Internet DRAFT - draft-pzm-bess-spring-interdomain-vpn
draft-pzm-bess-spring-interdomain-vpn
BESS WG Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft S. Peng
Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky
Expires: February 15, 2021 Y. Wang
ZTE Corporation
August 14, 2020
SRv6 and MPLS interworking for VPN service
draft-pzm-bess-spring-interdomain-vpn-02
Abstract
This document describes a method to achieve an inter-domain
connection for a VPN (Virtual Private Network) service.
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 February 15, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Zhang, et al. Expires February 15, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BESS SPRING inter-domain VPN August 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Theory of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. SRv6 to SR-MPLS domain signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. SR-MPLS to SRv6 domain signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
[I-D.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking] describes SRv6 and MPLS/
SR-MPLS interworking and co-existence procedures. The document
leverages the function defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] to give guidance to the
forwarding in routers.
[RFC4364] describes a method by which a Service Provider may use an
IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for its
customers. When SRv6 and SR-MPLS are co-existed in the backbone,
controller or a control plane, for example, using BGP, should be used
to instantiate the VPN service as described in
[I-D.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking].
In case of option B inter-domain interconnection [RFC4364], only ASBR
needs to do the stitching work between two ASes. Thus PEs in SRv6
and SR-MPLS domains do not have to support both SRv6 and SR-MPLS
functions. This document discusses the use of BGP for achieving VPN
service through option B defined in [RFC4364] across a backbone that
includes SRv6 and SR-MPLS domains.
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology
ASBR - Autonomous System Boundary Router
PE - Provider's Equipment
AS - Autonomous System
Zhang, et al. Expires February 15, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BESS SPRING inter-domain VPN August 2020
SR - Segment Routing
SRv6 - Segment Routing over IPv6 data plane
SR-MPLS - Segment Routing over MPLS data plane
SID - Segment Identifier
IMET - Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag
2.2. 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. Theory of operation
3.1. SRv6 to SR-MPLS domain signaling
[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] defines the new TLVs for the BGP
Prefix-SID Attribute that can be used to signaling of SRv6 SID for L3
and L2 services. In this document, we use L3 case as the example,
for the SRv6 SID without any arguments, the procedures for L2 are the
same as in L3 scenario.
We use Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) routes as the example
for the SRv6 SIDs with arguments.
+-------------+ +-------------+
| AS1 | | AS2 |
| | | |
CE1+----+PE1 ASBR1+---+ASBR2 PE2+----+CE2
| | | |
| SRV6 | | SR-MPLS |
+-------------+ +-------------+
Figure 1
For example, CE1 and CE2 are connected through a backbone that
includes AS1 and AS2. AS1 supports SRv6 only, and AS2 supports SR-
MPLS only. ASBR1 supports both SRv6 and SR-MPLS capabilities, but
ASBR2 supports SR-MPLS capability only.
For a prefix advertised by CE1 to PE1, PE1 assigns SID with End.DT4
(or End.DT6/DT46) defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] section 4 (e.g., End.DT4
Zhang, et al. Expires February 15, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BESS SPRING inter-domain VPN August 2020
is used while the prefix is IPv4 prefix, End.DT6 is used while the
prefix is IPv6 prefix), and advertises it to ASBR1. Because ASBR2
supports SR-MPLS function only, the SRv6 SID advertised by ASBR1
cannot be executed by ASBR2.
ASBR1 uses specific execution function that is different from the
function used in a single SRv6 domain or a single SR-MPLS domain. In
this situation, ASBR1 assigns an MPLS label for the prefix or IMET
routes received from PE1 and advertises it to ASBR2. The MPLS label
has local significance that indicates this packet is associated with
an SRv6 SID list which leads the packet from ASBR1 to PE1. The
advertisement is the same as the format in [RFC4364] and [RFC4659]
for L3VPN, and [I-D.heitz-bess-evpn-option-b] for EVPN.
When a data flow packet which has the destination to CE1 is received
by ASBR1, ASBR1 recognizes the MPLS label, removes the recognized
label and adds an SRH to the packet, then forwards it to PE1. Note
that the SRH is needed when the packet continues to enter an outer
SRv6 policy from headend ASBR1 to endpoint PE1, otherwise only an
IPv6 header without SRH is encapsulated.
When the recognized label is assigned to an IMET route, and the
Argument Length of the SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV of the IMET
route is not zero, the value of the label immediately after the
recognized label is assigned to the argument part of the innermost
SRv6 SID of the SRH before ASRB1 forwards it to PE1.
3.2. SR-MPLS to SRv6 domain signaling
In the same example, PE2 advertises a prefix received from CE2 or an
IMET route with assigned VPN label to ASBR2 according to [RFC4364],
[RFC4659] and [I-D.heitz-bess-evpn-option-b], ASBR2 continues to
assigns new label for the route and advertises it to ASBR1. When
ASBR1 receives the UPDATE and continues to advertise the route to
PE1, ASBR1 should assign an SRv6 VPN service SID for it. The SID
indicates the new execution function (e.g., END.RM, it indicates that
MPLS should replace the SRH) for exchanging the packet header from
SRH to MPLS list. The new function format is like the defination in
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] section 4.
When a data flow packet, which has the destination to CE2, is
received by ASBR1, ASBR1 recognizes the SRv6 SID, removes the outer
IPv6 header and SRH, then adds a or a list of MPLS label in the
packet, and forwards it to PE2. Note that the label stack is needed
when the packet continues to enter an outer MPLS tunnel from ingress
ASBR2 to egress PE2, otherwise only a single VPN label is
encapsulated and the outer tunnel maybe a directly connected link.
Zhang, et al. Expires February 15, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BESS SPRING inter-domain VPN August 2020
Note that an END.RM SID may have non-zero argument length. When the
SRv6 SID's argument length is not zero, the value of the argument
part is translated into an extra-label in the list. for example, the
extra-label is an ESI-label in IMET route cases.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate a new code points for the new SRv6
Endpoint Behaviors defined in this document.
+------+-------------+---------------+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+------+-------------+---------------+
| TBD1 | END.RM | This Document |
+------+-------------+---------------+
Table 1
5. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security consideration beyond those
already specified in [RFC4364], [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid],
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming],
[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] and
[I-D.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking].
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.heitz-bess-evpn-option-b]
Heitz, J., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., and J. Rabadan, "Multi-
homing and E-Tree in EVPN with Inter-AS Option B", draft-
heitz-bess-evpn-option-b-01 (work in progress), November
2017.
[I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Raszuk, R., Decraene, B., Zhuang,
S., and J. Rabadan, "SRv6 BGP based Overlay services",
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-04 (work in progress), July
2020.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A.,
and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for
BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress),
June 2018.
Zhang, et al. Expires February 15, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BESS SPRING inter-domain VPN August 2020
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-17 (work in
progress), August 2020.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking]
Agrawal, S., Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Dawra, G.,
and Z. Li, "SRv6 and MPLS interworking", draft-agrawal-
spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-02 (work in progress),
February 2020.
Authors' Addresses
Zheng Zhang
ZTE Corporation
Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
Shaofu Peng
ZTE Corporation
Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Zhang, et al. Expires February 15, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BESS SPRING inter-domain VPN August 2020
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corporation
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Yubao Wang
ZTE Corporation
Email: wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn
Zhang, et al. Expires February 15, 2021 [Page 7]
