Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam
draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam
Routing area S. Hegde
Internet-Draft M. Srivastava
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks Inc.
Expires: 19 July 2024 K. Arora
S. Ninan
Individual Contributor
X. Xu
China Mobile
16 January 2024
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR)
Egress Peer Engineering Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes
draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-12
Abstract
Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) is an application of Segment Routing to
solve the problem of egress peer selection. The Segment Routing
based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized controller, e.g. a
Software Defined Network (SDN) controller to program any egress peer.
The EPE solution requires a node to program the PeerNode Segment
Identifier(SID) describing a session between two nodes, the PeerAdj
SID describing the link (one or more) that is used by sessions
between peer nodes, and the PeerSet SID describing an arbitrary set
of sessions or links between a local node and its peers. This
document provides new sub-TLVs for EPE Segment Identifiers (SID) that
would be used in the MPLS Target stack TLV (Type 1), in MPLS Ping and
Traceroute procedures.
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 19 July 2024.
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. PeerNode SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. PeerSet SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. EPE-SID FEC validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. EPE-SID FEC validiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Juniper Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) as defined in [RFC9087] is an effective
mechanism to select the egress peer link based on different criteria.
In this scenario, egress peers may belong to a completely different
administration. The EPE-SIDs provide means to represent egress peer
nodes, links set of links and set of nodes. Many network deployments
have built their networks consisting of multiple Autonomous Systems,
either for the ease of operations or as a result of network mergers
and acquisitons. The inter-AS links connecting any two Autonomous
Systems could be traffic engineered using EPE-SIDs in this case,
where there is single ownership but different AS numbers. It is
important to be able to validate the control plane to forwarding
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
plane synchronization for these SIDs so that any anomaly can be
detected easily by the operator.
+---------+ +------+
| | | |
| H B------D G
| | +---/| AS 2 |\ +------+
| |/ +------+ \ | |---L/8
A AS1 C---+ \| |
| |\\ \ +------+ /| AS 4 |---M/8
| | \\ +-E |/ +------+
| X | \\ | K
| | +===F AS 3 |
+---------+ +------+
Figure 1: Reference Diagram
In this reference diagram, EPE-SIDs are advertised from AS1 to AS2
and AS3. In certain cases the EPE-SIDs advertised by the control
plane may not be in synchronization with the label programmed in the
data-plane. For example, on C a PeerAdj SID could be advertised to
indicate it is for the link C->D. Due to some software anomaly the
actual data forwarding on this PeerAdj SID could be happening over
the C->E link. If E had relevant data paths for further forwarding
the packet, this kind of anomalies will go unnoticed by the operator.
A FEC definition for the EPE-SIDs will define the details of the
control plane association of the SID. The data plane validation of
the SID will be done during the MPLS trace route procedure. When
there is a multi-hop EBGP session between the ASBRs, PeerNode SID is
advertised and the traffic MAY be load-balanced between the
interfaces connecting the two nodes. In the reference diagram C and
F could have a PeerNode-SID advertised. When the OAM packet is
received on F, it needs to validate that the packet came on one of
the two interfaces connected to C.
This document provides Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)
stack TLV definitions for EPE-SIDs. This solution requires that the
node constructing the target FEC stack is able to determine the type
of the SIDs along the path of the LSP. Other procedures for MPLS
Ping and Traceroute as defined in [RFC8287] section 7 and clarified
by [RFC8690] are applicable for EPE-SIDs as well.
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
2. Theory of Operation
[RFC9086] provides mechanisms to advertise the EPE-SIDs in BGP-LS.
These EPE-SIDs may be used to build Segment Routing paths as
described in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] or using Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) extensions as defined in
[RFC8664]. Data plane monitoring for such paths which consist of
EPE-SIDs will use extensions defined in this document to build the
Target FEC stack TLV. The MPLS Ping and Traceroute procedures MAY be
initiated by the head-end of the Segment Routing path or a
centralized topology-aware data plane monitoring system as described
in [RFC8403]. The extensions in
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] and [RFC8664] do not define
how to carry the details of the SID that can be used to construct the
FEC. Such extensions are out of scope for this document. The node
initiating the data plane monitoring may acquire the details of EPE-
SIDs through BGP-LS advertisements as described in [RFC9086]. There
may be other possible mechanisms to learn the definition of the SID
from controller. Details of such mechanisms are out of scope for
this document.
The EPE-SIDs are advertised for inter-AS links which run EBGP
sessions. [RFC9086] does not define the detailed procedures to
operate EBGP sessions in a scenario with unnumbered interfaces.
Therefore, these scenarios are out of scope for this document.
During AS migration scenario procedures described in [RFC7705] may be
in force. In these scenarios, if the local and remote AS fields in
the FEC as described in Section 4 carries the globally configured ASN
and not the "local AS" as defined in [RFC7705], the FEC validation
procedures may fail.
3. 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.
4. FEC Definitions
Three new sub-TLVs are defined for the Target FEC Stack TLV (Type 1),
the Reverse-Path Target FEC Stack TLV (Type 16), and the Reply Path
TLV (Type 21).
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name
-------- ---------------
TBD1 PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV
TBD2 PeerNode SID Sub-TLV
TBD3 PeerSet SID Sub-TLV
Figure 2: New sub-TLV types
4.1. PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV
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 = TBD1 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface address (4/16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV
Type : TBD1
Length : variable based on IPV4/IPV6 interface address. Length
excludes the length of Type and Length field.For IPV4 interface
addresses length will be 24. In case of IPV6 address length will be
48.
Local AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member-AS Number inside the
Confederation [RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to
which PeerAdj SID advertising node belongs to.
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
Remote AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member-AS Number inside the
Confederation [RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
remote node for which the PeerAdj SID is advertised.
Local BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Remote BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Local Interface Address :
In case of PeerAdj SID, Local interface address corresponding to the
PeerAdj SID should be specified in this field. For IPV4,this field
is 4 octets; for IPV6, this field is 16 octets. Link Local IPV6
addresses are for further study.
Remote Interface Address :
In case of PeerAdj SID Remote interface address corresponding to the
PeerAdj SID should be apecified in this field. For IPV4, this field
is 4 octets; for IPV6, this field is 16 octets. Link Local IPv6
addresses are for further study.
[RFC9086] mandates sending local interface ID and remote interface ID
in the Link Descriptors and allows a value of 0 in the remote
descriptors. It is useful to validate the incoming interface for a
OAM packet and if the remote descriptor is 0 this validation is not
possible. [RFC9086] allows optional link descriptors of local and
remote interface addresses as described in section 4.2. This
document RECOMMENDs sending these optional descriptors and using them
to validate incoming interface. When these local and remote
interface addresses are not available, an ingress node can send 0 in
the local and/or remote interface address field. The receiver SHOULD
skip the validation for the incoming interface if the address field
contains 0.
4.2. PeerNode SID Sub-TLV
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
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 = TBD2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: PeerNode SID Sub-TLV
Type : TBD2
Length : 16
Local AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member-AS Number inside the
Confederation [RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to
which PeerNode SID advertising node belongs to.
Remote AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member-AS Number inside the
Confederation [RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
remote node for which the PeerNode SID is advertised.
Local BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Remote BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
When there is a multi-hop EBGP session between two ASBRs, PeerNode
SID is advertised for this session and traffic can be load balanced
across these interfaces. An EPE controller that does bandiwdth
management for these links should be aware of the links on which the
traffic will be load-balanced. As per [RFC8029], the node
advertising the EPE SIDs will send Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
(DDMAP TLV) specifying the details of nexthop interfaces, the OAM
packet will be sent out. Based on this information controller MAY
choose to verify the actual forwarding state with the topology
information controller has. On the router, the validation procedures
will include, received DDMAP validation as specified in [RFC8029] to
verify the control and forwarding state synchronization on the two
routers. Any descrepancies between controller's state and forwarding
state will not be detected by the procedures described in the
document.
4.3. PeerSet SID Sub-TLV
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
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 = TBD3 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No.of elements in set | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++
One element in set consists of below details
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote AS Number (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++
Figure 5: PeerSet SID Sub-TLV
Type : TBD3
Length : variable based on the number of elements in the set. The
length field does not include the length of Type and Length fields.
Local AS Number :
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member-AS Number inside the
Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to
which PeerSet SID advertising node belongs to.
Remote AS Number :
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member-AS Number inside the
Confederation [RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
remote node for which the PeerSet SID is advertised.
Advertising BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
Receiving BGP Router ID :
4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].
No.of elements in set:
Number of remote ASes, the set SID load-balances on.
PeerSet SID may be associated with a number of PeerNode SIDs and
PeerAdj SIDs. The remote AS number and the Router ID of each of
these PeerNode SIDs PeerAdj SIDs MUST be included in the FEC.
5. EPE-SID FEC validation
When a remote ASBR of the EPE-SID advertisement receives the MPLS OAM
packet with top FEC being the EPE-SID, it SHOULD perform validity
checks on the content of the EPE-SID FEC sub-TLV. The basic length
check should be performed on the received FEC.
PeerAdj SID
-----------
Length = 24 or 48
Peer Node SID
-------------
Length = 20 + No.of IPv4 interface pairs * 8 +
No.of IPv6 interface pairs * 32
PeerSet SID
-----------
Length = 9 + no.of elements in the set *
(8 + No.of IPv4 interface pairs * 8 +
No.of IPv6 interface pairs * 32)
Figure 6: Length Validation
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
If a malformed FEC sub-TLV is received, then a return code of 1,
"Malformed echo request received" as defined in [RFC8029] SHOULD be
sent. The below section augments the section 7.4 of [RFC8287]
5.1. EPE-SID FEC validiation
4a. Segment Routing IGP-Prefix, IGP-Adjacency SID and EPE-SID
Validation :
If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV at
FEC-stack-depth is TBD1 (PeerAdj SID sub-TLV)
Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not the
given label at stack-depth if any below conditions fail:
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Local AS matches with the
remote AS field in the received PeerAdj SID FEC sub-TLV.
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches with the
Remote Router ID field in the received PeerAdj SID FEC.
o Validate that there is a EBGP session with a peer having local
AS number and BGP Router-ID as specified in the Local AS number
and Local Router-ID field in the received PeerAdj SID FEC sub-TLV.
If the Remote interface address is not zero, validate the incoming
interface. Set the Best-return-code to 35 "Mapping for this FEC is
not associated with the incoming interface" [RFC8287] if any below
conditions fail:
o Validate the incoming interface on which the OAM packet was
receieved, matches with the remote interface specified in the
PeerAdj SID FEC sub-TLV
If all above validations have passed, set the return code to 3
"Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth"
Else, if the Target FEC sub-TLV at FEC-stack-depth is TBD2 (PeerNode
SID sub-TLV),
Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not the
given label at stack-depth if any below conditions fail:
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Local AS matches with the
remote AS field in the received PeerNode SID FEC sub-TLV.
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches with the
Remote Router ID field in the received PeerNode SID FEC.
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
o Validate that there is a EBGP session with a peer having local
AS number and BGP Router-ID as specified in the Local AS number
and Local Router-ID field in the received PeerNode SID FEC sub-
TLV.
If all above validations have passed, set the return code to 3
"Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth".
Else, if the Target FEC sub-TLV at FEC-stack-depth is TBD3 (PeerSet
SID sub-TLV),
Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not the
given label at stack-depth" if any below conditions fail:
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Local AS matches with one
of the remote AS field in the received PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV.
o Validate that the Receiving Node BGP Router-ID matches with one
of the Remote Router ID field in the received PeerSet SID FEC sub-
TLV.
o Validate that there is a EBGP session with a peer having local
AS number and BGP Router-ID as specified in the Local AS number
and Local Router-ID field in the received PeerSet SID FEC sub-TLV.
If all above validations have passed, set the return code to 3
"Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth"
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocated three new Target FEC stack sub-TLVs
from the "Sub-TLVs for TLV types 1,16 and 21" subregistry in the
"TLVs" registry of the "Multi-Protocol Label switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping parameters" namespace.
PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV : TBD1
PeerNode SID Sub-TLV: TBD2
PeerSet SID Sub-TLV : TBD3
The three lowest free values from the Standard Tracks range should be
allocated if possible.
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
7. Security Considerations
The EPE-SIDs are advertised for egress links for Egress Peer
Engineering purposes or for inter-AS links between co-operating ASes.
When co-operating domains are involved, they can allow the packets
arriving on trusted interfaces to reach the control plane and get
processed. When EPE-SIDs which are created for egress TE links where
the neighbor AS is an independent entity, it may not allow packets
arriving from external world to reach the control plane. In such
deployments MPLS OAM packets will be dropped by the neighboring AS
that receives the MPLS OAM packet. In MPLS traceroute applications,
when the AS boundary is crossed with the EPE-SIDs, the FEC stack is
changed. [RFC8287] does not mandate that the initiator upon
receiving an MPLS Echo Reply message that includes the FEC Stack
Change TLV with one or more of the original segments being popped
remove a corresponding FEC(s) from the Target FEC Stack TLV in the
next (TTL+1) traceroute request. If an initiator does not remove the
FECs belonging to the previous AS that has traversed, it MAY expose
the internal AS information to the following AS being traversed in
traceroute.
8. Implementation Status
This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
RFC-Editor: Please clean up the references cited by this section
before publication.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
8.1. Juniper Networks
Juniper networks reported a prototype implementation of this draft.
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
9. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Loa Andersson, Dhruv Dhody, Ketan Talaulikar, Italo Busi
and Alexander Vainshtein, Deepti Rathi for careful review and
comments.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8690] Nainar, N., Pignataro, C., Iqbal, F., and A. Vainshtein,
"Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287",
RFC 8690, DOI 10.17487/RFC8690, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8690>.
[RFC9086] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Patel, K.,
Ray, S., and J. Dong, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress
Peer Engineering", RFC 9086, DOI 10.17487/RFC9086, August
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9086>.
10.2. Informative 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",
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-
routing-te-policy-26, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
segment-routing-te-policy-26>.
[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>.
[RFC5065] Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous
System Confederations for BGP", RFC 5065,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5065, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5065>.
[RFC6286] Chen, E. and J. Yuan, "Autonomous-System-Wide Unique BGP
Identifier for BGP-4", RFC 6286, DOI 10.17487/RFC6286,
June 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6286>.
[RFC7705] George, W. and S. Amante, "Autonomous System Migration
Mechanisms and Their Effects on the BGP AS_PATH
Attribute", RFC 7705, DOI 10.17487/RFC7705, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7705>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8403] Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N.
Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane
Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC9087] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Ed., Aries, E.,
and D. Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress
Peer Engineering", RFC 9087, DOI 10.17487/RFC9087, August
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9087>.
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EPE-OAM January 2024
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Shraddha Hegde
Juniper Networks Inc.
Exora Business Park
Bangalore 560103
KA
India
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
Mukul Srivastava
Juniper Networks Inc.
Email: msri@juniper.net
Kapil Arora
Individual Contributor
Email: kapil.it@gmail.com
Samson Ninan
Individual Contributor
Email: samson.cse@gmail.com
Xiaohu Xu
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: xuxiaohu_ietf@hotmail.com
Hegde, et al. Expires 19 July 2024 [Page 16]
