Internet DRAFT - draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming
draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming
SPRING F. Clad, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track X. Xu, Ed.
Expires: October 25, 2019 Alibaba
C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Bernier
Bell Canada
C. Li
Huawei
B. Decraene
Orange
S. Ma
Juniper
C. Yadlapalli
AT&T
W. Henderickx
Nokia
S. Salsano
Universita di Roma "Tor Vergata"
April 23, 2019
Service Programming with Segment Routing
draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming-02
Abstract
This document defines data plane functionality required to implement
service segments and achieve service programming in SR-enabled MPLS
and IP networks, as described in the Segment Routing architecture.
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 October 25, 2019.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
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
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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Classification and steering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Service segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. SR-aware services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. SR-unaware services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. SR service policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. SR-MPLS data plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. SRv6 data plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. SR proxy behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Static SR proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1. SR-MPLS pseudocode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.2. SRv6 pseudocode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Dynamic SR proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.1. SR-MPLS pseudocode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.2. SRv6 pseudocode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. Shared memory SR proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.4. Masquerading SR proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.4.1. SRv6 masquerading proxy pseudocode . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4.2. Variant 1: Destination NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.4.3. Variant 2: Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.1. MPLS data plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.2. IPv6 data plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2.1. SRH TLV objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2.2. SRH tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Implementation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.1. SR-aware services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.2. Proxy behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. Related works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
10.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.2. Segment Routing Header TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) is an architecture based on the source routing
paradigm that seeks the right balance between distributed
intelligence and centralized programmability. SR can be used with an
MPLS or an IPv6 data plane to steer packets through an ordered list
of instructions, called segments. These segments may encode simple
routing instructions for forwarding packets along a specific network
path, but also steer them through VNFs or physical service appliances
available in the network.
In an SR network, each of these services, running either on a
physical appliance or in a virtual environment, are associated with a
segment identifier (SID). These service SIDs are then leveraged as
part of a SID-list to steer packets through the corresponding
services. Service SIDs may be combined together in a SID-list to
achieve service programming, but also with other types of segments as
defined in [RFC8402]. SR thus provides a fully integrated solution
for overlay, underlay and service programming. Furthermore, the IPv6
instantiation of SR (SRv6) supports metadata transportation in the
Segment Routing header [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header], either
natively in the tag field or with extensions such as TLVs.
This document describes how a service can be associated with a SID,
including legacy services with no SR capabilities, and how these
service SIDs are integrated within an SR policy. The definition of
an SR Policy and the traffic steering mechanisms are covered in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] and hence outside the scope
of this document.
The definition of control plane components, such as service segment
discovery, is outside the scope of this data plane document. For
reference, the option of using BGP extensions to support SR service
programming is proposed in [I-D.dawra-idr-bgp-sr-service-chaining].
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
2. Terminology
This document leverages the terminology proposed in [RFC8402] and
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. It also introduces the
following new terms.
Service segment: A segment associated with a service. The service
may either run on a physical appliance or in a virtual environment
such as a virtual machine or container.
SR-aware service: A service that is fully capable of processing SR
traffic. An SR-aware service can be directly associated with a
service segment.
SR-unaware service: A service that is unable to process SR traffic or
may behave incorrectly due to presence of SR information in the
packet headers. An SR-unaware service can be associated with a
service segment through an SR proxy function.
3. Classification and steering
Classification and steering mechanisms are defined in section 8 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] and are independent from the
purpose of the SR policy. From the perspective of a headend node
classifying and steering traffic into an SR policy, there is no
difference whether this policy contains IGP, BGP, peering, VPN or
service segments, or any combination of these.
As documented in the above reference, traffic is classified when
entering an SR domain. The SR policy headend may, depending on its
capabilities, classify the packets on a per-destination basis, via
simple FIB entries, or apply more complex policy routing rules
requiring to look deeper into the packet. These rules are expected
to support basic policy routing such as 5-tuple matching. In
addition, the IPv6 SRH tag field defined in
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] can be used to identify and
classify packets sharing the same set of properties. Classified
traffic is then steered into the appropriate SR policy and forwarded
as per the SID-list(s) of the active candidate path.
SR traffic can be re-classified by an SR endpoint along the original
SR policy (e.g., DPI service) or a transit node intercepting the
traffic. This node is the head-end of a new SR policy that is
imposed onto the packet, either as a stack of MPLS labels or as an
IPv6 SRH.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
4. Service segments
In the context of this document, the term service refers to a
physical appliance running on dedicated hardware, a virtualized
service inside an isolated environment such as a VM, container or
namespace, or any process running on a compute element. A service
may also comprise multiple sub-components running in different
processes or containers. Unless otherwise stated, this document does
not make any assumption on the type or execution environment of a
service.
The execution of a service can be integrated as part of an SR policy
by assigning a segment identifier, or SID, to the service and
including this service SID in the SR policy SID-list. Such a service
SID may be of local or global significance. In the former case,
other segments, such as prefix or adjacency segments, can be used to
steer the traffic up to the node where the service segment is
instantiated. In the latter case, the service is directly reachable
from anywhere in the routing domain. This is realized with SR-MPLS
by assigning a SID from the global label block
([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]), or with SRv6 by advertising
the SID locator in the routing protocol
([I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]). It is up to the
network operator to define the scope and reachability of each service
SID. This decision can be based on various considerations such as
infrastructure dynamicity, available control plane or orchestration
system capabilities.
This document categorizes services in two types, depending on whether
they are able to behave properly in the presence of SR information or
not. These are respectively named SR-aware and SR-unaware services.
4.1. SR-aware services
An SR-aware service can process the SR information in the packets it
receives. This means being able to identify the active segment as a
local instruction and move forward in the segment list, but also that
the service's own behavior is not hindered due to the presence of SR
information. For example, an SR-aware firewall filtering SRv6
traffic based on its final destination must retrieve that information
from the last entry in the SRH rather than the Destination Address
field of the IPv6 header.
An SR-aware service is associated with a locally instantiated service
segment, which is used to steer traffic through it.
If the service is configured to intercept all the packets passing
through the appliance, the underlying routing system only has to
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
implement a default SR endpoint behavior (SR-MPLS node segment or
SRv6 End function), and the corresponding SID will be used to steer
traffic through the service.
If the service requires the packets to be directed to a specific
virtual interface, networking queue or process, a dedicated SR
behavior may be required to steer the packets to the appropriate
location. The definition of such service-specific functions is out
of the scope of this document.
SR-aware services also enable advanced network programming
functionalities such as conditional branching and jumping to
arbitrary SIDs in the segment list. In addition, SRv6 provides
several ways of passing and exchanging information between services
(e.g., SID arguments, tag field and TLVs). An example scenario
involving these features is described in [IFIP18], which discusses
the implementation of an SR-aware Intrusion Detection System.
Examples of SR-aware services are provided in section Section 8.1.
4.2. SR-unaware services
Any service that does not meet the above criteria for SR-awareness is
considered as SR-unaware.
An SR-unaware service is not able to process the SR information in
the traffic that it receives. It may either drop the traffic or take
erroneous decisions due to the unrecognized routing information. In
order to include such services in an SR policy, it is thus required
to remove the SR information as well as any other encapsulation
header before the service receives the packet, or to alter it in such
a way that the service can correctly process the packet.
In this document, we define the concept of an SR proxy as an entity,
separate from the service, that performs these modifications and
handle the SR processing on behalf of a service. The SR proxy can
run as a separate process on the service appliance, on a virtual
switch or router on the compute node or on a different host.
An SR-unaware service is associated with a service segment
instantiated on the SR proxy, which is used to steer traffic through
the service. Section 6 describes several SR proxy behaviors to
handle the encapsulation headers and SR information under various
circumstances.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
5. SR service policies
An SR service policy is an SR policy, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], that includes at least one
service. This service is represented in the SID-list by its
associated service SID. In case the policy should include several
services, the service traversal order is indicated by the relative
position of each service SID in the SID-list. Using the mechanisms
described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], it is possible
to load balance the traffic over several services, or instances of
the same service, by associating with the SR service policy a
weighted set of SID-lists, each containing a possible sequence of
service SIDs to be traversed. Similarly, several candidate paths can
be specified for the SR service policy, each with its own set of SID-
lists, for resiliency purposes.
Furthermore, binding SIDs (BSIDs) can be leveraged in the context of
service policies to reduce the number of SIDs imposed by the headend,
provide opacity between domains and improve scalability, as described
in [I-D.filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations]. For example, a
network operator may want a policy in its core domain to include
services that are running in one of its datacenters. One option is
to define an SR policy at ingress edge of the core domain that
explicitly includes all the SIDs needed to steer the traffic through
the core and in the DC, but that may result in a long SID-list and
requires to update the ingress edge configuration every time the DC
part of the policy is modified. Alternatively, a separate policy can
be defined at the ingress edge of the datacenter with only the SIDs
that needs to be executed there and its BSID included in the core
domain policy. That BSID remains stable when the DC policy is
modified and can even be shared among several core domain policies
that would require the same type of processing in the DC.
This section describes how services can be integrated within an SR-
MPLS or SRv6 service policy.
+------------------------------------------+
| SR network |
| |
+----+----+ +---------+ +----+-----+
| H +----------+ S +-----------+ E |
|(headend)| |(service)| |(endpoint)|
+----+----+ +---------+ +----+-----+
| =====================================> |
| P1(H,E,C) |
+------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: SR service policy
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
Figure 1 illustrates a basic SR service policy instantiated on a
headend node H towards an endpoint E and traversing a service S. The
SR policy may also include additional requirements, such as traffic
engineering or VPN. On the head-end H, the SR policy P1 is created
with a color C and endpoint E and associated with an SR path that can
either be explicitly configured, dynamically computed on H or
provisioned by a network controller.
In its most basic form, the SR policy P1 would be resolved into the
SID-list < SID(S), SID(E) >. This is assuming that SID(S) and SID(E)
are directly reachable from H and S, respectively, and that the
forwarding path meets the policy requirement. However, depending on
the dataplane and the segments available in the network, additional
SIDs may be required to enforce the SR policy.
This model applies regardless of the SR-awareness of the service. If
it is SR-unaware, then S simply represents the proxy that takes care
of transmitting the packet to the actual service.
Traffic can then be steered into this policy using any of the
mechanisms described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
The following subsections describe the specificities of each SR
dataplane.
5.1. SR-MPLS data plane
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
+-----------------------------------------------+
| SR-MPLS network |
| |
+----+----+ ------> +---------+ ------> +----+-----+
| H +-------------+ S +-------------+ E |
|(headend)| |(service)| |(endpoint)|
+----+----+ +---------+ +----+-----+
| (1) (2) (3) (4) |
|+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+|
|| ... | | L(S) | | ... | | L(E) ||
|+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+|
|| L(S) | | ... | | L(E) | |Inner pkt||
|+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+|
|| ... | | L(E) | |Inner pkt| |
|+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ |
|| L(E) | |Inner pkt| |
|+---------+ +---------+ |
||Inner pkt| |
|+---------+ |
+-----------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Packet walk in an SR-MPLS network
In an SR-MPLS network, the SR policy SID-list is encoded as a stack
of MPLS labels[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] and pushed on
top of the packet.
In the example shown on Figure 2, the SR policy should steer the
traffic from the head-end H to the endpoint E via a service S. This
translates into an MPLS label stack that includes at least a label
L(S) associated to service S and a label L(E) associated to the
endpoint E. The label stack may also include additional intermediate
segments if these are required for traffic engineering (e.g., to
encode a low latency path between H and S and / or between S and E)
or simply for reachability purposes. Indeed, the service SID L(S)
may be taken from the global or local SID block of node S and, in the
latter case, one or more SIDs might be needed before L(S) in order
for the packet to reach node S (e.g., a prefix-SID of S), where L(S)
can be interpreted. The same applies for the segment L(E) at the SR
policy endpoint.
Special consideration must be taken into account when using Local
SIDs for service identification due to increased label stack depth
and the associated impacts.
When the packet arrives at S, this node determines the MPLS payload
type and the appropriate behavior for processing the packet based on
the semantic locally associated to the top label L(S). If S is an
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
SR-aware service, the SID L(S) may provide additional context or
indication on how to process the packet (e.g., a firewall SID may
indicate which rule set should be applied onto the packet). If S is
a proxy in front of an SR-unaware service, L(S) indicates how and to
which service attached to this proxy the packet should be
transmitted. At some point in the process, L(S) is also popped from
the label stack in order to expose the next SID, which may be L(E) or
another intermediate segment.
5.2. SRv6 data plane
+-----------------------------------------------+
| SRv6 network |
| |
+----+----+ ------> +---------+ ------> +----+-----+
| H +-------------+ S +-------------+ E |
|(headend)| |(service)| |(endpoint)|
+----+----+ +---------+ +----+-----+
| (1) (2) (3) (4) |
|+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+|
||IP6(H,..)| |IP6(H, S)| |IP6(H,..)| |IP6(H, E)||
|+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+|
||SRH(E,..,| |SRH(E,..,| |SRH(E,..,| |SRH(E,..,||
|| S,..;| | S,..;| | S,..;| | S,..;||
|| SL=i)| | SL=j)| | SL=k)| | SL=0)||
|+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+|
||Inner pkt| |Inner pkt| |Inner pkt| |Inner pkt||
|+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+|
+-----------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Packet walk in an SRv6 network
In an SRv6 network, the SR Policy is encoded into the packet as an
IPv6 header possibly followed by a Segment Routing header (SRH)
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
In the example shown on Figure 3, the SR policy should steer the
traffic from the head-end H to the endpoint E via a service S. This
translates into an SRH that includes at least a segment SID(S) to the
service, or service proxy, S and a segment SID(E) to the endpoint E.
The SRH may also include additional intermediate segments if these
are required for traffic engineering (e.g., the encode a low latency
path between H and S and / or between S and E) or simply for
reachability purposes. Indeed, the service segment locator may or
may not be advertised in the routing protocol and, in the latter
case, one or more SIDs might be needed before SID(S) in order to
bring the packet up to node S, where SID(S) can be interpreted. The
same applies for the segment SID(E) at the SR policy endpoint.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
When the packet arrives at S, this node determines how to process the
packet based on the semantic locally associated to the active segment
SID(S). If S is an SR-aware service, then SID(S) may provide
additional context or indication on how to process the packet (e.g.,
a firewall SID may indicate which rule set should be applied onto the
packet). If S is a proxy in front of an SR-unaware service, SID(S)
indicates how and to which service attached to this proxy the packet
should be transmitted. At some point in the process, the SRv6 End
function is also applied in order to make the next SID, which may be
SID(E) or another intermediate segment, active.
The "Inner pkt" on Figure 3 represents the SRv6 payload, which may be
an encapsulated IP packet, an Ethernet frame or a transport-layer
payload, for example.
6. SR proxy behaviors
This section describes several SR proxy behaviors designed to enable
SR service programming through SR-unaware services. A system
implementing one of these functions may handle the SR processing on
behalf of an SR-unaware service and allows the service to properly
process the traffic that is steered through it.
A service may be located at any hop in an SR policy, including the
last segment. However, the SR proxy behaviors defined in this
section are dedicated to supporting SR-unaware services at
intermediate hops in the segment list. In case an SR-unaware service
is at the last segment, it is sufficient to ensure that the SR
information is ignored (IPv6 routing extension header with Segments
Left equal to 0) or removed before the packet reaches the service
(MPLS PHP, SRv6 End.D or PSP).
As illustrated on Figure 4, the generic behavior of an SR proxy has
two parts. The first part is in charge of passing traffic from the
network to the service. It intercepts the SR traffic destined for
the service via a locally instantiated service segment, modifies it
in such a way that it appears as non-SR traffic to the service, then
sends it out on a given interface, IFACE-OUT, connected to the
service. The second part receives the traffic coming back from the
service on IFACE-IN, restores the SR information and forwards it
according to the next segment in the list. IFACE-OUT and IFACE-IN
are respectively the proxy interface used for sending traffic to the
service and the proxy interface that receives the traffic coming back
from the service. These can be physical interfaces or sub-interfaces
(VLANs) and, unless otherwise stated, IFACE-OUT and IFACE-IN can
represent the same interface.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
+----------------------------+
| |
| Service |
| |
+----------------------------+
^ Non SR |
| traffic |
| v
+-----------+----------+
+--| IFACE OUT | IFACE IN |--+
SR traffic | +-----------+----------+ | SR traffic
---------->| SR proxy |---------->
| |
+----------------------------+
Figure 4: Generic SR proxy
In the next subsections, the following SR proxy mechanisms are
defined:
o Static proxy
o Dynamic proxy
o Shared-memory proxy
o Masquerading proxy
Each mechanism has its own characteristics and constraints, which are
summarized in the below table. It is up to the operator to select
the best one based on the proxy node capabilities, the service
behavior and the traffic type. It is also possible to use different
proxy mechanisms within the same service policy.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | | | M |
| | | S | a |
| | | h | s |
| | | a | q |
| | | r | u |
| | D | e | e |
| S | y | d | r |
| t | n | | a |
| a | a | m | d |
| t | m | e | i |
| i | i | m | n |
| c | c | . | g |
+---------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | SR-MPLS | Y | Y | Y | - |
| | | | | | |
| SR flavors | SRv6 insertion | P | P | P | Y |
| | | | | | |
| | SRv6 encapsulation | Y | Y | Y | - |
+----------------+----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Chain agnostic configuration | N | N | Y | Y |
+---------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Transparent to chain changes | N | Y | Y | Y |
+----------------+----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | DA modification | Y | Y | Y | NAT |
| | | | | | |
| | Payload modification | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| | | | | | |
|Service support | Packet generation | Y | Y |cache|cache|
| | | | | | |
| | Packet deletion | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| | | | | | |
| | Transport endpoint | Y | Y |cache|cache|
+----------------+----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | Ethernet | Y | Y | Y | - |
| Supported | | | | | |
| traffic | IPv4 | Y | Y | Y | - |
| | | | | | |
| | IPv6 | Y | Y | Y | Y |
+----------------+----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Figure 5: SR proxy summary
Note: The use of a shared memory proxy requires both the service
(VNF) and the proxy to be running on the same node.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
6.1. Static SR proxy
The static proxy is an SR endpoint behavior for processing SR-MPLS or
SRv6 encapsulated traffic on behalf of an SR-unaware service. This
proxy thus receives SR traffic that is formed of an MPLS label stack
or an IPv6 header on top of an inner packet, which can be Ethernet,
IPv4 or IPv6.
A static SR proxy segment is associated with the following mandatory
parameters
o INNER-TYPE: Inner packet type
o NH-ADDR: Next hop Ethernet address (only for inner type IPv4 and
IPv6)
o IFACE-OUT: Local interface for sending traffic towards the service
o IFACE-IN: Local interface receiving the traffic coming back from
the service
o CACHE: SR information to be attached on the traffic coming back
from the service, including at least
* CACHE.SA: IPv6 source address (SRv6 only)
* CACHE.LIST: Segment list expressed as MPLS labels or IPv6
address
A static SR proxy segment is thus defined for a specific service,
inner packet type and cached SR information. It is also bound to a
pair of directed interfaces on the proxy. These may be both
directions of a single interface, or opposite directions of two
different interfaces. The latter is recommended in case the service
is to be used as part of a bi-directional SR SC policy. If the proxy
and the service both support 802.1Q, IFACE-OUT and IFACE-IN can also
represent sub-interfaces.
The first part of this behavior is triggered when the proxy node
receives a packet whose active segment matches a segment associated
with the static proxy behavior. It removes the SR information from
the packet then sends it on a specific interface towards the
associated service. This SR information corresponds to the full
label stack for SR-MPLS or to the encapsulation IPv6 header with any
attached extension header in the case of SRv6.
The second part is an inbound policy attached to the proxy interface
receiving the traffic returning from the service, IFACE-IN. This
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
policy attaches to the incoming traffic the cached SR information
associated with the SR proxy segment. If the proxy segment uses the
SR-MPLS data plane, CACHE contains a stack of labels to be pushed on
top of the packets. With the SRv6 data plane, CACHE is defined as a
source address, an active segment and an optional SRH (tag, segments
left, segment list and metadata). The proxy encapsulates the packets
with an IPv6 header that has the source address, the active segment
as destination address and the SRH as a routing extension header.
After the SR information has been attached, the packets are forwarded
according to the active segment, which is represented by the top MPLS
label or the IPv6 Destination Address. An MPLS TTL or IPv6 Hop Limit
value may also be configured in CACHE. If it is not, the proxy
should set these values according to the node's default setting for
MPLS or IPv6 encapsulation.
In this scenario, there are no restrictions on the operations that
can be performed by the service on the stream of packets. It may
operate at all protocol layers, terminate transport layer
connections, generate new packets and initiate transport layer
connections. This behavior may also be used to integrate an
IPv4-only service into an SRv6 policy. However, a static SR proxy
segment can be used in only one service policy at a time. As opposed
to most other segment types, a static SR proxy segment is bound to a
unique list of segments, which represents a directed SR SC policy.
This is due to the cached SR information being defined in the segment
configuration. This limitation only prevents multiple segment lists
from using the same static SR proxy segment at the same time, but a
single segment list can be shared by any number of traffic flows.
Besides, since the returning traffic from the service is re-
classified based on the incoming interface, an interface can be used
as receiving interface (IFACE-IN) only for a single SR proxy segment
at a time. In the case of a bi-directional SR SC policy, a different
SR proxy segment and receiving interface are required for the return
direction.
The static proxy behavior may also be used for sending traffic
through "bump in the wire" services that are transparent to the IP
and Ethernet layers. This type of processing is assumed when the
inner traffic type is Ethernet, since the original destination
address of the Ethernet frame is preserved when the packet is steered
into the SR Policy and likely associated with a node downstream of
the policy tail-end. In case the inner type is IP (IPv4 or IPv6),
the NH-ADDR parameter may be set to a dummy or broadcast Ethernet
address, or simply to the address of the proxy receiving interface
(IFACE-IN).
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
6.1.1. SR-MPLS pseudocode
6.1.1.1. Static proxy for inner type Ethernet
Upon receiving an MPLS packet with top label L, where L is an MPLS L2
static proxy segment, a node N does:
1. Pop all labels
2. IF payload type is Ethernet THEN
3. Forward the exposed frame on IFACE-OUT
4. ELSE
5. Drop the packet
Upon receiving on IFACE-IN an Ethernet frame with a destination
address different than the interface address, a node N does:
1. Push labels in CACHE on top of the frame Ethernet header
2. Lookup the top label and proceed accordingly
The receiving interface must be configured in promiscuous mode in
order to accept those Ethernet frames.
6.1.1.2. Static proxy for inner type IPv4
Upon receiving an MPLS packet with top label L, where L is an MPLS
IPv4 static proxy segment, a node N does:
1. Pop all labels
2. IF payload type is IPv4 THEN
3. Forward the exposed packet on IFACE-OUT towards NH-ADDR
4. ELSE
5. Drop the packet
Upon receiving a non-link-local IPv4 packet on IFACE-IN, a node N
does:
1. Decrement TTL and update checksum
2. Push labels in CACHE on top of the packet IPv4 header
3. Lookup the top label and proceed accordingly
6.1.1.3. Static proxy for inner type IPv6
Upon receiving an MPLS packet with top label L, where L is an MPLS
IPv6 static proxy segment, a node N does:
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
1. Pop all labels
2. IF payload type is IPv6 THEN
3. Forward the exposed packet on IFACE-OUT towards NH-ADDR
4. ELSE
5. Drop the packet
Upon receiving a non-link-local IPv6 packet on IFACE-IN, a node N
does:
1. Decrement Hop Limit
2. Push labels in CACHE on top of the packet IPv6 header
3. Lookup the top label and proceed accordingly
6.1.2. SRv6 pseudocode
6.1.2.1. Static proxy for inner type Ethernet
Upon receiving an IPv6 packet destined for S, where S is an IPv6
static proxy segment for Ethernet traffic, a node N does:
1. IF ENH == 59 THEN ;; Ref1
2. Remove the (outer) IPv6 header and its extension headers
3. Forward the exposed frame on IFACE-OUT
4. ELSE
5. Drop the packet
Ref1: 59 refers to "no next header" as defined by IANA allocation for
Internet Protocol Numbers.
Upon receiving on IFACE-IN an Ethernet frame with a destination
address different than the interface address, a node N does:
1. Retrieve CACHE entry matching IFACE-IN and traffic type
2. Push SRH with CACHE.LIST on top of the Ethernet header ;; Ref2
3. Push IPv6 header with
SA = CACHE.SA
DA = CACHE.LIST[0] ;; Ref3
Next Header = 43 ;; Ref4
4. Set outer payload length and flow label
5. Lookup outer DA in appropriate table and proceed accordingly
Ref2: Unless otherwise specified, the segments in CACHE.LIST should
be encoded in reversed order, Segment Left and Last Entry values
should be set of the length of CACHE.LIST minus 1, and Next Header
should be set to 59.
Ref3: CACHE.LIST[0] represents the first IPv6 SID in CACHE.LIST.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
Ref4: If CACHE.LIST contains a single entry, the SRH can be omitted
and the Next Header value must be set to 59.
The receiving interface must be configured in promiscuous mode in
order to accept those Ethernet frames.
6.1.2.2. Static proxy for inner type IPv4
Upon receiving an IPv6 packet destined for S, where S is an IPv6
static proxy segment for IPv4 traffic, a node N does:
1. IF ENH == 4 THEN ;; Ref1
2. Remove the (outer) IPv6 header and its extension headers
3. Forward the exposed packet on IFACE-OUT towards NH-ADDR
4. ELSE
5. Drop the packet
Ref1: 4 refers to IPv4 encapsulation as defined by IANA allocation
for Internet Protocol Numbers.
Upon receiving a non-link-local IPv4 packet on IFACE-IN, a node N
does:
1. Decrement TTL and update checksum
2. IF CACHE.SRH THEN ;; Ref2
3. Push CACHE.SRH on top of the existing IPv4 header
4. Set NH value of the pushed SRH to 4
5. Push outer IPv6 header with SA, DA and traffic class from CACHE
6. Set outer payload length and flow label
7. Set NH value to 43 if an SRH was added, or 4 otherwise
8. Lookup outer DA in appropriate table and proceed accordingly
Ref2: CACHE.SRH represents the SRH defined in CACHE, if any, for the
static SR proxy segment associated with IFACE-IN.
6.1.2.3. Static proxy for inner type IPv6
Upon receiving an IPv6 packet destined for S, where S is an IPv6
static proxy segment for IPv6 traffic, a node N does:
1. IF ENH == 41 THEN ;; Ref1
2. Remove the (outer) IPv6 header and its extension headers
3. Forward the exposed packet on IFACE-OUT towards NH-ADDR
4. ELSE
5. Drop the packet
Ref1: 41 refers to IPv6 encapsulation as defined by IANA allocation
for Internet Protocol Numbers.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
Upon receiving a non-link-local IPv6 packet on IFACE-IN, a node N
does:
1. Decrement Hop Limit
2. IF CACHE.SRH THEN ;; Ref2
3. Push CACHE.SRH on top of the existing IPv6 header
4. Set NH value of the pushed SRH to 41
5. Push outer IPv6 header with SA, DA and traffic class from CACHE
6. Set outer payload length and flow label
7. Set NH value to 43 if an SRH was added, or 41 otherwise
8. Lookup outer DA in appropriate table and proceed accordingly
Ref2: CACHE.SRH represents the SRH defined in CACHE, if any, for the
static SR proxy segment associated with IFACE-IN.
6.2. Dynamic SR proxy
The dynamic proxy is an improvement over the static proxy that
dynamically learns the SR information before removing it from the
incoming traffic. The same information can then be re-attached to
the traffic returning from the service. As opposed to the static SR
proxy, no CACHE information needs to be configured. Instead, the
dynamic SR proxy relies on a local caching mechanism on the node
instantiating this segment.
Upon receiving a packet whose active segment matches a dynamic SR
proxy function, the proxy node pops the top MPLS label or applies the
SRv6 End behavior, then compares the updated SR information with the
cache entry for the current segment. If the cache is empty or
different, it is updated with the new SR information. The SR
information is then removed and the inner packet is sent towards the
service.
The cache entry is not mapped to any particular packet, but instead
to an SR SC policy identified by the receiving interface (IFACE-IN).
Any non-link-local IP packet or non-local Ethernet frame received on
that interface will be re-encapsulated with the cached headers as
described in Section 6.1. The service may thus drop, modify or
generate new packets without affecting the proxy.
6.2.1. SR-MPLS pseudocode
The dynamic proxy SR-MPLS pseudocode is obtained by inserting the
following instructions at the beginning of the static SR-MPLS
pseudocode (Section 6.1.1).
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
1. IF top label S bit is 0 THEN ;; Ref1
2. Pop top label
3. IF C(IFACE-IN) different from remaining labels THEN ;; Ref2
4. Copy all remaining labels into C(IFACE-IN) ;; Ref3
5. ELSE
6. Drop the packet
Ref1: As mentioned at the beginning of Section 6, an SR proxy is not
needed to include an SR-unaware service at the end of an SR policy.
Ref2: A TTL margin can be configured for the top label stack entry to
prevent constant cache updates when multiple equal-cost paths with
different hop counts are used towards the SR proxy node. In that
case, a TTL difference smaller than the configured margin should not
trigger a cache update (provided that the labels are the same).
Ref3: C(IFACE-IN) represents the cache entry associated to the
dynamic SR proxy segment. It is identified with IFACE-IN in order to
efficiently retrieve the right SR information when a packet arrives
on this interface.
In addition, the inbound policy should check that C(IFACE-IN) has
been defined before attempting to restore the MPLS label stack and
drop the packet otherwise.
6.2.2. SRv6 pseudocode
The dynamic proxy SRv6 pseudocode is obtained by inserting the
following instructions between lines 1 and 2 of the static proxy SRv6
pseudocode.
1. IF NH=SRH & SL > 0 THEN ;; Ref1
2. Decrement SL and update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL]
3. IF C(IFACE-IN) different from IPv6 encaps THEN ;; Ref2
4. Copy the IPv6 encaps into C(IFACE-IN) ;; Ref3
5. ELSE
6. Drop the packet
Ref1: As mentioned at the beginning of Section 6, an SR proxy is not
needed to include an SR-unaware service at the end of an SR policy.
Ref2: "IPv6 encaps" represents the IPv6 header and any attached
extension header.
Ref3: C(IFACE-IN) represents the cache entry associated to the
dynamic SR proxy segment. It is identified with IFACE-IN in order to
efficiently retrieve the right SR information when a packet arrives
on this interface.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
In addition, the inbound policy should check that C(IFACE-IN) has
been defined before attempting to restore the IPv6 encapsulation and
drop the packet otherwise.
6.3. Shared memory SR proxy
The shared memory proxy is an SR endpoint behavior for processing SR-
MPLS or SRv6 encapsulated traffic on behalf of an SR-unaware service.
This proxy behavior leverages a shared-memory interface with a
virtualized service (VNF) in order to hide the SR information from an
SR-unaware service while keeping it attached to the packet. We
assume in this case that the proxy and the VNF are running on the
same compute node. A typical scenario is an SR-capable vrouter
running on a container host and forwarding traffic to VNFs isolated
within their respective container.
More details will be added in a future revision of this document.
6.4. Masquerading SR proxy
The masquerading proxy is an SR endpoint behavior for processing SRv6
traffic on behalf of an SR-unaware service. This proxy thus receives
SR traffic that is formed of an IPv6 header and an SRH on top of an
inner payload. The masquerading behavior is independent from the
inner payload type. Hence, the inner payload can be of any type but
it is usually expected to be a transport layer packet, such as TCP or
UDP.
A masquerading SR proxy segment is associated with the following
mandatory parameters:
o S-ADDR: Ethernet or IPv6 address of the service
o IFACE-OUT: Local interface for sending traffic towards the service
o IFACE-IN: Local interface receiving the traffic coming back from
the service
A masquerading SR proxy segment is thus defined for a specific
service and bound to a pair of directed interfaces or sub-interfaces
on the proxy. As opposed to the static and dynamic SR proxies, a
masquerading segment can be present at the same time in any number of
SR SC policies and the same interfaces can be bound to multiple
masquerading proxy segments. The only restriction is that a
masquerading proxy segment cannot be the last segment in an SR SC
policy.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
The first part of the masquerading behavior is triggered when the
proxy node receives an IPv6 packet whose Destination Address matches
a masquerading proxy segment. The proxy inspects the IPv6 extension
headers and substitutes the Destination Address with the last segment
in the SRH attached to the IPv6 header, which represents the final
destination of the IPv6 packet. The packet is then sent out towards
the service.
The service receives an IPv6 packet whose source and destination
addresses are respectively the original source and final destination.
It does not attempt to inspect the SRH, as RFC8200 specifies that
routing extension headers are not examined or processed by transit
nodes. Instead, the service simply forwards the packet based on its
current Destination Address. In this scenario, we assume that the
service can only inspect, drop or perform limited changes to the
packets. For example, Intrusion Detection Systems, Deep Packet
Inspectors and non-NAT Firewalls are among the services that can be
supported by a masquerading SR proxy. Variants of the masquerading
behavior are defined in Section 6.4.2 and Section 6.4.3 to support a
wider range of services.
The second part of the masquerading behavior, also called de-
masquerading, is an inbound policy attached to the proxy interface
receiving the traffic returning from the service, IFACE-IN. This
policy inspects the incoming traffic and triggers a regular SRv6
endpoint processing (End) on any IPv6 packet that contains an SRH.
This processing occurs before any lookup on the packet Destination
Address is performed and it is sufficient to restore the right active
segment as the Destination Address of the IPv6 packet.
6.4.1. SRv6 masquerading proxy pseudocode
Masquerading: Upon receiving a packet destined for S, where S is an
IPv6 masquerading proxy segment, a node N processes it as follows.
1. IF NH=SRH & SL > 0 THEN
2. Update the IPv6 DA with SRH[0]
3. Forward the packet on IFACE-OUT
4. ELSE
5. Drop the packet
De-masquerading: Upon receiving a non-link-local IPv6 packet on
IFACE-IN, a node N processes it as follows.
1. IF NH=SRH & SL > 0 THEN
2. Decrement SL
3. Update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL] ;; Ref1
4. Lookup DA in appropriate table and proceed accordingly
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
Ref1: This pseudocode can be augmented to support the Penultimate
Segment Popping (PSP) endpoint flavor. The exact pseudocode
modification are provided in
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming].
6.4.2. Variant 1: Destination NAT
Services modifying the destination address in the packets they
process, such as NATs, can be supported by a masquerading proxy with
the following modification to the de-masquerading pseudocode.
De-masquerading - NAT: Upon receiving a non-link-local IPv6 packet on
IFACE-IN, a node N processes it as follows.
1. IF NH=SRH & SL > 0 THEN
2. Update SRH[0] with the IPv6 DA
3. Decrement SL
4. Update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL]
5. Lookup DA in appropriate table and proceed accordingly
6.4.3. Variant 2: Caching
Services generating packets or acting as endpoints for transport
connections can be supported by adding a dynamic caching mechanism
similar to the one described in Section 6.2.
More details will be added in a future revision of this document.
7. Metadata
7.1. MPLS data plane
Metadata can be carried for SR-MPLS traffic in a Segment Routing
header inserted between the last MPLS label and the MPLS payload.
When used solely as a metadata container, the SRH does not carry any
segment but only the mandatory header fields, including the tag and
flags, and any TLVs that is required for transporting the metadata.
Since the MPLS encapsulation has no explicit protocol identifier
field to indicate the protocol type of the MPLS payload, how to
indicate the presence of metadata in an MPLS packet is a potential
issue to be addressed. One possible solution is to add the
indication about the presence of metadata in the semantic of the
SIDs. Note that only the SIDs whose behavior involves looking at the
metadata or the MPLS payload would need to include such semantic
(e.g., service segments). Other segments, such as traffic
engineering segments, are not affected by the presence of metadata.
Another, more generic, solution is to introduce a protocol identifier
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
field within the MPLS packet as described in
[I-D.xu-mpls-payload-protocol-identifier].
7.2. IPv6 data plane
7.2.1. SRH TLV objects
The IPv6 SRH TLV objects are designed to carry all sorts of metadata.
In particular, the NSH carrier TLV is defined as a container for NSH
metadata.
TLV objects can be imposed by the ingress edge router that steers the
traffic into the SR SC policy.
An SR-aware service may impose, modify or remove any TLV object
attached to the first SRH, either by directly modifying the packet
headers or via a control channel between the service and its
forwarding plane.
An SR-aware service that re-classifies the traffic and steers it into
a new SR SC policy (e.g. DPI) may attach any TLV object to the new
SRH.
Metadata imposition and handling will be further discussed in a
future version of this document.
7.2.1.1. Opaque Metadata TLV
This document defines an SRv6 TLV called Opaque Metadata TLV. This
is a fixed-length container to carry any type of Service Metadata.
No assumption is made by this document on the structure or the
content of the carried metadata. The Opaque Metadata TLV has the
following format:
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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Service Metadata |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: to be assigned by IANA.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
o Length: 14.
o Service Metadata: 14 octets of opaque data.
7.2.1.2. NSH Carrier TLV
This document defines an SRv6 TLV called NSH Carrier TLV. It is a
container to carry Service Metadata in the form of Variable-Length
Metadata as defined in [RFC8300] for NSH MD Type 2. The NSH Carrier
TLV has the following format:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Service Metadata //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: to be assigned by IANA.
o Length: the total length of the TLV.
o Flags: 8 bits. No flags are defined in this document. SHOULD be
set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
o Service Metadata: a list of Service Metadata TLV as defined in
[RFC8300] for NSH MD Type 2.
7.2.2. SRH tag
The SRH tag identifies a packet as part of a group or class of
packets [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
In the context of service programming, this field can be used to
encode basic metadata in the SRH. An example use case would be to
leverage the SRH tag to encode a policy ID which could be leveraged
in an SR-aware function to determine which processing policy to apply
rather than having doing local classification or leverage alternate
encapsulations.
8. Implementation status
This section is to be removed prior to publishing as an RFC.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
8.1. SR-aware services
Specific SRv6 support has been implemented for the below open-source
services:
o Iptables (1.6.2 and later)
o Nftables (0.8.4 and later)
o Snort
In addition, any service relying on the Linux kernel, version 4.10
and later, or FD.io VPP for packet forwarding can be considered as
SR-aware.
8.2. Proxy behaviors
The static SR proxy is available for SR-MPLS and SRv6 on various
Cisco hardware and software platforms. Furthermore, the following
proxies are available on open-source software.
+-------------+-------------+
| VPP | Linux |
+---+-----------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| M | Static proxy | Available | In progress |
| P | | | |
| L | Dynamic proxy | In progress | In progress |
| S | | | |
| | Shared memory proxy | In progress | In progress |
+---+-----------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| | Static proxy | Available | In progress |
| S | | | |
| R | Dynamic proxy | Available | Available |
| v | | | |
| 6 | Shared memory proxy | In progress | In progress |
| | | | |
| | Masquerading proxy | Available | Available |
+---+-----------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
Figure 6: Open-source implementation status table
9. Related works
The Segment Routing solution addresses a wide problem that covers
both topological and service policies. The topological and service
instructions can be either deployed in isolation or in combination.
SR has thus a wider applicability than the architecture defined in
[RFC7665]. Furthermore, the inherent property of SR is a stateless
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
network fabric. In SR, there is no state within the fabric to
recognize a flow and associate it with a policy. State is only
present at the ingress edge of the SR domain, where the policy is
encoded into the packets. This is completely different from other
proposals such as [RFC8300] and the MPLS label swapping mechanism
described in [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc], which rely on state configured at
every hop of the service chain.
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors
This I-D requests the IANA to allocate, within the "SRv6 Endpoint
Behaviors" sub-registry belonging to the top-level "Segment-routing
with IPv6 dataplane (SRv6) Parameters" registry, the following
allocations:
Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------
TBA1 End.AN - SR-aware function (native) [This.ID]
TBA2 End.AS - Static proxy [This.ID]
TBA3 End.AD - Dynamic proxy [This.ID]
TBA4 End.AM - Masquerading proxy [This.ID]
10.2. Segment Routing Header TLVs
This I-D requests the IANA to allocate, within the "Segment Routing
Header TLVs" registry, the following allocations:
Value Description Reference
----------------------------------------------
TBA1 Opaque Metadata TLV [This.ID]
TBA2 NSH Carrier TLV [This.ID]
11. Security Considerations
The security requirements and mechanisms described in [RFC8402],
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] and
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] also apply to this
document.
This document does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities.
12. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Thierry Couture, Ketan Talaulikar,
Loa Andersson, Andrew G. Malis, Adrian Farrel, Alexander Vainshtein
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
and Joel M. Halpern for their valuable comments and suggestions on
the document.
13. Contributors
P. Camarillo (Cisco), B. Peirens (Proximus), D. Steinberg
(Steinberg Consulting), A. AbdelSalam (Gran Sasso Science
Institute), G. Dawra (LinkedIn), S. Bryant (Huawei), H. Assarpour
(Broadcom), H. Shah (Ciena), L. Contreras (Telefonica I+D), J.
Tantsura (Individual), M. Vigoureux (Nokia) and J. Bhattacharya
(Cisco) substantially contributed to the content of this document.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J.,
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6
Network Programming", draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-
programming-07 (work in progress), February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and
d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-18 (work in
progress), April 2019.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-19
(work in progress), March 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-02 (work in progress), October 2018.
[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>.
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
14.2. Informative References
[I-D.dawra-idr-bgp-sr-service-chaining]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d.,
Uttaro, J., Decraene, B., Elmalky, H., Xu, X., Clad, F.,
and K. Talaulikar, "BGP Control Plane Extensions for
Segment Routing based Service Chaining", draft-dawra-idr-
bgp-sr-service-chaining-02 (work in progress), January
2018.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Krol, P., Horneffer, M., and
P. Mattes, "SR Policy Implementation and Deployment
Considerations", draft-filsfils-spring-sr-policy-
considerations-03 (work in progress), April 2019.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc]
Farrel, A., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "An MPLS-Based
Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining", draft-
ietf-mpls-sfc-07 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.xu-mpls-payload-protocol-identifier]
Xu, X., Assarpour, H., Ma, S., and F. Clad, "MPLS Payload
Protocol Identifier", draft-xu-mpls-payload-protocol-
identifier-06 (work in progress), March 2019.
[IFIP18] Abdelsalam, A., Salsano, S., Clad, F., Camarillo, P., and
C. Filsfils, "SEgment Routing Aware Firewall For Service
Function Chaining scenarios", IFIP Networking conference ,
May 2018.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
Authors' Addresses
Francois Clad (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
France
Email: fclad@cisco.com
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
Xiaohu Xu (editor)
Alibaba
Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Belgium
Email: cf@cisco.com
Daniel Bernier
Bell Canada
Canada
Email: daniel.bernier@bell.ca
Cheng Li
Huawei
Email: chengli13@huawei.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Shaowen Ma
Juniper
Email: mashaowen@gmail.com
Chaitanya Yadlapalli
AT&T
USA
Email: cy098d@att.com
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Service Programming with Segment Routing April 2019
Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Stefano Salsano
Universita di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Italy
Email: stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it
Clad, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 31]
