Internet DRAFT - draft-liu-mpls-lsp-ping-nrp
draft-liu-mpls-lsp-ping-nrp
MPLS Y. Liu
Internet-Draft S. Peng
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE
Expires: 13 September 2023 12 March 2023
LSP Ping/Traceroute for SR-MPLS NRP SIDs
draft-liu-mpls-lsp-ping-nrp-01
Abstract
[RFC8287] defines the extensions to MPLS LSP ping and traceroute for
Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency SIDs with an MPLS data
plane. To correctly identify and validate an SR NRP SID, the
validating device also requires NRP-ID to be supplied in the FEC
Stack sub-TLV. This document introduces new Target FEC Stack sub-
TLVs to perform MPLS LSP ping and traceroute for NRP SIDs.
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 13 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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.
Liu & Peng Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping NRP March 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. NRP Segment ID Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. IPv4 IGP-Prefix NRP Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. IPv6 IGP-Prefix NRP Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. IGP-Adjacency NRP Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Initiator Node Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Responder Node Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The definition of the IETF Network Slice and the general principles
of network slicing in the IETF context are specified in
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].
[I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls] introduces the notion of a Slice-Flow
Aggregate which comprises of one or more IETF network slice traffic
streams. It also describes the Network Resource Partition (NRP) and
the NRP Policy that can be used to instantiate control and data plane
behaviors on select topological elements associated with the NRP that
supports a Slice-Flow Aggregate. The NRP Identifier (NRP-ID) is
globally unique within an NRP domain and that can be used in the
control or management plane to identify the resources associated with
the NRP.
[I-D.bestbar-spring-scalable-ns] describes an approach to extend SR
to advertise new SID types called NRP SIDs. Such NRP SIDs are used
by a router to define the forwarding action for a packet (next-hop
selection), as well as to enforce the specific treatment (scheduling
and drop policy) associated with the NRP.
[I-D.bestbar-lsr-spring-nrp] defines the IGP extensions for the
prefix segment and adjacency segment that are required to support the
signaling of SR NRP SIDs operating over SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes.
An additional distinguisher (NRP-ID) is carried to allow multiple
SIDs to be assigned (and advertised) for the same topological
element.
Liu & Peng Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping NRP March 2023
[RFC8287] defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for
Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency SIDs with an MPLS data
plane. To correctly identify and validate an SR NRP SID, the
validating device also requires NRP-ID to be supplied in the FEC
Stack sub-TLV. This document introduces new Target FEC Stack sub-
TLVs to perform MPLS Ping and Traceroute for NRP SIDs.
1.1. 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 [RFC2119].
2. NRP Segment ID Sub-TLVs
This section defines 3 new Segment ID Sub-TLVs. These sub-TLVs carry
NRP-ID for OSPF and IS-IS as specified in
[I-D.bestbar-lsr-spring-nrp] respectively.
2.1. IPv4 IGP-Prefix NRP Segment ID
The Sub-TLV format for IPv4 IGP-Prefix NRP Segment ID is as specified
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix Length | Protocol | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NRP-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The meaning, format and processing rules of the IPv4 Prefix, Prefix
Length and Protocol fields are the same as IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV defined in [RFC8287].
NRP-ID is a 4-octet identifier of Network Resource Partition.
2.2. IPv6 IGP-Prefix NRP Segment ID
The Sub-TLV format for IPv6 IGP-Prefix NRP Segment ID is as specified
below:
Liu & Peng Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping NRP March 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6 Prefix |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix Length | Protocol | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NRP-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The meaning, format and processing rules of the IPv6 Prefix, Prefix
Length and Protocol fields are the same as IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV defined in [RFC8287].
NRP-ID is a 4-octet identifier of Network Resource Partition.
2.3. IGP-Adjacency NRP Segment ID
The Sub-TLV format for IGP-Adjacency NRP Segment ID is as specified
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Adj. Type | Protocol | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| Local Interface ID (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| Remote Interface ID (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| Advertising Node Identifier (4 or 6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| Receiving Node Identifier (4 or 6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NRP-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The meaning, format and processing rules of the Adj. Type (Adjacency
Type), Protocol, Local Interface ID, Remote Interface ID, Advertising
Node Identifier, Receiving Node Identifier fields are the same as
IGP-Adjacency Segment ID Sub-TLV defined in [RFC8287].
Liu & Peng Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping NRP March 2023
NRP-ID is a 4-octet identifier of Network Resource Partition.
3. Procedures
This section describes LSP Ping and Traceroute procedures for LSP
with NRP SIDs.
3.1. Initiator Node Procedures
A node initiating LSP echo request packet for the NRP SID MUST
identify and include the NRP-ID associated with the IGP Prefix/
Adjacency SID in the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV. If the initiating
node is not aware of the NRP-ID, the NRP-ID SHOULD be set to 0.
3.2. Responder Node Procedures
If responding node is validating the FEC Stack, it MUST validate the
IGP Prefix/Adjacency SID advertisement for NRP-ID described in the
incoming FEC sub-TLV.
If the responding node is including IGP Prefix/Adjacency NRP SID FEC
in the FEC stack due to a FEC Stack Change operation, it MUST also
include the NRP-ID associated with the SID, and set the Protocol to 1
or 2, based on the corresponding IGP.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign 3 new Sub-TLVs from "Sub-TLVs for TLV
Types 1, 16 and 21" sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" (IANA-
MPLS-LSP-PING) registry.
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference
---------- ----------------- ------------
TBD1 IPv4 IGP-Prefix NRP Segment ID This document
TBD2 IPv6 IGP-Prefix NRP Segment ID This document
TBD3 IGP-Adjacency NRP Segment ID This document
5. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
Liu & Peng Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping NRP March 2023
[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>.
[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>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.bestbar-lsr-spring-nrp]
Saad, T., Beeram, V. P., Chen, R., Peng, S., Wen, B., and
D. Ceccarelli, "IGP Extensions for SR Network Resource
Partition SIDs", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
bestbar-lsr-spring-nrp-01, 11 July 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-lsr-
spring-nrp-01>.
[I-D.bestbar-spring-scalable-ns]
Saad, T., Beeram, V. P., Chen, R., Peng, S., Wen, B., and
D. Ceccarelli, "Scalable Network Slicing over SR
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
bestbar-spring-scalable-ns-02, 16 September 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-
spring-scalable-ns-02>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]
Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rokui, R., Homma, S., Makhijani,
K., Contreras, L. M., and J. Tantsura, "A Framework for
IETF Network Slices", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-19, 21 January 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
ietf-network-slices-19>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls]
Saad, T., Beeram, V. P., Dong, J., Wen, B., Ceccarelli,
D., Halpern, J. M., Peng, S., Chen, R., Liu, X.,
Contreras, L. M., Rokui, R., and L. Jalil, "Realizing
Network Slices in IP/MPLS Networks", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls-01, 24 October
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
teas-ns-ip-mpls-01>.
Liu & Peng Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping NRP March 2023
Authors' Addresses
Yao Liu
ZTE
Nanjing
China
Email: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
Shaofu Peng
ZTE
Nanjing
China
Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Liu & Peng Expires 13 September 2023 [Page 7]
