Internet DRAFT - draft-szarecki-idr-bgp-lcu-traffic-steering
draft-szarecki-idr-bgp-lcu-traffic-steering
IDR Working Group L. Chan
Internet-Draft R. Szarecki, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: January 8, 2020 July 7, 2019
Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP Labeled Colored Unicast (BGP-LCU)
draft-szarecki-idr-bgp-lcu-traffic-steering-00
Abstract
This document describes technology that enables for Inter-Domain
signaling of existence of E2E path that satisfy high-level traffic
treatment behavior intent. The inter-domain path is built by the BGP
protocol, as a concatenation of per TE-domain internal paths
(segments), provisioned by one of existing intra-domain techniques.
The traffic treatment behavior is encoded as an integer value called
as "COLOR". The domain internal paths/tunnels are marked as
satisfying given traffic treatment behavior. Then the tunnel
destination and its COLOR are exchanged between TE-Domains using a
new BGP LABELED-COLORED-UNICAST NLRI (BGP-LCU) defined in this
document.
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 January 8, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Traffic treatment behavior intent (T-intent) . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. COLOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. COLOR name spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Scaling Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. BGP labeled-colored-unicast NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. BGP capability negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. BGP UPDATE message MP_REACH_NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. BGP explicit WITHDRAWN message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Some BGP attribute considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.1. BGP Next-Hop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.2. Prefix SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.3. Color Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.4. Tunnel encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. BGP operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Injection of labeled colored unicast route to BGP . . . . 11
6.1.1. Injecting from colored routes . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.2. Injections from non-colored labeled routes . . . . . 13
6.1.3. Injections from non-colored non-labeled routes . . . 13
6.2. Receiving BGP-LCU from eBGP (single hop) . . . . . . . . 14
6.3. Receiving BGP-LCU from iBGP or multihop-eBGP . . . . . . 14
6.4. Advertising BGP-LCU over eBGP session and iBGP session
with BGP NH changed (NH-self) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.5. Advertising BGP-LCU over iBGP session when BGP NH remain
unchanged. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.6. Label value assignment procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Deployment and Operation Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Building label stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1.1. Purpose of multiple-label stack . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1.2. Ingress recursive resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Handling BGP-LCU ingress PEs with limited label
imposition depth capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction
The networks of today grow to high 10,000's - 100,000's of nodes
(routers) and beyond. This trend continues. To operate such a large
topology, the common practice is to divide it into domains (see
Figure 1) and integrate through layered routing protocol
infrastructure in order to secure end-to-end (E2E) connectivity.
Please see [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls].
The nowadays critical and demanding applications rely on network
infrastructure, and plain connectivity becomes an insufficient
service level.
While the Differentiated Services architecture [RFC2475] allows for
multiple service levels across same connectivity path, it does not
address topological differentiation such as latency, non-fate-
sharing, encryption or bandwidth. These challenges are addressed by
existing Traffic Engineering (TE)techniques such RSVP, SR-TE or
multi-topology IGPs (e.g. Maximally Redundant Tree [RFC7811],
Segment Routing IGP FlexAlgo [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo])in the scope of
a limited size domain (TE-DOMAIN).
This document describes technology that enables signaling of
existence of E2E path that satisfy high-level traffic treatment
behavior intent. The inter-domain path is built by the BGP protocol,
as a concatenation of per TE-domain internal paths (segments),
provisioned by one of existing intra-domain techniques mentioned
above. This way, inter-domain paths for a variety of traffic
treatment intents are established without even need to expose the
topology of any domain to any of the other domains.
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
BGP
<-----------><-----------><--><--------->
+-----------+ +----------+ +---------+
|domain 1 | | domain 2|----|domain 3 |
|(e.g. .-. (e.g.| /-| (e.g. |
|FlexAlgo) ( R ) RSVP)|-/ | SR-TE |
| `-' |----| w/ PCE) |
+-----------+ +----------+ +---------+
<---------> <---------> <--------->
TE-domain TE-domain TE-domain
<-------- cooperating domains ---------->
Cooperating TE-domains
Figure 1
The traffic treatment behavior (T-intent) is encoded as an integer
value called as "COLOR". The TE-domain internal paths/tunnels are
marked as satisfying given traffic treatment behavior as defined in
Segment Routing Policy Architecture
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. Then reachability of the
tunnel destination and its COLOR are exchanged between TE-Domains
using a new BGP LABELED-COLORED-UNICAST NLRI (BGP-LCU) defined in
this document. The procedures of stitching/nesting intra domain
tunnels advertised in BGP-LCU resulting in inter-domain E2E path is
also specified in this document.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Conventions used in this document
TE-DOMAIN - Continuous set of links and nodes that allow establishing
tunnels that satisfy T-intent between each edge node without using
BGP-LCU (defined in this document). Typically TE-domain is 1:1
mapped to IGP area (flooding domain),and intra-TE-domain tunnels are
instantiated by RSVP (w/ or w/o assistance of PCE), SR/SRv6 w/ IGP
FlexAlgo, static or PCE controlled SRTE/SRv6TE policies. A
deployment when TE-domain comprises few connected IGP flooding
domains is also possible.
COLOR - the integer value of 32bits representing given traffic
treatment behavior intent (T-intent).
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
BGP-LCU - BGP Labeled Colored Unicast. Name given to SAFI(s) that
carries traffic treatment intent toward destination system together
with label(s)used to forward traffic across TE-DOMAINS. Defined in
this document.
<COLOR,DESTINATION> - colored BGP-LCU prefix, where COLOR is integer
encoding traffic treatment intent and DESTINATION is IPv4 or IPv6
subnet address (not necessary host address).
[Label1,Label2,<COLOR,DESTINATION>] - notation used for the labeled
colored unicast NLRI
SR-DOMAIN - continuous set of nodes and links that support SR and
have at minimum single, shared prefix SID space. So, prefix SID
(incl. Node SID and Anycast SID) values are unique in SR-DOMAIN.
BSID - Binding SID. The local label allocated for TE tunnel (RSVP-
LSP, SR Policy, etc)
3. Traffic treatment behavior intent (T-intent)
The service traffic, while traversing network(s) consumes resources
from those networks. The path provided by network to service traffic
could be optimized according to needs of the service. A simple
example is a real-time communication application that would benefit
from being placed on low-latency path. On the other hand, video
streaming would best benefit from a low-loss path. Another example
is sensitive data like personal health data, which would benefit from
a taking path over encrypted links.
It is granted that ability of network to provide distinct path
(tunnels) that satisfy treatment intended by application (or class of
application) would provide best possible balance between application
performance and network resource utilization.
The T-intent is high-level description of traffic treatment.
Examples of T-intent are: "low-latency transport", "transport over
encrypted infrastructure", "transport path that is topologically
disjoined then other path", "transport path over encrypted links/
segments", etc. It is up to the discretion of the network operator
(or co-operating operators) to define a set of T-intents that have
sense for them.
3.1. COLOR
The T-intents defined by operator are encoded in control plane as
32-bit integer value called COLOR, in such way that color-to-T-intent
mapping is of monotonic. Therefore, based on COLOR value the
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
T-intent could be identified without ambiguity. The designation and
mapping of COLOR value used for inter-domain operation to T-intent
requires agreement of all operators of cooperating domains.
COLOR value of zero (0x00000000) is restricted and MUST NOT be used.
3.2. COLOR name spaces
The concept of COLOR as defined above is not specific to inter-domain
network slicing, and it actually was introduced in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] and is used by SR-TE and SR
IGP FlexAlgo (called there algorithm) in scope of single TE-domain.
Authors recognizes possibility that color-code values used inside
given TE-domain may be not the same as agreed between TE-domains.
Furthermore, it is possible that same color value is mapped to
different T-intents inside TE-domain and for inter-TE-domain context.
It is recommended for network designers to adjust both color-code
schemas to be identical in order to simplify operation. It is
assumed in this specification, that color-code schema used for inter-
TE-domain as well in each TE-domain is identical
4. Scaling Consideration
The BGP-LCU path scale grow with product of number of COLORS
supported by multi-domain network system and number of DESTINATIONS
in this system. It become obvious that for some network there is a
risk of exhausting available MPLS label space.
For large deployments, stacking of labels would be necessary to
achieve desired scalability.
5. BGP labeled-colored-unicast NLRI
This document defines new SAFI for labeled, colored, unicast (IPv4
and IPv6), and corresponding BGP NLRI that carries label(s) sequence
binding to colored prefix - the <COLOR,DESTINATION> tuple. The SAFI
value is [[TBD]].
For easy reading BGP instance/session supporting above new SAFI, we
will reference it as "BGP-LCU" (Labeled-Colored-Unicast).
5.1. BGP capability negotiation
In addition to AFI/SAFI negotiation on the opening of BGP session, in
order to send NLRI with more than one label on stack the Multiple
Labels Capability (MLC) MUST be successfully negotiated for the
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
session in order to carry multiple label sequence in BGP-LCU NLRI.
If MLC is not negotiated or negotiation failed, BGP-LCU NLRI MUST
carry only one label.
The Multiple Labels Capability is defined in chapter 2.1 of BGP
Labeled Unicast [RFC8277]. The BGP speaker supporting BGP-LCU MUST
follow procedure defined there.
Implementation SHOULD send withdraw of <COLOR,DESTINATION> if length
of labels sequence in (to be advertised) NLRI would exceed peers
capability.
5.2. BGP UPDATE message MP_REACH_NLRI
The procedure described in BGP Labeled Unicast[RFC8277] is used to
encode the <COLOR,DESTINATION> tuple as prefix into NLRI with
exception of NLRI length field. The Length field is encoded in one
or two octets, in order to accommodate large sequence of labels. The
Length field encoding follows BGP FlowSpec [RFC5575] encoding of
length.
The <COLOR,DESTINATION> tuple form colored-IPv4 or colored-IPv6
prefix. The new sub-address family of SAFI [[TBD]] is allocated for
labeled <COLOR,DESTINATION>. The AFI 1 and 2 are used for
destination of IPv4 and IPv6 families respectively. The NLRI
structure of SAFI [[TBD]] is shown below on Figure 2 for single label
and Figure 3 for multiple labels (note: the color and destination
elements of prefix are shown explicitly).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Label |Rsrv |S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| color |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| destination ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NLRI with One Label.
Figure 2
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length(1 or 2 octetx) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label |Rsrv |S~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Label |Rsrv |S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| color |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| destination ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NLRI encoding with more then one label bind
Figure 3
o Length: The Length field consists of a single or two octets. It
specifies the length in bits of the remainder of the NLRI field.
Note that for each label, the length is increased by 24 bits. The
length of color is fixed and is always 32bits. In an
MP_REACH_NLRI attribute whose AFI/SAFI is 1/[[TBD]], the length of
destination element of prefix will be 32 bits or less. In an
MP_REACH_NLRI attribute whose AFI/SAFI is 2/[[TBD]], the length of
destination element of prefix will be 128 bits or less. For NLRI
shorter than 240 bits (30 octets) the Length is encoded is single
octet. For NLRI of 240 bits or longer, two octets are used and
the firs nibble is set to value 0xF. Therefore, maximum size of
NLRI is 4095b.See [RFC5575]. As specified in MP-BGP [RFC4760],
the actual length of the NLRI field will be the number of bits
specified in the Length field rounded up to the nearest integral
number of octets.
o Label: The Label field is a 20-bit field containing an MPLS label
value (see MPLS Label Encoding [RFC3032]). The null labels
(values: 0, 2, 3) are allowed only as last label (or as only
labels) in NLRI.
o Rsrv: This 3-bit field SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and
MUST be ignored on reception.
o S: In all labels except the last (i.e., in all labels except the
one immediately preceding the prefix), the S bit MUST be 0. In
the last label, the S bit MUST be 1. Note that failure to set the
S bit in the last label will make it impossible to parse the NLRI
correctly. See Section 3, paragraph j of Revised Error Handling
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
for BGP UPDATE Messages [RFC7606] for a discussion of error
handling when the NLRI cannot be parsed.
Note that the UPDATE message not only advertises the binding between
the <COLOR,DESTINATION> and the label(s), it also advertises a path
to the prefix via the node identified in the Next Hop field of the
MP_REACH_NLRI attribute.
If the procedures of BGP ADD-PATHs [RFC7911] are being used, a four-
octet "path identifier" (as defined in Section 3 of [RFC7911]) is
part of the NLRI and precedes the Length field.
5.3. BGP explicit WITHDRAWN message
The withdrawal methodology follows the one described in chapter 2.4
of [RFC8277]. For convenience short description is given below.
The label(s) binding to <COLOR,DESTINATION> could be explicitly
withdrawn by sending BGP UPDATE message with MP_UNREACH_NLRI
attribute. The NLRI field of MP_UNREACH_NLRI is encoded as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Compatibility |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| color |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| destination ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NLRI for Withdrawal
Figure 4
Where:
o Compatibility: Compatibility field SHOULD be set to 0x800000.
Upon reception, the value of the Compatibility field MUST be
ignored.
If the procedures of [RFC7911] are being used, a four-octet "path
identifier" (as defined in Section 3 of [RFC7911]) is part of the
NLRI and precedes the Length field.
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
5.4. Some BGP attribute considerations
5.4.1. BGP Next-Hop
The next-hop network address field in LABELED-COLORED-UNICAST SAFI
updates may be either a IPv4 address or a IPv6 address(es)
independent of the LABELED-COLORED-UNICAST AFI. This is in
accordance to existing specfication in [RFC4760], MP-BGP for
IPv6[RFC2545] and IPv4 NLRI with IPv6 Next-Hop[RFC5549]
5.4.2. Prefix SID
In the deployment when multiple TE-domains forms single SR-domain,
and therefore prefix SIDs (incl. Node SIDs and Anycast SIDs) are
unique in entire multi-domain scope, BGP prefix SID attribute
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid] may be attached to BGP-LCU NLRI, and
SHOULD be honored.
Implementation SHOULD allow for disabling prefixSID processing by
local configuration, and in such case tread this attribute as
unsupported (therefore advertised without modification, since BGP
prefix SID attribute is of transitive optional type). Implementation
SHOULD allow, via local configuration, for removing BGP prefix SID
attribute from BGP path.
5.4.3. Color Extended Community
The Color Extended Community, defined in Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps], MAY be attached to BGP-LCU
NLRI.
The purpose of attaching this community is to provide a hint to BGP-
LCU update receiver on how BGP Next-Hop attribute shall be resolved.
Giving such hint could be useful e.g. for case when colors values
used for given T-intent for inter-domain and intra-domain contexts
are not equal (see chapter 3.2. ). Exact procedure to handle this
case is out of scope of this specification.
In order to avoid ambiguity and simplify implementation, it is
recommended to do not attach more than one Color Extended Community.
5.4.4. Tunnel encapsulation
The tunnel encapsulation attribute (23)[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
SHOULD NOT be attached to BGP-LCU NLRI.
If tunnel encapsulation attribute is attached, it MUST NOT conflict
with intent of particular BGP path and its NLRI.
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
It is recommended for implementation to not process this attribute
and pass it, if needed, as unsupported optional transitive attribute.
6. BGP operation
6.1. Injection of labeled colored unicast route to BGP
6.1.1. Injecting from colored routes
The ingress border node (BN12)of given TE-domain (domain2 on
Figure 5)is provisioned by means out of scope of this document with
multiple colored tunnels to endpoints in this domain.
+------------+ +----------------+ +---------+
| ++---+-+ domain 2 +-+---++ |
| | |----red---->| | |
| | BN12 |----blue--->| BN2n | |
| domain 1 | |--blue--+ | | |
| | |-red-+ | | | |
| ++---+-+ | | +-+---++ |
| | | v v | |domain N |
| | | +------+ | | |
+------------+ +-----+ PE2 +---+ +---------+
+------+
Injection form colored routes
Figure 5
The tunnel type is irrelevant for further discussion as long as MPLS
frames can be encapsulated over it. Tunnels could be of MPLS, MPLS-
SR, SRv6, MPLSoUDP, etc. Each of above tunnels has associated one or
more intra-domain colors encoding traffic treatment provided by given
tunnel, as per [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
The color-code schema used for Inter-domain is assumed to be the same
as one used internally by TE-domain.
Let assume following color schema for domain 2, domain 1 and Inter-
domain as shown in Table 1.
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
+------------+-------+
| | COLOR |
+------------+-------+
| T-intent 1 | red |
| T-intent 2 | blue |
+------------+-------+
Table 1: COLOR code schema - intra- and inter-TE-domain
The BGP speaker (BN12 in Figure 5 ) injects into BGP-LCU four routes
with the NLRI fields and BGP attributes values as follow:
o NLRI DESTINATION := intra-domain tunnel destination IP prefix
address (e.g. IP of loopback of BN2n and PE2 in Figure 5).
o NLRI COLOR := the color code value for T-intent the original
tunnel satisfy inside given domain (e.g. red or blue).
o Exactly one label of value derived according to procedure describe
in chapter 6.6. In this case this label MUST be non-null label.
o S:=1
o Length := 56 + length of tunnel destination prefix
o The BGP Next-Hop attribute is set to "self".
Other BGP attributes may also be added as needed by network
configuration.
The BGP speaker may crates also MPLS forwarding entries for local
label values advertised in NLRI of they do not exist previously.
Please note:
o This operation does not create any IP RIB entry nor
<COLOR,DESTINATION> RIB entry.
o This operation does not create any IP entry in FIB
o This operation may create one or more MPLS entry in FIB if needed.
The entry's key would be local label allocated as described in
chapter 6.6. and advertised in NLRI. The associated action
depends on tunnel type but could be generalized as popping label,
pushing header(s) of tunnel given BGP route is originating form,
forwarding trough egress interface of this tunnel.
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
6.1.2. Injections from non-colored labeled routes
The injection of <COLOR,DESTINATION> into BGP from non-colored routes
is similar to one from labeled colored routes, except there is no
COLOR of original route to inherit. Therefore, local configuration
MUST provide COLOR value that is used for NLRI construction.
o Implementation MUST support specification of one or more COLOR(s)
that would be used for all DESTINATIONS when injected to BGP as
LABELED-COLORED-UNICAST NLRI (of SAFI [[TBD]]). If multiple
colors are specified, multiple NLRI is injected into BGP.
o Implementation MAY support specification of COLOR in dependency on
(original) route destination, attributes and/or session on which
given <COLOR,DESTINATION> are injected to BGP as LABELED-COLORED-
UNICAST NLRI (of SAFI [[TBD]].
Similarly, to case described in chapter 6.1.1. , label value MUST be
non-null label.
Please note:
o This operation does not create any IP RIB entry nor
<COLOR,DESTINATION> RIB entry.
o This operation does not create any IP entry in FIB
o This operation creates one or more MPLS entry in FIB. The entry's
key would be local label allocated as described in chapter 6.6.
and advertised in NLRI. The associated action depends on tunnel
type but could be generalized as popping label, pushing header(s)
of tunnel given BGP route is originating form, forwarding trough
egress interface of this tunnel.
6.1.3. Injections from non-colored non-labeled routes
The injection of <COLOR,DESTINATION> into BGP from non-labeled, non-
colored routes is similar to one from labeled non-colored routes,
except that explicit or implicit null label shall be used in
advertisement.
Please note:
o This operation does not create any IP RIB entry nor
<COLOR,DESTINATION> RIB entry.
o This operation does not create any IP entry in FIB
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
o This operation does not create any MPLS entry in FIB, since
explicit null labels are already pre-programmed in FIB.
6.2. Receiving BGP-LCU from eBGP (single hop)
The path for <COLOR,DESTINATION> received is experiencing normal BGP
process - the sanity is checked first, then configured policies.
Finally, path is installed in BGP Loc-RIB and path selection process
kick in. Since BGP Next Hop attribute value is IP address of
connected subnet, it is used w/o further processing (resolution).
Please note:
o This operation does create <COLOR,DESTINATION> entry in RIB.
o This operation does not create any IP RIB entry.
o This operation does not create any IP entry in FIB
o This operation does not create any MPLS entry in FIB
6.3. Receiving BGP-LCU from iBGP or multihop-eBGP
The path for <COLOR,DESTINATION> received is experiencing normal BGP
process - the sanity is checked first, then configured policies.
Finally, path is installed in BGP Loc-RIB and path selection process
kick in. Since BGP Next Hop attribute value is not a IP address of
connected subnet, it needs to be resolved. Since the intention is to
provide continuous transport that satisfy T-intent encoded in COLOR,
the intra-domain tunnel used for resolution need also satisfy this
T-intent. Therefore:
1. If BGP route for <COLOR,DESTINATION> is carrying Color Extended
Community, The BGP NextHop attribute shall be resolved by tunnel
of color carried in this community (which may be different then
value of COLOR carried in NLRI. See chapter 3.2. above).
Please see [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
2. ElseIf BGP route for <COLOR,DESTINATION> is NOT caring Color
Extended Community, The BGP NextHop attribute shall be resolved
over tunnel of color equal to COLOR carried in NLRI
The fallback to resolution over other tunnels - other color or non-
colored - is subject of local configuration policy on the node and/or
value of "CO" bits of Color Extended Community.
Please note:
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
o This operation does create <COLOR,DESTINATION> entry in RIB.
o This operation does not create any IP RIB entry.
o This operation does not create any IP entry in FIB
o This operation does not create any MPLS entry in FIB
6.4. Advertising BGP-LCU over eBGP session and iBGP session with BGP NH
changed (NH-self)
Whenever BGP path to <COLOR,DESTINATION> is re-advertised and BGP
Next Hop attribute is changed, the label(s) portion of NLRI is
modified. On the Next-Hop-change the BGP speaker replaces all
label(s) in NLRI by single local label. The local label identifies
<COLOR, DESTINATION>. The value of local labels is derived as
described in chapter 6.6.
Any BGP speaker supporting LABELED-COLORED-UNICAST (SAFI=[[TBD]])
MUST support above behavior on Next-hop-change.
Please note:
o This operation does not create <COLOR,DESTINATION> entry in RIB.
o This operation does not create any IP RIB entry.
o This operation does not create any IP entry in FIB
o This operation may create or modify MPLS entry in RIB and FIB.
* New RIB and FIB entries are created if no label was allocated
to <COLOR,DESTINATION> previously.
* The RIB and FIB entries are modified if given path is best and
active. (or 2nd to best and BGP PIC EDGE is enabled)
* The RIB entry is modified if given path is best.
6.5. Advertising BGP-LCU over iBGP session when BGP NH remain
unchanged.
Whenever BGP path to <COLOR,DESTINATION> is re-advertised but BGP
Next-Hop attribute remains unchanged, the label(s) portion of NLRI
MUST NOT be modified.
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
6.6. Label value assignment procedure
The selection of local label value MUST follow below procedure.
1. If BGP speaker is provided (e.g. by local configuration) with
explicit label value binding for given <COLOR, DESTINATION>, it
SHOULD be honored and used.
2. If BGP speaker is injecting <COLOR,DESTINATION> into BGP-LCU from
other protocol or family, and Binding SID (BSID) as per Segment
Routing Architecture [RFC8402] is assigned to original tunnel,
then local label SHOULD be set to be equal to BSID value.
3. If BGP path carries BGP prefix-SID attribute, and given BGP
speaker is enabled to process this attribute (e.g. by mean of
local configuration), then this BGP speaker SHOULD allocate local
label form it's SRGB [RFC8402].
4. If, given BGP speaker has local label already allocated for given
<COLOR, DESTINATION> as result of processing earlier routing
events, this same value MUST be used.
5. Else, BGP speaker allocates label from free labels of it's
dynamic label block.
Please note that above procedure could result with local label value
shared among multiple <COLOR,DESTINATION> prefixes, or unique label
value for each <COLOR,DESTINATION>. It depends on particular network
scenario and both possibilities are valid and legitimate.
7. Deployment and Operation Consideration
7.1. Building label stack
7.1.1. Purpose of multiple-label stack
Due to potential large scale of colored prefixes, the BGP-LCU speaker
may run out of label space, if 1:1 relationship between
<COLOR:DESTINATION> and local label would be established.
Sharing label among multiple <COLOR:DESTINATION> prefixes could be
not always possible and reduction of needed labels is hard to predict
and is changing together with intra-domain tunnels path changes.
To predictably address this scaling challenge, the topmost label of
packet incoming on ASBR/ABR shall represents immediate downstream
intra-domain tunnel in the connected TE-domain rather than entire
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
end-to-end path. Consequently, ingress PE need to push appropriate
label stack on outgoing data packets.
This chapter describes how BGP-LCU could be configured and used on
various nodes of multi-domain network system to instruct ingress PE
to build and push label stack onto outgoing packets.
If network scale, in terms of number of DESTINATIONS and COLORS, do
not requires usage of label stack, it is perfectly valid design to
simply swap label in NLRI on every domain border and use one label on
ingress PE for inter-TE-domain tunnel.
7.1.2. Ingress recursive resolution
The Recursive resolution of BGP-LCU NH attributes on ingress PE
provides ability to construct label stack and relief transit BGP
speakers (ASBRs and ABRs)label space pressure. Recursive resolution
is matter of network design and ingress PE capability and is
inherently supported by BGP-LCU.
The below description is provided to the reader for convenience.
To provide ingress PE with sufficient information for building and
pushing label stack onto packet, in addition to signal path for every
<COLOR,EGRESS-PE> combination, would require signaling (in BGP-LCU)
also path for <COLOR,ASBR/ABR> combination. Please note that
typically number of ASBRs/ABRs is two or three orders of magnitude
lower than PEs. Also, note that if given node is ASBR and PE, is
should not be double-counted. Therefor impact on BGP-LCU path scale
is expected to be < 1%. and therefore negligible.
Please note that when BGP-LCU path is re-advertised to another BGP-
LCU session, BGP Next-Hop attribute is changed, or not, according to
following rules. This rules do not represent default BGP behavior
but could be implemented via local configuration of BGP speaker.
1. If path is advertised to eBGP and has AS-PATH empty, then BGP
Next-Hop attribute MUST be changed. This is default BGP
behavior.
2. If path is learned from eBGP from AS that originated
<COLOR,DESTINATION> prefix (is last on AS-PATH), then Next-Hop
attribute should be changed. This is observed common practice to
change BGP Next-Hop attribute to self in this scenario.
3. In every other case, including re-advertising to eBGP sessions,
BGP-LCU Next-Hop attribute, and consequently label(s) sequence in
NLRI, should stay unmodified.
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
Example below (Figure 6) shows BGP-LCU update flow across domains.
The BGP Next-Hop attribute manipulation and resolution are also shown
in Table 2. Finally, MPLS FIB entries are also displayed.
<-------AS 1--------> <---AS 2---> <---AS 3--->
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
|domain| |domain| |domain| |domain|
.+. 1 .-. 2 .-. .-. 3 .-. .-. 3 .+.
( I ) ( A ) ( B )--( C ) ( D )--( E ) ( Z )
'+' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '+'
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Label stack build on ingress - topology
Figure 6
The Table 2 below, shows flow BGP-LCU Updates for DESTINATION "I"
+------+----+----------------+--------+-----------+
| From | to | NLRI | BGP NH | AS-path |
+------+----+----------------+--------+-----------+
| A | B | [L1 ,<red,I>] | A | |
| B | C | [L1' ,<red,I>] | B | [AS1] |
| C | D | [L1",<red,I>] | C | [AS1] |
| D | E | [L1" ,<red,I>] | C | [AS1 AS2] |
| | | [L2 ,<red,C>] | E | [AS2] |
| E | Z | [L1",<red,I>] | C | [AS1 AS2] |
| | | [L2',<red,C>] | E | [AS2] |
+------+----+----------------+--------+-----------+
Table 2: COLOR code schema - intra- and inter-TE-domain
The Table 3 below shows RIB entry on node "Z" after recursive
resolution
+------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| Prefix/key | encap. operation | egress interface |
+------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| <red,I> | push: L1", L2', [red-tunnel-to-E] | X |
+------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
Table 3: Ingress label stack build - RIB entry
Please note that ASBRs "D" and "E" do not modify BGP Next-Hop
attribute for prefix <red,I>, therefore no label is changed.
Consequently there is no MPLS FIB entry created for this prefix.
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
The above described method allows to build label stack on ingress PE,
thus address high scale of <COLOR,DESTINATION> prefix while reducing
data-plane states on domains border nodes.
7.2. Handling BGP-LCU ingress PEs with limited label imposition depth
capabilities
The consequence of design in which inter-domain tunnel is represented
as multiple labels stack, is that ingress PE would need to push even
more labels onto the packet:
1. service label,
2. perhaps ELI/EL or FAT label(s)
3. sequence of labels for inter-domain tunnel (learned form BGP-LCU
and recursively resolved as per chapter 7.1. above)
4. and finally, sequence of one or more labels used by given ingress
PE to reach egress ASBR/ABR while satisfying T-intent. The
sequence of label could be significantly long if SRTE policy is
used.
Authors of this document acknowledges that currently there is
equipment in field and in development, that have limited capability
in pushing deep label stack (Legacy-PE).
To support such devices in ingress role, egress ASBR/ABR (node "E" on
Figure 6) of ingress TE-DOMAIN comprising such PE (node "Z" on
Figure 6)have to "reduce" stack depth.
Provided that egress ASBR (node "E") learns all BGP-LCU
<COLOR,DESTINATION> prefixes (e.g from Route Server), it advertises
this BGP-LCU path to iBGP session toward (set of) ingress Legacy-PE,
with BGP Next-Hop attribute change to self. As result, path would be
re-advertised with only one label. This reduce required label push
depth on legacy ingress PE.
In the very high scale environment, by doing above, egress ASBR/ABR
would consume large number of labels. Therefore, network designer
needs to take this into consideration and if needed take appropriate
action, which could be for example:
o filter colored prefixes that are send to (all) legacy ingress PEs
to smaller subset. This technique is specifically effective if
ingress PEs are part of backhaul solution and provide transport to
limited set of centralized service-aware nodes (vEPC, BNG, Video
caches)
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
o replace ingress PE hardware or software to enable deeper label
push.
8. Contributors
The following people have contributed to this document:
Jeff Haas, Juniper Networks
Shraddha Hedge, Juniper Networks
Santosh Kolenchery, Juniper Networks
Shihari Sangli, Juniper Networks
Krzysztof Szarkowicz, Juniper Networks
9. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new SAFI in the registry "Subsequent Address
Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters" that has been assigned by IANA:
+-----------+------------------------------+---------------+
| Codepoint | Description | Reference |
+-----------+------------------------------+---------------+
| [[TBD]] | Labeled colored unicast SAFI | This document |
+-----------+------------------------------+---------------+
Table 4
10. Security Considerations
The security considerations of BGP (as specified in BGP-4 [RFC4271])
apply.
This document specifies that certain data packets be "tunneled" from
one BGP speaker to another across single TE-domain. This requires
that the packets be encapsulated while in flight. This document does
not specify the encapsulation to be used, except it need to be able
to carry MPLS packet as payload. However, if a particular
encapsulation is used, the security considerations of that
encapsulation are applicable.
If a particular intra-TE-domain tunnel encapsulation does not provide
integrity and authentication, it is possible that a data packet's
label stack can be modified, through error or malfeasance, while the
packet is in flight. This can result in misdelivery of the packet.
It should be that the tunnel encapsulation (MPLS), expected to be
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
most commonly used in deployments of this specification, does not
provide integrity or authentication.
There are various techniques one can use to constrain the
distribution of BGP UPDATE messages. If a BGP UPDATE advertises the
binding of a particular label or set of labels to a particular
address <COLOR,DESTINATION>, such techniques can be used to control
the set of BGP speakers that are intended to learn of that binding.
However, if BGP sessions do not provide privacy, other routers may
learn of that binding.
When a BGP speaker processes a received MPLS data packet whose top
label it advertised, there is no guarantee that the label in question
was put on the packet by a router that was intended to know about
that label binding. If a BGP speaker is using the procedures of this
document, it may be useful for that speaker to distinguish its
"internal" interfaces from its "external" interfaces and to
"remember" label binding advertised over each "external" interfaces.
Then, a data packet received on give "external" interface can be
discarded if its top label was not advertised over this "external"
interface. This reduces the likelihood of forwarding packets whose
labels have been "spoofed" by untrusted sources.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[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.
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Patel, K., Velde, G., Ramachandra, S., and E. Rosen, "The
BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-
tunnel-encaps-12 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing
Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
policy-03 (work in progress), May 2019.
[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>.
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
[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>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC5549] Le Faucheur, F. and E. Rosen, "Advertising IPv4 Network
Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop",
RFC 5549, DOI 10.17487/RFC5549, May 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5549>.
[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>.
[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>.
11.2. Informative References
[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-03 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]
Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz,
M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", draft-
ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2014.
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Inter-Domain Traffic Steering with BGP-LCU July 2019
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
[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>.
[RFC7811] Enyedi, G., Csaszar, A., Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and A.
Gopalan, "An Algorithm for Computing IP/LDP Fast Reroute
Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR)", RFC 7811,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7811, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7811>.
[RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.
Authors' Addresses
Louis Chan
Juniper Networks
Cityplaza One, 1111 King's Road
Taikoo Shing
Hong Kong
Phone: +8522587665
Email: louisc@juniper.net
Rafal J. Szarecki (editor)
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America
Phone: +14089365629
Email: rafal@juniper.net
Chan & Szarecki Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 23]
