Internet DRAFT - draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking
draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking
MPLS Q. Xiong
Internet-Draft G. Mirsky
Intended status: Informational ZTE Corporation
Expires: January 14, 2021 W. Cheng
China Mobile
July 13, 2020
The Use of Path Segment in SR-MPLS and MPLS Interworking
draft-xiong-mpls-path-segment-sr-mpls-interworking-02
Abstract
This document illustrates the SR-MPLS and MPLS interworking scenarios
to support end-to-end bidirectional tunnel across multiple domains
with the use of Path Segments.
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 14, 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.
Xiong, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-DraThe Use of Path Segment in SR-MPLS and MPLS Inter July 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. SR-MPLS Interworking with MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Stitching of Path Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Nesting of Path Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node
steers a packet through an SR Policy instantiated as an ordered list
of instructions called "segments". SR supports a per-flow explicit
routing while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress nodes of
the SR domain. Segment Routing can be instantiated on MPLS data
plane which is referred to as SR-MPLS [RFC8660]. SR-MPLS leverages
the MPLS label stack to construct the SR path.
IP/MPLS technology can be deployed in domains, which may serve as an
access, aggregation, or core network. Further, using SR
architecture, the IP/MPLS network may be upgraded to support the SR-
MPLS technology. As such transformation is performed incrementally,
by one domain at the time, operators are faced with a requirement to
support the interworking between MPLS and SR-MPLS networks at the
boundaries to provide the end-to-end bidirectional service. As
defined in [RFC8402], the headend of an SR Policy binds a Binding
Segment ID(B-SID) to its policy. The B-SID could be bound to a SID
List or selected path and used to stitch the SR list and the SR Label
Switched Paths (LSP) across multiple domains. The use of the B-SID
is recommended to reduce the size of the label stack and stitch the
SR LSPs.
In some scenarios, for example, a mobile backhaul transport network,
it is required to provide end-to-end bidirectional path across SR and
MPLS networks. The Path Segment as defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment] can be used to support
bidirectional tunnel scenarios such as SR path Performance
Measurement (PM), end-to-end 1+1 SR path protection and bidirectional
SR paths correlation.
Xiong, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-DraThe Use of Path Segment in SR-MPLS and MPLS Inter July 2020
This document illustrates the SR-MPLS and MPLS interworking scenarios
to support end-to-end bidirectional tunnel across multiple domains
with the use of Path Segments.
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology
ABR: Area Border Routers. Routers used to connect two IGP areas
(areas in OSPF or levels in IS-IS).
AS: Autonomous System. An Autonomous System is composed by one or
more IGP areas.
ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router. A router used to connect
together ASes of the same or different service providers via one or
more inter-AS links.
Border Node: An ABR that interconnects two or more IGP areas.
Border Link: Two ASes are interconnected with ASBRs.
B-SID: Binding Segment ID.
Domains: Autonomous System (AS) or IGP Area. An Autonomous System is
composed of one or more IGP areas.
e-PSID: end-to-end Path Segment.
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol.
N-PSID: Nesting of Path Segments.
PM: Performance Measurement.
SID: Segment ID.
SR: Segment Routing.
SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane.
S-PSID: Stitching of Path Segments.
VPN: Virtual Private Network.
Xiong, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-DraThe Use of Path Segment in SR-MPLS and MPLS Inter July 2020
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. SR-MPLS Interworking with MPLS
It is required to establish the end-to-end Virtual Private Network
(VPN) service across the access network, aggregation network, and
core network. For example, SR-MPLS may be deployed in access and
core network, and MPLS may be deployed in the aggregation network.
The network interworking should be taken into account in deployment
are the following:
o Border Node or Border Link
o Stitching of Path Segments or Nesting of Path Segments
o End-to-end Path Monitoring
The domains of the networks may be IGP Areas or ASes. The SR-MPLS
and MPLS networks can be interconnected with a border node between
IGP areas or border links between ASes. MPLS domain can be deployed
between two SR-MPLS domains, as Figure 1 shows. The packets being
transmitted along the SR path in SR-MPLS domains by using the SID
list at the ingress node. And the path in MPLS domains can be pre-
configuration either via NMS or via the MPLS control plane signaling.
This document takes border node scenarios across IGP Areas domains
for example. The border link scenarios are in future discussion.
Xiong, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-DraThe Use of Path Segment in SR-MPLS and MPLS Inter July 2020
B E X
+ + . . + +
+ + . . + +
+ + . . + +
A SR-MPLS C MPLS G SR-MPLS Z
+ IGP 1 + . IGP 2 . + IGP 3 +
+ + . . + +
+ + . . + +
D F Y
|<---Access Network--->|<-Aggregation Network->|<----Core Network---->|
Figure 1: SR-MPLS and MPLS interworking Scenario
The VPN service across the SR-MPLS and MPLS domains is an end-to-end
bidirectional path. In the SR-MPLS network, a Path Segment uniquely
identifies an SR path and can be used for the end-to-end
bidirectional path. This document illustrates the end-to-end Path
Segment used in the interworking scenario including the stitching and
nesting models. As described in [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment],
an end-to-end path segment or PSID (e-PSID), is also referred to as
Nesting of Path SID (N-PSID) in nesting model or Stitching of Path
SID (S-PSID) in stitching model.
3.1. Stitching of Path Segments
It is a common requirement that SR-MPLS needs to interwork with MPLS
when SR is incrementally deployed in the MPLS domain. Figure 2 shows
the stitching of Path Segments in SR-MPLS interworking with MPLS.
The SR-LSPs and IP/MPLS LSPs are established independently in each
domain which consist of SID list or MPLS label. The end-to-end
bidirectional path acrossing the SR-MPLS and MPLS networks is split
into multiple segments which can be identified by the S-PSID. The
end-to-end path is terminated at the egress node in egress domain.
The S-PSID will be popped out at the border node in each domain and
correlated to the S-PSID of next domain.
The correlation of S-PSIDs can bind the segments of end-to-end path.
The S-PSIDs are valid in the corresponding domain and the border
nodes maintain the forwarding entries of that S-PSID segment that
maps to the next S-PSID and the related path segments. In the
headend node, the S-PSID can correlate the inter-domain path of
reverse direction and bind the two unidirectional paths. The
stitching of Path Segments can support the end-to-end path stitching
and monitoring.
Xiong, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-DraThe Use of Path Segment in SR-MPLS and MPLS Inter July 2020
+-----------------+ ................ +-----------------+
| +---+ | . +---+ . | +---+ |
| | B | | . | E | . | | X | |
| +---+ | . +---+ . | +---+ |
| / \ | . / \ . | / \ |
| +---+ SR-MPLS +-----+ MPLS +-----+ SR-MPLS +---+ |
| | A | domain1 | C | domain2 | G | domain3 | Z | |
| +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+ |
| \ / | . \ / . | \ / |
| +---+ | . +---+ . | +---+ |
| | D | | . | F | . | | Y | |
| +---+ | . +---+ . | +---+ |
+-----------------+ ................ +-----------------+
Service Layer:
|<----------------------VPN Service---------------------->|
Path Segment:
|<-----S-PSID----->o<------S-PSID----->o<-----S-PSID----->|
LSP/Tunnel:
|<------SR-LSP---->|<---MPLS-LSP------>|<-----SR-LSP----->|
Node:
|<----SID List---->|<--- MPLS Label--->|<----SID List---->|
o Stitching
>|< Termination
-- Connection
S-PSID Stitching of Path Segments
Figure 2: Stitching of Path Segments in SR-MPLS and MPLS interworking
3.2. Nesting of Path Segments
Figure 3 displays the nesting of Path Segments in SR-MPLS and MPLS
interworking. The SR-LSPs and IP/MPLS LSPs are established in
respective domain which consist of SID list or MPLS label. The SR-
LSPs and IP/MPLS LSPs may be stitched across domains with B-SID.
Comparing with S-PSID in the stitching model, the N-PSID presents
end-to-end encapsulation in the packet from an SR-MPLS domain to an
MPLS domain which is encapsulated at the ingress nodes and
decapsulated at the egress nodes. The transit nodes, even the border
nodes of domains, are not aware of the N-PSID.
Xiong, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-DraThe Use of Path Segment in SR-MPLS and MPLS Inter July 2020
+-----------------+ ................ +-----------------+
| +---+ | . +---+ . | +---+ |
| | B | | . | E | . | | X | |
| +---+ | . +---+ . | +---+ |
| / \ | . / \ . | / \ |
| +---+ SR-MPLS +-----+ MPLS +-----+ SR-MPLS +---+ |
| | A | domain1 | C | domain2 | G | domain3 | Z | |
| +---+ +-----+ +-----+ +---+ |
| \ / | . \ / . | \ / |
| +---+ | . +---+ . | +---+ |
| | D | | . | F | . | | Y | |
| +---+ | . +---+ . | +---+ |
+-----------------+ ................ +-----------------+
Service Layer:
|<----------------------VPN Service---------------------->|
Path Segment:
|<------------------------N-PSID------------------------->|
LSP/Tunnel:
|<------SR-LSP---->o<-----MPLS-LSP----->o<-----SR-LSP---->|
Node:
|<----SID List---->|<----MPLS Label--->|<----SID List---->|
o Stitching
>|< Termination
-- Connection
N-PSID Nesting of Path Segments
Figure 3: Nesting of Path Segments in SR-MPLS and MPLS interworking
4. Security Considerations
TBA
5. Acknowledgements
TBA
6. IANA Considerations
TBA
Xiong, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-DraThe Use of Path Segment in SR-MPLS and MPLS Inter July 2020
7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]
Cheng, W., Li, H., Chen, M., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler,
"Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network",
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-02 (work in progress),
February 2020.
[I-D.xiong-spring-path-segment-sr-inter-domain]
Xiong, Q., Mirsky, G., and W. Cheng, "The Use of Path
Segment in SR Inter-domain Scenarios", draft-xiong-spring-
path-segment-sr-inter-domain-01 (work in progress),
October 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
Authors' Addresses
Quan Xiong
ZTE Corporation
No.6 Huashi Park Rd
Wuhan, Hubei 430223
China
Phone: +86 27 83531060
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Xiong, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-DraThe Use of Path Segment in SR-MPLS and MPLS Inter July 2020
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corporation
USA
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Xiong, et al. Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 9]
