Internet DRAFT - draft-wang-loops-srv6-binding
draft-wang-loops-srv6-binding
loops J. Wang
Internet-Draft S. Nie
Intended status: Informational B. Lei
Expires: September 10, 2020 China Telecom
C. Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
March 09, 2020
Embedding LOOPS in SRv6
draft-wang-loops-srv6-binding-00
Abstract
LOOPS (Local Optimizations on Path Segments) aims to provide local
in-network loss recovery. It can be used with tunneling protocols to
efficiently recover lost packets on a single segment of an end-to-end
path instead of leaving recovery to the end-to-end protocol,
traversing the entire path.
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing mechanisms and
steers the packets through an policy instantiated as an ordered list
of instructions called segments. LOOPS can be embedded in an SR
segment to improve the packet recovery. draft-welzl-loops-gen-info
defines the generic information model, without binding that to any
specific protocols, to be carried between LOOPS ingress and egress
nodes, which can be SR segment endpoints. This document specifies
the concrete mechanisms to embed LOOPS in SRv6 segment.
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 September 10, 2020.
Wang, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LOOPS in SRv6 March 2020
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. LOOPS TLV in SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Flags and Flag Based Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Embedding LOOPS in SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
LOOPS (Local Optimizations on Path Segments) aims to provide local
in-network loss recovery. [I-D.li-tsvwg-loops-problem-opportunities]
shows an overview on the problems that LOOPS could address and some
use cases where LOOPS can be employed to improve the performance.
When an end-to-end path contains one or more LOOPS segments, packet
loss recovery can be performed over such a segment. Such in-network
recovery is faster than the end-to-end packet recovery in most cases,
especially when the LOOPS enabled segment is a small part of the
entire path in terms of latency, or when it occasionally suffers
microburst losses. In addition, with the increasing deployment of
encrypted transport layer like QUIC, the traditional performance
enhancing proxies (PEPs, [RFC3135]) are no longer applicable. LOOPS
enabled on a network segment can work with no dependency on transport
layer or higher information. Thus it can improve performance over a
path with segments of varying quality.
Wang, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LOOPS in SRv6 March 2020
[I-D.welzl-loops-gen-info] illustrates the generic information to be
carried over a LOOPS segment. Such information is used for packet
loss detection, packet retransmission (if required), segment
congestion indication to end-to-end congestion control loop, etc. In
typical cases where the segment is tunnel based, this information is
embedded in the tunnel encapsulation. [I-D.welzl-loops-gen-info]
does not exhaustively describe how each protocol specifically carries
LOOPS information and what are the encapsulations.
[I-D.bormann-loops-geneve-binding] is an example for a binding of
LOOPS to a specific encapsulation, in this case Geneve. Similarly,
the present document is a binding of LOOPS to SRv6.
Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] uses source routing techniques to
deliver the data through a pre-defined path and/or functions. It can
be used to select a traffic path, for instance a lower latency one.
SRv6 (SR over IPv6) runs on a best effort IPv6 network, and its
segments suffer from different levels of packet loss. An SR segment
can naturally be a LOOPS segment to perform in-network packet loss
recovery.
There are some typical scenarios that we could use LOOPS to enhance
SRv6 data transmission. For example, most mobile payment services
have critical requirements of the latency and packet loss over the
Internet. The pre-defined SRv6 path could be the shortest one on
average, with some occasional packet loss. Such occasional packet
loss does not always trigger the selection of a better path as change
of a path normally can not be executed in real time. Hence LOOPS can
be used to recover the packet loss over SRv6 segments to guarantee
such critical services. The ingress endpoint identifies the key
services which require LOOPS enablement and the traffic flows through
the pre-defined SIDs (segment IDs). There are different ways to
identify such services, for instance, using the destination IP
address and port. In SR context, it could also be coupled to some
special SID when an SRv6 ingress node applies its path selection
policy. In-network recovery then can be performed between the
endpoints of a SR segment, to be more specific between two SIDs.
This document describes how to embed LOOPS in SRv6 data packets.
2. Terminology
This document makes use of the terminology defined in
[I-D.welzl-loops-gen-info].
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
Wang, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LOOPS in SRv6 March 2020
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. LOOPS TLV in SRv6
SRv6 [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] defines meta-data in TLV
format for segment processing. SRv6 segment endpoints are LOOPS
ingress and egress. In the rest of this document, the term "segment"
is used interchangeably both for the LOOPS segment and the SRv6
segment.
A new TLV called LOOPS is defined in this document. Figure 1 shows
its format.
Alignment requirement: 4n
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Flag Based Data ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: SRv6 LOOPS TLV
where:
o Type: to be assigned by IANA (suggested value 128). The value
should be at least 128 as LOOPS TLV data may change en route to
the packet's final destination. Its highest-order bit of Type
must be 1.
o Length: The length of the variable length data in bytes. The
maximum total length of this TLV is (8 + 127) = 135 bytes.
o Flags: 16 bits, as described in Section 3.1. Some of the flags
indicate the presence of additional data in the field of Flag
Based Data.
o Flag Based Data: This field consists of one or multiple optional
data blocks whose presence is indicated by the corresponding flag
bits. Please see Section 3.1 for details.
Wang, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LOOPS in SRv6 March 2020
3.1. Flags and Flag Based Data
Flags are defined in Figure 2. Some flags have additional data
blocks in Flags Based Data field. Those additional data blocks are
placed in order of flags. Figure 2 shows the format and definition
of flags defined.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|I|R|D|S|T|E|A|R| |B|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Flags in SRv6 LOOPS TLV
o M: Mode flag.
* 0: Retransmission mode. In this mode, the LOOPS TLV format and
operations follow this document.
* 1: FEC mode.
o I: Initial Packet Sequence Number (PSN) flag. It is set by the
LOOPS ingress to notify the egress about using a new initial PSN.
o R: Initial PSN Received flag; echo of I flag provided by the LOOPS
egress.
o D: ACK Desired flag. It is set by the LOOPS ingress if it wants
the egress to generate an acknowledgement immediately upon
receiving a particular packet.
o S: PSN flag. When set, it indicates a PSN data block is carried
in Flag Based Data field. It must be set when a packet payload is
present. It must not be set if the packet is a pure LOOPS ACK
packet, i.e. when no payload is included in the packet.
o T: Timestamp flag. When set, it indicates a Timestamp data block
is carried in the Flag Based Data field.
o E: Echoed Timestamp flag. When set, it indicates an Echoed
Timestamp data block is carried in the Flag Based Data field.
o A: ACK number flag. When set, it indicates the presence of a
Block 1 ACK information block.
o R: Reception time flag: May only be set if A is set. Indicates
that an absolute reception time is given (Format TBD).
Wang, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LOOPS in SRv6 March 2020
Finally, a single flag bit is defined that causes the addition of a
variable-length block (therefore this flag is put as the least
significant bit of Flags):
o B: Block 2 flag. When set, it indicates the presence of a Block 2
ACK information block, with the following format: TBD
(((We borrowed most text about encapsulation from draft-bormann-
loops-geneve-binding. 1. M flag for Mode is put in flags field
which is different from Geneve encap. 2. Further discussion about a
minimum and unified set of loops format is required since it turns
out most encap format are the same for Geneve and SRv6. )))
4. Embedding LOOPS in SRv6
LOOPS can be enabled on any segment in SRv6 deployment. For
instance, a SID list <S1, S2, S3> may enable LOOPS on any segments
independently. If segment S2 is subject to higher packet loss, LOOPS
is enabled on S2 without impact on S1 and S3.
Figure 3 shows packets sent from S to D in an SRv6 domain via SID
list <S1, S2, S3> and LOOPS is enabled between R1 and R2. The
configuration needs to make sure both R1 and R2 can support LOOPS
TLV.
Wang, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LOOPS in SRv6 March 2020
Format
(SA,DA): (src address, dst address)
(S3, S2, S1; SL):(SID list; Segments Left)
SID:S1 SID:S2 SID:S3
+----+ +----+ lossy link +----+ +----+ +---+
| S |---| R1 |--------------| R2 |------| R3 |------| D |
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +---+
| |
|<----------------->|
| LOOPS enabled |
(S, S1)
(D,S3,S2,S1;3)
------------>
(S, S2)
(D,S3,S2,S1;2)
+ LOOPS TLV
--------------> (S, S3)
(D,S3,S2,S1;1)
(S2,S1) -------------->
(S1;0) (S, D)
+ LOOPS TLV (D,S3,S2,S1;0)
<--------------- ------------->
Figure 3: Segment enabled LOOPS in SRv6
LOOPS TLV should be parsed and removed by the destined SRv6 SID.
That is to say LOOPS is enabled on a segment independently.
In the forward path, a LOOPS TLV is added by SR segment endpoint R1
and sent to SID S2. When R2 receives the packet with SRH and LOOPS
TLV present, it should get the previous segment SID which is S1 as
shown in Figure 3 from field Segment List[Segment Left + 1] where
Segment Left is field value in the received SRH. When the value of
Segment Left is equal to the value of Last Entry in SRH, the previous
segment SID is set to the value of the source IPv6 address in IP
header.
Reduced SRH (section 4.1.1 in [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header])
does not contain the first segment of the related SR policy in
Segment List, the first segment is the one already in the DA of the
IPv6 header. Hence when reduced SRH is used, if the value of Segment
Left is equal to the value of (Last Entry + 1) in SRH, the previous
Wang, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LOOPS in SRv6 March 2020
segment SID is set to the value of the source IPv6 address. A
special case that needs to be taken care of is when LOOPS is enabled
on the second segment with reduced SRH. As the SID of the first
segment is not present in the field of Segment List, there is no
direct way to set the right value of previous segment SID (which is
SID of the first segment) when the second segment receives the LOOPS
enabled packet. Hence it is suggested not to use reduced SRH when
LOOPS is in use or the configurations need to ensure that LOOPS is
not enabled on the second segment when reduced SRH is in use.
Any generated feedback such as ACKs should be sent as reverse channel
information back to previous segment SID. The LOOPS reverse channel
information needs to be sent from SID S2 to SID S1 in figure 3. Such
information can be piggybacked in data packets in the reverse
direction. When piggyback is not possible, a pure LOOPS ACK needs to
be sent back. In this case, the reverse information packet has SRH
with LOOPS TLV but has no real payload. The field of Next Header in
SRH for pure LOOPS ACK should be set to 59 (No Next Header)
[RFC8200].
When the sender and receiver are outside the SRv6 domain, the SR
ingress (which could be R1 in Figure 3) will encapsulate the packet
received in an outer header with an SRH. LOOPS can be enabled on the
segment indicated by the outer header.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [I-D.welzl-loops-gen-info] and
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] apply.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a code point value for LOOPS TLV from
Segment Routing Header TLVs Registry.
Assigned Value Description
------------ --------------------------------------------
128 LOOPS (Local Optimizations on Path Segments)
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC3135] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G., and Z.
Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to
Mitigate Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3135, June 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3135>.
Wang, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LOOPS in SRv6 March 2020
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[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>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.li-tsvwg-loops-problem-opportunities]
Yizhou, L., Zhou, X., Boucadair, M., and J. Wang, "LOOPS
(Localized Optimizations on Path Segments) Problem
Statement and Opportunities for Network-Assisted
Performance Enhancement", draft-li-tsvwg-loops-problem-
opportunities-04 (work in progress), January 2020.
[I-D.welzl-loops-gen-info]
Welzl, M. and C. Bormann, "LOOPS Generic Information Set",
draft-welzl-loops-gen-info-02 (work in progress), November
2019.
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 (work in
progress), October 2019.
[I-D.bormann-loops-geneve-binding]
Bormann, C., "Embedding LOOPS in Geneve", draft-bormann-
loops-geneve-binding-00 (work in progress), November 2019.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yizhou Li for her help on LOOPS
generic information.
Wang, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LOOPS in SRv6 March 2020
Authors' Addresses
Jianglong Wang
China Telecom
Email: wangjl50@chinatelecom.cn
Shizhong Nie
China Telecom
Email: nieshzh@chinatelecom.cn
Bo Lei
China Telecom
Email: leibo@chinatelecom.cn
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen D-28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Wang, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 10]
