the Function part
of the SRv6 SID when the Transposition Scheme of encoding
(Section 4) is used and otherwise set to Implicit NULL value. In
either case, the value is set in the high order 20 bits (e.g., as
0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL). When using the
Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be less than
or equal to 24 and less than or equal to the Function Length.
Service SIDs enclosed in SRv6 L2 Service TLV and optionally in SRv6
L3 Service TLV within the BGP Prefix-SID attribute is advertised
along with the MAC/IP Advertisement route.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
Described below are different types of Route Type 2 advertisements.
6.2.1. MAC/IP Advertisement Route with MAC Only
o MPLS Label1: Is associated with the SRv6 L2 Service TLV. This
24-bit field carries the whole or a portion of the Function part
of the SRv6 SID when the Transposition Scheme of encoding
(Section 4) is used and otherwise set to Implicit NULL value. In
either case, the value is set in the high order 20 bits (e.g., as
0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL). When using the
Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be less than
or equal to 24 and less than or equal to the Function Length.
A Service SID enclosed in an SRv6 L2 Service TLV within the BGP
Prefix-SID attribute is advertised along with the route. The SRv6
Endpoint behavior SHOULD be one of these: End.DX2, End.DT2U.
6.2.2. MAC/IP Advertisement Route with MAC+IP
o MPLS Label1: Is associated with the SRv6 L2 Service TLV. This
24-bit field carries the whole or a portion of the Function part
of the SRv6 SID when the Transposition Scheme of encoding
(Section 4) is used and otherwise set to Implicit NULL value. In
either case, the value is set in the high order 20 bits (e.g., as
0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL). When using the
Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be less than
or equal to 24 and less than or equal to the Function Length.
o MPLS Label2: Is associated with the SRv6 L3 Service TLV. This
24-bit field carries the whole or a portion of the Function part
of the SRv6 SID when the Transposition Scheme of encoding
(Section 4) is used and otherwise set to Implicit NULL value. In
either case, the value is set in the high order 20 bits (e.g., as
0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL). When using the
Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be less than
or equal to 24 and less than or equal to the Function Length.
An L2 Service SID enclosed in an SRv6 L2 Service TLV within the BGP
Prefix-SID attribute is advertised along with the route. In
addition, an L3 Service SID enclosed in an SRv6 L3 Service TLV within
the BGP Prefix-SID attribute MAY also be advertised along with the
route. The SRv6 Endpoint behavior SHOULD be one of these: for the L2
Service SID - End.DX2, End.DT2U; for the L3 Service SID - End.DT46,
End.DT4, End.DT6, End.DX4, End.DX6.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
6.3. Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route over SRv6 Core
EVPN Route Type 3 is used to advertise multicast traffic reachability
information through MP-BGP to all other PEs in a given EVPN instance.
As a reminder, EVPN Route Type 3 is encoded as follows:
+---------------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| IP Address Length (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+
| Originating Router's IP Address |
| (4 or 16 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
Figure 8: EVPN Route Type 3
NLRI encoding over SRv6 core is similar to [RFC7432].
PMSI Tunnel Attribute [RFC6514] is used to identify the P-tunnel used
for sending broadcast, unknown unicast, or multicast (BUM) traffic.
The format of PMSI Tunnel Attribute is encoded as follows over SRv6
Core:
+---------------------------------------+
| Flag (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Type (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+
| MPLS label (3 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Identifier (variable) |
+---------------------------------------+
Figure 9: PMSI Tunnel Attribute
o Flag: zero value defined per [RFC7432]
o Tunnel Type: defined per [RFC6514]
o MPLS label: This 24-bit field carries the whole or a portion of
the Function part of the SRv6 SID when ingress replication is used
and the Transposition Scheme of encoding (Section 4) is used and
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
otherwise, it is set as defined in [RFC6514]. When using the
Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be less than
or equal to 24 and less than or equal to the Function Length.
o Tunnel Identifier: IP address of egress PE
A Service SID enclosed in an SRv6 L2 Service TLV within the BGP
Prefix-SID attribute is advertised along with the route. The SRv6
Endpoint behavior SHOULD be End.DT2M.
o When ESI-based filtering is used for Multi-Homing or E-Tree
procedures, the ESI Filtering Argument (the Arg.FE2 notation
introduced in [RFC8986]) of the Service SID carried along with
EVPN Route Type 1 route SHOULD be merged with the applicable
End.DT2M SID of Type 3 route advertised by remote PE by doing a
bit-wise logical-OR operation to create a single SID on the
ingress PE. Details of split-horizon ESI-based filtering
mechanisms for multihoming are described in [RFC7432]. Details of
filtering mechanisms for Leaf-originated BUM traffic in EVPN
E-Tree services are provided in [RFC8317].
o When "local-bias" is used as the Multi-Homing split-horizon
method, the ESI Filtering Argument SHOULD NOT be merged with the
corresponding End.DT2M SID on the ingress PE. Details of the
"local-bias" procedures are described in [RFC8365].
Usage of multicast trees as P-tunnels is outside the scope of this
document.
6.4. Ethernet Segment Route over SRv6 Core
As a reminder, an Ethernet Segment route (i.e., EVPN Route Type 4) is
encoded as follows:
+---------------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| IP Address Length (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+
| Originating Router's IP Address |
| (4 or 16 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
Figure 10: EVPN Route Type 4
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
NLRI encoding over SRv6 core is similar to [RFC7432].
SRv6 Service TLVs within the BGP Prefix-SID attribute are not
advertised along with this route. The processing of the route has
not changed - it remains as described in [RFC7432].
6.5. IP Prefix Route over SRv6 Core
EVPN Route Type 5 is used to advertise IP address reachability
through MP-BGP to all other PEs in a given EVPN instance. The IP
address may include a host IP prefix or any specific subnet.
As a reminder, EVPN Route Type 5 is encoded as follows:
+---------------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
|Ethernet Segment Identifier (10 octets)|
+---------------------------------------+
| Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| IP Prefix Length (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+
| IP Prefix (4 or 16 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| GW IP Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| MPLS Label (3 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
Figure 11: EVPN Route Type 5
NLRI encoding over SRv6 core is similar to [RFC9136] with the
following change:
o MPLS Label: This 24-bit field carries the whole or a portion of
the Function part of the SRv6 SID when the Transposition Scheme of
encoding (Section 4) is used and otherwise set to Implicit NULL
value. In either case, the value is set in the high order 20 bits
(e.g., as 0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL). When using the
Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be less than
or equal to 24 and less than or equal to the Function Length.
SRv6 Service SID is encoded as part of the SRv6 L3 Service TLV. The
SRv6 Endpoint behavior SHOULD be one of these: End.DT4, End.DT6,
End.DT46, End.DX4, End.DX6.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
6.6. EVPN Multicast Routes (Route Types 6, 7, 8) over SRv6 Core
These routes do not require the advertisement of SRv6 Service TLVs
along with them. Similar to EVPN Route Type 4, the BGP Nexthop is
equal to the IPv6 address of egress PE.
7. Implementation Status
[Note to RFC Editor: This section needs to be removed before
publication as RFC.]
The [I-D.matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status] describes the
current deployment and implementation status of SRv6 which also
includes the BGP services over SRv6 as specified in this document.
8. Error Handling
In case of any errors encountered while processing SRv6 Service TLVs,
the details of the error SHOULD be logged for further analysis.
If multiple instances of SRv6 L3 Service TLV are encountered, all but
the first instance MUST be ignored.
If multiple instances of SRv6 L2 Service TLV are encountered, all but
the first instance MUST be ignored.
An SRv6 Service TLV is considered malformed in the following cases:
o the TLV Length is less than 1
o the TLV Length is inconsistent with the length of BGP Prefix-SID
attribute
o at least one of the constituent Sub-TLVs is malformed
An SRv6 Service Sub-TLV is considered malformed in the following
cases:
o the Sub-TLV Length is inconsistent with the length of the
enclosing SRv6 Service TLV
An SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV is considered malformed in the
following cases:
* the Sub-TLV Length is less than 21
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
* the Sub-TLV Length is inconsistent with the length of the
enclosing SRv6 Service TLV
* at least one of the constituent Sub-Sub-TLVs is malformed
An SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV is considered malformed in the
following cases:
o the Sub-Sub-TLV Length is inconsistent with the length of the
enclosing SRv6 service Sub-TLV
Any TLV or Sub-TLV or Sub-Sub-TLV is not considered malformed because
its Type is unrecognized.
Any TLV or Sub-TLV or Sub-Sub-TLV is not considered malformed because
of failing any semantic validation of its Value field.
SRv6 overlay service requires Service SID for forwarding. The treat-
as-withdraw action [RFC7606] MUST be performed when at least one
malformed SRV6 Service TLV is present in the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute.
SRv6 SID value in SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV is invalid when SID
Structure Sub-Sub-TLV transposition length is greater than the number
of bits of the label field or if any of the conditions for the fields
of the sub-sub-TLV as specified in Section 3.2.1 is not met. The
transposition offset and length MUST be 0 when the Sub-Sub-TLV is
advertised along with routes where transposition scheme is not
applicable (e.g., for Global IPv6 Service [RFC2545] where there is no
label field). The path having such Prefix-SID Attribute without any
valid SRv6 SID information MUST be considered ineligible during the
selection of the best path for the corresponding prefix.
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types Registry
This document introduces two new TLV Types of the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute. IANA has assigned Type values in the registry "BGP
Prefix-SID TLV Types" as follows:
Value Type Reference
--------------------------------------------
4 Deprecated <this document>
5 SRv6 L3 Service TLV <this document>
6 SRv6 L2 Service TLV <this document>
Figure 12: BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
The value 4 previously corresponded to the SRv6-VPN SID TLV, which
was specified in previous versions of this document and used by early
implementations of this specification. It was deprecated and
replaced by the SRv6 L3 Service and SRv6 L2 Service TLVs.
9.2. SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Types Registry
IANA is requested to create and maintain a new registry called "SRv6
Service Sub-TLV Types" under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Parameters" registry. The allocation policy for this registry is:
0 : Reserved
1-127 : IETF Review
128-254 : First Come First Served
255 : Reserved
Figure 13: SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Types Allocation Policy
The following Sub-TLV Type is defined in this document:
Value Type Reference
----------------------------------------------------
1 SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV <this document>
Figure 14: SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Types
9.3. SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Types Registry
IANA is requested to create and maintain a new registry called "SRv6
Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Types" under the "Border Gateway Protocol
(BGP) Parameters" registry. The allocation policy for this registry
is:
0 : Reserved
1-127 : IETF Review
128-254 : First Come First Served
255 : Reserved
Figure 15: SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Types Allocation Policy
The following Sub-Sub-TLV Type is defined in this document:
Value Type Reference
----------------------------------------------------
1 SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV <this document>
Figure 16: SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Types
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
9.4. BGP SRv6 Service SID Flags Registry
IANA is requested to create and maintain a new registry called "BGP
SRv6 Service SID Flags" under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Parameters" registry. The allocation policy for this registry is
IETF Review and all 8 bit positions of the flags are currently
unassigned.
9.5. Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters Registry
IANA is requested to add this document as a reference for value 128
in the "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters"
registry.
10. Security Considerations
This document specifies extensions to the BGP protocol for signaling
of services for SRv6. These specifications leverage existing BGP
protocol mechanisms for the signaling of various types of services.
It also builds upon existing elements of the SR architecture (more
specifically SRv6). As such, this section largely provides pointers
(as a reminder) to the security considerations of those existing
specifications while also covering certain newer security aspects for
the specifications newly introduced by this document.
10.1. BGP Session Related Considerations
Techniques related to authentication of BGP sessions for securing
messages between BGP peers as discussed in the BGP specification
[RFC4271] and, in the security analysis for BGP [RFC4272] apply. The
discussion of the use of the TCP Authentication option to protect BGP
sessions is found in [RFC5925], while [RFC6952] includes an analysis
of BGP keying and authentication issues. This document does not
introduce any additional BGP session security considerations.
10.2. BGP Services Related Considerations
This document does not introduce new services or BGP NLRI types but
extends the signaling of existing ones for SRv6. Therefore, the
security considerations for the respective BGP services BGP IPv4 over
IPv6 NH [RFC8950], BGP IPv6 L3VPN [RFC4659], BGP IPv6 [RFC2545], BGP
EVPN [RFC7432] and IP EVPN [RFC9136] apply as discussed in their
respective documents. [RFC8669] discusses mechanisms to prevent
leaking of BGP Prefix-SID attribute, that carries SR information,
outside the SR domain.
As a reminder, several of the BGP services (i.e., the AFI/SAFI used
for their signaling) were initially introduced for one encapsulation
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
mechanism and later extended for others e.g., EVPN MPLS [RFC7432] was
extended for VXLAN/NVGRE encapsulation [RFC8365]. [RFC9012] enables
the use of various IP encapsulation mechanisms along with different
BGP SAFIs for their respective services. The existing filtering
mechanisms for preventing the leak of the encapsulation information
(carried in BGP attributes) and to prevent the advertisement of
prefixes from the provider's internal address space (especially the
SRv6 Block as discussed in [RFC8986]) to external peers (or into the
Internet) also apply in the case of SRv6.
Specific to SRv6, a misconfig or error in the above mentioned BGP
filtering mechanisms may result in exposing information such as SRv6
Service SIDs to external peers or other unauthorized entities.
However, an attempt to exploit this information or to raise an attack
by injecting packets into the network (e.g. customer networks in case
of VPN services) is mitigated by the existing SRv6 data plane
security mechanisms as described in the next section.
10.3. SR over IPv6 Data Plane Related Considerations
This section provides a brief reminder and an overview of the
security considerations related to SRv6 with pointers to existing
specifications. This document introduces no new security
considerations of its own from the SRv6 data plane perspective.
SRv6 operates within a trusted SR domain. The data packets
corresponding to service flows between PE routers are encapsulated
(using SRv6 SIDs advertised via BGP) and carried within this trusted
SR domain (e.g., within a single AS or between multiple ASes within a
single provider network).
The security considerations of the Segment Routing architecture are
covered by [RFC8402]. More detailed security considerations
specifically of SRv6 and SRH are covered by [RFC8754] as they relate
to SR Attacks (section 7.1), Service Theft (section 7.2) and Topology
Disclosure (section 7.3). As such an operator deploying SRv6 MUST
follow the considerations described in [RFC8754] section 7 to
implement the infrastructure ACLs, BCP 38 [RFC2827] and BCP 84
[RFC3704] recommendations.
The SRv6 deployment and SID allocation guidelines as described in
[RFC8986] simplify the deployment of the ACL filters (e.g., a single
ACL corresponding to the SRv6 Block applied to the external
interfaces on border nodes is sufficient to block packets destined to
any SRv6 SID in the domain from external/unauthorized networks).
While there is an assumed trust model within a SR domain such that
any node sending packet to an SRv6 SID is assumed to be allowed to do
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
so, there is also the option of using SRH HMAC TLV [RFC8754] as
described in [RFC8986] for validation.
The SRv6 SID Endpoint behaviors implementing the services signalled
in this document are defined in [RFC8986] and hence the security
considerations of that document apply. These considerations are
independent of the protocol used for service deployment, i.e.
independent of BGP signaling of SRv6 services.
These considerations help protect transit traffic as well as
services, such as VPNs, to avoid service theft or injection of
traffic into customer VPN.
11. Acknowledgments
The authors of this document would like to thank Stephane Litkowski,
Rishabh Parekh, Xiejingrong, Rajesh M, Mustapha Aissaoui, Alexander
Vainshtein, Eduard Metz, Shraddha Hegde, Eduard Vasilenko, Ron
Bonica, and Joel Halpern for their comments and review of this
document. The authors would also like to thank Matthew Bocci for his
document shepherd review and Martin Vigoureux for his AD review that
resulted in helpful comments for improving this document.
12. Contributors
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Satoru Matsushima
SoftBank
Email: satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp
Dirk Steinberg
Steinberg Consulting
Email: dirk@lapishills.com
Daniel Bernier
Bell Canada
Email: daniel.bernier@bell.ca
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Jonn Leddy
Individual
Email: john@leddy.net
Swadesh Agrawal
Cisco
Email: swaagraw@cisco.com
Patrice Brissette
Cisco
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Bart Peirens
Proximus
Belgium
Email: bart.peirens@proximus.com
Darren Dukes
Cisco
Email: ddukes@cisco.com
Pablo Camarilo
Cisco
Email: pcamaril@cisco.com
Shyam Sethuram
Cisco
Email: shyam.ioml@gmail.com
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
Zafar Ali
Cisco
Email: zali@cisco.com
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]
Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Mishra, M., Drake, J., and W.
Lin, "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-
igmp-mld-proxy-20 (work in progress), March 2022.
[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>.
[RFC2545] Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol
Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2545, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2545>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[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>.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4659>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[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>.
[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
[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>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8214] Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J.
Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet
VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>.
[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>.
[RFC8317] Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Drake, J., Uttaro, J.,
Boutros, S., and J. Rabadan, "Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree)
Support in Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and Provider Backbone
Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 8317, DOI 10.17487/RFC8317,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8317>.
[RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
[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>.
[RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,
A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8950] Litkowski, S., Agrawal, S., Ananthamurthy, K., and K.
Patel, "Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability
Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop", RFC 8950,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8950, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8950>.
[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>.
[RFC9136] Rabadan, J., Ed., Henderickx, W., Drake, J., Lin, W., and
A. Sajassi, "IP Prefix Advertisement in Ethernet VPN
(EVPN)", RFC 9136, DOI 10.17487/RFC9136, October 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9136>.
13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,
Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing
Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-
policy-16 (work in progress), March 2022.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
algo-18 (work in progress), October 2021.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
[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-21 (work in progress),
March 2022.
[I-D.matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status]
Matsushima, S., Filsfils, C., Ali, Z., Li, Z., Rajaraman,
K., and A. Dhamija, "SRv6 Implementation and Deployment
Status", draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-13
(work in progress), March 2022.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, DOI 10.17487/RFC3704, March
2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3704>.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[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>.
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services March 2022
Authors' Addresses
Gaurav Dawra (editor)
LinkedIn
USA
Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com
Ketan Talaulikar (editor)
Cisco Systems
India
Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
Robert Raszuk
NTT Network Innovations
940 Stewart Dr
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
USA
Email: robert@raszuk.net
Bruno Decraene
Orange
France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
USA
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Dawra, et al. Expires September 23, 2022 [Page 34]
