IDR Working Group J. Tantsura Internet-DraftIndividualNuage Networks Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri Expires:April 18, 2018February 14, 2019 HuaweiTechnologiesUSA G. Mirsky ZTE Corp. S. Sivabalan CiscoOctober 15, 2017August 13, 2018 SignalingMaximumMSD (Maximum SIDDepthDepth) using Border Gateway ProtocolLink-State draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-01Link- State draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-02 Abstract This documentproposesdefines a way for a Border Gateway Protocol Link-State (BGP-LS) speaker tosignaladvertise multiple types of supported Maximum SIDDepth (MSD) supported by a nodeDepths (MSDs) at node and/or linkgranularity by a BGP-LS speaker. In a Segment Routing (SR) enabled network agranularity. Such advertisements allow logically centralizedcontroller that programs SR tunnels needs to know the MSD supported by the head-end at node and/or link granularityentities (e.g., centralized controllers) topush thedetermine whether a particular SID stackof an appropriate depth. MSD is relevant to the head-end of a SR tunnel or Binding-SID anchor node where Binding-SID expansions might resultcan be supported increation ofanew SID stack.given network. 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 onApril 18, 2018.February 14, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c)20172018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Internet-DrafSignaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using BGP-LS August 2018 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 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. MSD supported by a node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 4. MSD supported on a link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 1. Introduction When Segment Routing tunnels are computed by a centralized controller, it is critical that the controller learns the MSD "Maximum SID Depth" of the node or link SR tunnel exits over, so the SID stack depth of a path computed doesn't exceed the number of SIDs the node is capable of imposing. This document describes how to use BGP-LS to signal the MSD of a node or link to a centralized controller. PCEP SR extensions draft [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] signals MSD in SR PCE Capability TLV and METRIC Object. However, if PCEP is not supported/configured on the head-end of a SR tunnel or a Binding-SID anchor node and controller does not participate in IGP routing, it has no way to learn the MSD of nodes and links which has been configured. BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines a way to expose topology and associated attributes and capabilities of the nodes in that topology to a centralized controller.MSDOther types ofsub-type 1, called BaseMSDas defined in Section 3 is used to signal the number of SID's a node is capable of imposing,are known to be useful. For example, [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] and [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] define Readable Internet-DrafSignaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using BGP-LS August 2018 Label Depth Capability (RLDC) that is used by apath computation element/controller. In case, there are additional labels (e.g. service) that are to be pushedhead-end tothe stack - this would be signaled withinsert ananother MSD type (TBD), no adjustment to the Base MSD should be made. In the future, new MSD types could be defined to signal additional capabilities: entropy labels, labelsEntropy Label (EL) at a depth that can bepushed thru recirculation, or another dataplane e.g IPv6.read by transit nodes. 1.1. Conventions used in this document 1.1.1. Terminology BGP-LS: Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using Border Gateway Protocol MSD: Maximum SID Depth PCC: Path Computation Client PCE: Path Computation Element PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol SID: Segment Identifier SR: Segment routing 1.1.2. 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[RFC2119].BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here . 2. Problem Statement In existing technology only PCEP has extension to signal the MSD (SR PCE Capability TLV/ METRIC Object as defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing],If PCEP is not supported by the node (head-end of the SR tunnel) controller has no way to learn the MSD of the node/link configured. OSPF and IS-IS extensions are defined in: [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] 3. MSD supported by a node Node MSD is encoded in a new Node Attribute TLV, as defined in [RFC7752] Internet-DrafSignaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using BGP-LS August 2018 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-Type and Value ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... Figure 1: Node attribute format Type : A 2-octet fieldspecifiyingspecifying code-point of the new TLV type. Code-point:(TBD1) from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry Length: A 2-octet field that indicates the length of the value portion Sub-Type and value fields are as defined in corresponding OSPF [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] and IS-IS [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] extensions. 4. MSD supported on a link Link MSD is encoded in a New Link Attribute TLV, as defined in [RFC7752] 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-Type and Value ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... Figure 2: Link attribute format Type : A 2-octet fieldspecifiyingspecifying code-point of the new TLV type. Code-point:(TBD2) from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry Length: A 2-octet field that indicates the length of the value portion Sub-Type and value fields are as defined in corresponding OSPF [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] and IS-IS [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] extensions. Internet-DrafSignaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using BGP-LS August 2018 5. IANA Considerations We request IANA assign code points from the registry BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs, as follows: TLV Code Point Description IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV Reference TBD1 Node MSD 242/23 (this document) TBD2 Link MSD (22,23,25,141,222,223)/15 (this document) 6. Security Considerations Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document that is false, e.g., an MSD that is incorrect, may result in a path computation failing, having a service unavailable, or instantiation of a path that can't be supported by the head-end (the node performing the imposition). This document does not introduce security issues beyond those discussed in[RFC7752][RFC7752], [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] and [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] 7. Acknowledgements We like to thank Nikos Triantafillis, Acee Lindem, Ketan Talaulikar, Stephane Litkowski and Bruno Decraene for their reviews and valuable comments. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-04ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13 (work in progress),June 2017.July 2018. [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-05ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-15 (work in progress),June 2017.July 2018. [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-10draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-12 (work in progress),October 2017.June 2018. Internet-DrafSignaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using BGP-LS August 2018 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S.,Bashandy, A.,Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS data plane",draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14 (work in progress), June2017.2018. [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>. [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, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. [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>. 8.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S. Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-mpls- elc-05 (work in progress), July 2018. [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., andj. jefftant@gmail.com,J. Tantsura, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-13segment-routing-extensions-19 (work in progress),June 2017.July 2018. [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S. Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf- mpls-elc-06 (work in progress), August 2018. [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-19routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 2018. Internet-DrafSignaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using BGP-LS August2017.2018 Authors' Addresses Jeff TantsuraIndividualNuage Networks Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Uma Chunduri HuaweiTechnologiesUSA Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com Greg Mirsky ZTE Corp. Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Siva Sivabalan Cisco Email: msiva@cisco.com