Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment
Interdomain Routing Working Group C. Li
Internet-Draft Z. Li
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: 22 August 2024 Y. Yin
China Telecom
W. Cheng
China Mobile
K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
19 February 2024
SR Policy Extensions for Path Segment and Bidirectional Path
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-09
Abstract
A Segment Routing (SR) policy is a set of candidate SR paths
consisting of one or more segment lists with necessary path
attributes. For each SR path, it may also have its own path
attributes, and Path Segment is one of them. A Path Segment is
defined to identify an SR path, which can be used for performance
measurement, path correlation, and end-2-end path protection. Path
Segment can be also used to correlate two unidirectional SR paths
into a bidirectional SR path which is required in some scenarios, for
example, mobile backhaul transport network.
This document defines extensions to BGP to distribute SR policies
carrying Path Segment and bidirectional path information.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP February 2024
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 22 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Path Segment in SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. SR Path Segment Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. SR Policy for Bidirectional Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Reverse Path Segment List Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Existing Registry: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP February 2024
1. Introduction
Segment routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a source routing paradigm that
explicitly indicates the forwarding path for packets at the ingress
node. The ingress node steers packets into a specific path according
to the Segment Routing Policy ( SR Policy) as defined in [RFC9256].
For distributing SR policies to the headend, [RFC9256] specifies a
mechanism by using BGP, and new sub-TLVs are defined for SR Policies
in BGP UPDATE message.
In many use cases such as performance measurement, the path to which
the packets belong is required to be identified. Futhermore, in some
scenarios, for example, mobile backhaul transport network, there are
requirements to support bidirectional path. However, there is no
path identification information for each Segment List in the SR
Policies defined in [RFC9256]. Also, the SR Policies defined in
[RFC9256] only supports unidirectional SR paths.
Therefore, this document defines the extension to SR policies that
carry Path Segment in the Segment List and support bidirectional
path. The Path Segment can be a Path Segment in SR-MPLS
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment] and SRv6
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment], or other IDs that can identify a
path. Also, this document defines extensions to BGP to distribute SR
policies carrying Path Segment and bidirectional path information.
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8402] and [RFC9256].
2.1. 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.
3. Path Segment in SR Policy
As defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] , the SR
Policy encoding structure is as follows:
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP February 2024
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
Attributes:
Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
Tunnel Type: SR Policy
Binding SID
Preference
Priority
Policy Name
Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
Segment List
Weight
Segment
Segment
...
...
An SR path can be specified by an Segment List sub-TLV that contains
a set of segment sub-TLVs and other sub-TLVs as shown above. As
defined in [RFC9256], a candidate path includes multiple SR paths
specified by SID list. The Path Segment can be used for identifying
an SR path(specified by SID list) from the headend and the tailend.
Also, it can be used for identifying an SR candidate path in some use
cases if needed. This document defines a new Path Segment sub-TLV
within Segment List sub-TLV, the details will be described at section
3.1. The new SR Policy encoding structure with Path Segmentg sub-TLV
is expressed as below:
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP February 2024
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
Attributes:
Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
Tunnel Type: SR Policy
Binding SID
Preference
Priority
Policy Name
Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
Segment List
Weight
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
Segment List
Weight
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
...
The Path Segment is used to identified an SR path, and it can be used
in OAM or IOAM use cases. When all the SID Lists within a candidate
path share the same Path Segment ID, the Path Segment can be used to
collect the aggregated information of the candidate path. Multiple
Path Segment MAY be included in a Segment List for different use
cases, all of them SHOULD be inserted into the SID List.
3.1. SR Path Segment Sub-TLV
This section defines an SR Path Segment sub-TLV.
An SR Path Segment sub-TLV is included in the segment list sub-TLV to
identify an SID list. It has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Path Segment ID (Variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure (optional) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1. Path Segment sub-TLV
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP February 2024
Where:
* Type: to be assigned by IANA.
* Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and
Length fields.
* Flags: 8 bits of flags. Following flags are defined:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Reserved |B |L |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
* - L-Flag: Local flag. Set when the Path Segment has local
significance on an SR node.
- B-Flag: This flag, when set, indicates the presence of the SRv6
Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure encoding specified in
Section 2.4.4.2.13 of [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
It MUST be ignored when the value of length field is smaller
than 18.
- The rest bits of Flag are reserved and MUST be set to 0 on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
* Path Segment ID: if the length is 2, then no Path Segment ID is
present. If the length is 6 then the Path Segment ID is encoded
in 4 octets [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment] using the format
below. TC, S, TTL (Total of 12 bits) are RESERVED and SHOULD be
set to zero and MUST be ignored.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Path Segment Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2. SR-MPLS Path Segment sub-TLV
If the length is 18 then the Path Segment ID contains a 16-octet SRv6
Path Segment ID [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment].
If the length is larger than 18 and B-flag is set, then SRv6 Endpoint
Behavior and SID Structure TLVs
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] is included.
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP February 2024
4. SR Policy for Bidirectional Path
In some scenarios, for example, mobile backhaul transport network,
there are requirements to support bidirectional path. In SR, a
bidirectional path can be represented as a binding of two
unidirectional SR paths. This document also defines a Reverse
Segment List sub-TLV to describe the reverse path associated with the
forward path specified by the Segment List. An SR policy carrying SR
bidirectional path information is expressed as below:
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
Attributes: Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
Tunnel Type: SR Policy
Binding SID
Preference
Priority
Policy Name
Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
Segment List
Weight
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
Reverse Segment List
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
4.1. Reverse Path Segment List Sub-TLV
A Reverse Path Segment List sub-TLV is defined to specify an SR
reverse path associated with the path specified by the Segment List,
and it has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLVs (Variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3. SR Reverse Path Segment List Sub-TLV
where:
Type: TBA.
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP February 2024
Length: the total length of the sub-TLVs encoded within the Reverse
Path Segment List Sub-TLV not including the Type and Length fields.
RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
sub-TLVs, reuse the sub-TLVs in Segment List defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
* One or more mandatory SR Path Segment sub-TLVs that contains the
Path Segments of the reverse SR path.
* One or more Segment sub-TLVs to specify the reverse SR path.
The Segment sub-TLVs in the Reverse Path Segment List sub-TLV
provides the information of the reverse SR path, which can be used
for directing egress BFD peer to use specific path for the reverse
direction of the BFD session [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed] or other
applications.
5. Operations
The document does not bring new operation beyond the description of
operations defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]. The
existing operations defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] can apply to this document
directly.
Typically but not limit to, the unidirectional or bidirectional SR
policies carrying path identification infomation are configured by a
controller.
After configuration, the unidirectional or bidirectional SR policies
carrying path identification infomation will be advertised by BGP
update messages. The operation of advertisement is the same as
defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], as well as the
reception.
The consumer of the unidirectional or bidirectional SR policies is
not the BGP process, it can be any applications, such as performance
measurement [I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm]. The operation of sending
information to consumers is out of scope of this document.
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines new Sub-TLVs in following registries:
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP February 2024
6.1. Existing Registry: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs
This document defines new sub-TLVs in the registry "SR Policy List
Sub-TLVs" [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] to be assigned by
IANA:
Codepoint Description Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------
TBA Path Segment sub-TLV This document
TBA Reverse Segment List sub-TLV This document
7. Security Considerations
TBA
8. Contributors
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP February 2024
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: Mach.chen@huawei.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
James N Guichard
Futurewei Technologies
2330 Central Express Way
Santa Clara
USA
Email: james.n.guichard@futurewei.com
Huanan Chen
China Telecom
109 West Zhongshan Ave
Guangzhou
China
Email: chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn
9. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Shraddha Hedge for her detailed review and
professional comments.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., and
D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP February 2024
routing-te-policy-26, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
segment-routing-te-policy-26>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]
Cheng, W., Li, H., Li, C., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler,
"Path Segment Identifier in MPLS Based Segment Routing
Network", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
spring-mpls-path-segment-22, 30 November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
mpls-path-segment-22>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment]
Li, C., Cheng, W., Chen, M., Dhody, D., and Y. Zhu, "Path
Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-
segment-07, 19 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
srv6-path-segment-07>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm]
Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Salsano, S., Ventre,
P. L., and M. Chen, "UDP Path for In-band Performance
Measurement for Segment Routing Networks", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-02,
14 September 2018, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-02>.
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP February 2024
[I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed]
Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return
Path for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-25,
31 December 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-25>.
Authors' Addresses
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: c.l@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Yuanyang Yin
China Telecom
Guangzhou
China
Email: yinyuany@chinatelecom.cn
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
Li, et al. Expires 22 August 2024 [Page 12]
