Internet-Draft Short Title March 2023
Liu, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page]
Workgroup:
SPRING Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-liu-idr-bgpls-extention-for-srv6-endxu-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
G. Liu
Huawei Technologies
X. Fan
Huawei Technologies
J. Dong
Huawei Technologies

BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6 End.XU Function

Abstract

The SRv6 END.XU function points to an underlying interface, which can represent an underly link (or path) between two routers. Since BGP or IGP routing protocols cannot advertise underlay link topology information, this document extends BGP-LS to advertise the topology information carried in END.XU.

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 10 September 2023.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

In [I-D.dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming], a new SRv6 function called END.XU is defined to support SRv6 multi-layer network programming. As a typical scenario, the END.XU function can be applied to the optical network or MTN (Metro Transport Network [I-D.dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming]), and points to an underly interface, which can represent an underlying link (or path) between two routers.

A BGP-LS router can advertise topology information from the BGP routing protocol (e.g., for EPE) or the IGP routing protocols (e.g., for IS-IS/OSPFv3). However, the topology information of underlay links cannot be obtained from the BGP or IGP routing protocol since the underlay links are deployed statically. Therefore, this document extends the BGP-LS protocol to advertise the link attributes of underlay link and the END.XU SID information.

In [RFC7752], the Link-State NLRI includes the node/link/prefix descriptors. In this document, only the node descriptors and link descriptors are involved. [RFC7752] describes node descriptors based on the IGP/BGP protocol as the node anchoring the local end of the link. This document uses the Link-State NLRI to advertise the link attributes of underlay link, and describes the difference between the static configuration and the dynamic protocols (including the IGP and BGP routing protocols) in the key fields. Moreover, this document describes how to obtain local and peer information on the underlay link carried by END.XU. For advertising the attributes of nodes and links, this document inherits the node attribute TLV and link attribute TLV from [RFC7752], which are not described in this document.

Draft [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] provides BGP-LS extensions related to SRv6 SIDs and other SRv6 information based on IGP or BGP. Link attributes involve the END.X/LAN END.X SID TLV and link MSD types. This document focuses on the extension of the SRv6 END.XU SID TLV type.

1.2. 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. The BGP-LS Attribute

Based on [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext], the BGP-LS attributes related to the static underlay link carried by END.XU include the node attributes via the BGP-LS Node NLRI and the link attributes via the BGP-LS Link NLRI. The node attributes inherit the content in section 3 of [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]. For the link attributes, this document extends a new TLV, called SRv6 End.XU SID TLV, to advertise the SRv6 SIDs associated with a static adjacency SID.

3.1. SRv6 End.XU SID TLV

The SRv6 End.XU SID TLV is used to advertise the SRv6 SIDs associated with an SRv6 END.XU behavior that corresponds to a point-to-point static underlay link.

The SRv6 SID for the underlay link using the End.XU behaviors [I-D.dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming] are advertised using the SRv6 End.XU SID TLV.

The format of the SRv6 End.XU SID TLV is inherited from the SRv6 END.X SID Sub-TLV [RFC9352].

 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               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|        Endpoint Behavior      |      Flags    |   Algorithm   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     Weight    |   Reserved    |  SID (16 octets) ...          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    SID (cont ...)                                             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    SID (cont ...)                                             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    SID (cont ...)                                             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|    SID (cont ...)             | Sub-TLVs (variable) . . .     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Endpoint Behavior: 2 octet field. The Endpoint Behavior code point for this SRv6 END.XU SID as defined in section 6 of [I-D.dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming].

Flags: 1 octet of flags. B-Flag is fixed to 0. S-Flag is fixed to 0. P-Flag is fixed to 1 for static configuration and 0 for dynamic allocation.

Algorithm: 1 octet field. END.XU function carries a pure static underlay link. No algorithm is used. Therefore, the value is fixed to 0.

Weight: 1 octet field. The value represents the weight of the SID for the purpose of load balancing. The use of the weight is defined in [RFC8402].

Reserved: 1 octet field that MUST be set to 0 and ignored on receipt.

SID: 16 octet field. This field encodes the advertised SRv6 SID as 128 bit value.

Sub-TLVs: They are allocated from the IANA "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry and are used to advertise sub-TLVs that provide additional attributes for the specific SRv6 SID. This document does not define new sub-TLVs for SRv6 End.XU SID TLV.

4. Security Considerations

TBD

5. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to allocate one Sub-TLV Code Point for node descriptor:

+--------------------+-------------------+----------+
| Sub-TLV Code Point | Description       |   Length |
+--------------------+-------------------+----------+
|        TBD         | Static Router-ID  | Variable |
+--------------------+-------------------+----------+

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jie Dong and Yongjian Hu for their review and comments.

References

Normative References

[RFC7752]
Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC6119]
Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119>.
[RFC9352]
Psenak, P., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over the IPv6 Data Plane", RFC 9352, DOI 10.17487/RFC9352, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9352>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Informative References

[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M., Bernier, D., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14>.
[I-D.dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming]
Dong, J., Han, L., Du, Z., and M. Wang, "SRv6 for Inter-Layer Network Programming", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming-04, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming-04>.

Authors' Addresses

GuoLiang Liu
Huawei Technologies
101 software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing
210012
China
Xingpeng Fan
Huawei Technologies
No.9 Huanhu Road, Songshan Lake High-tech Industrial Development Zone
Dongguan
523808
China
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Road
Beijing
100095
China