< draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-01.txt		draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-02.txt >
	IDR F. Qin		IDR F. Qin
	Internet-Draft China Mobile		Internet-Draft China Mobile
	Intended status: Standards Track H. Yuan		Intended status: Standards Track H. Yuan
	Expires: August 13, 2021 UnionPay		Expires: January 10, 2022 UnionPay
	T. Zhou		T. Zhou
	G. Fioccola		G. Fioccola
	Y. Wang		Y. Wang
	Huawei		Huawei
	February 9, 2021		July 9, 2021
	BGP SR Policy Extensions to Enable IFIT		BGP SR Policy Extensions to Enable IFIT
	draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-01		draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	Segment Routing (SR) policy is a set of candidate SR paths consisting		Segment Routing (SR) policy is a set of candidate SR paths consisting
	of one or more segment lists and necessary path attributes. It		of one or more segment lists and necessary path attributes. It
	enables instantiation of an ordered list of segments with a specific		enables instantiation of an ordered list of segments with a specific
	intent for traffic steering. In-situ Flow Information Telemetry		intent for traffic steering. In-situ Flow Information Telemetry
	(IFIT) refers to network OAM data plane on-path telemetry techniques,		(IFIT) refers to network OAM data plane on-path telemetry techniques,
	in particular the most popular are In-situ OAM (IOAM) and Alternate		in particular the most popular are In-situ OAM (IOAM) and Alternate
	Marking. This document defines extensions to BGP to distribute SR		Marking. This document defines extensions to BGP to distribute SR
	skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2022.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. IFIT methods for SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. IFIT methods for SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. IFIT Attributes in SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. IFIT Attributes in SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. IFIT Attributes Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. IFIT Attributes Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 7		5.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 8
	5.2. IOAM Incremental Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.2. IOAM Incremental Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5.3. IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.3. IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.5. Enhanced Alternate Marking (EAM) sub-TLV . . . . . . . . 10		5.5. Enhanced Alternate Marking (EAM) sub-TLV . . . . . . . . 11
	6. SR Policy Operations with IFIT Attributes . . . . . . . . . . 11		6. SR Policy Operations with IFIT Attributes . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Segment Routing (SR) policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]		Segment Routing (SR) policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
	is a set of candidate SR paths consisting of one or more segment		is a set of candidate SR paths consisting of one or more segment
	lists and necessary path attributes. It enables instantiation of an		lists and necessary path attributes. It enables instantiation of an
	ordered list of segments with a specific intent for traffic steering.		ordered list of segments with a specific intent for traffic steering.
	In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) denotes a family of flow-		In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) denotes a family of flow-
	oriented on-path telemetry techniques (e.g. IOAM, Alternate		oriented on-path telemetry techniques (e.g. IOAM, Alternate
	skipping to change at page 3, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 29 ¶
	This document defines extensions to Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) to		This document defines extensions to Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) to
	distribute SR policies carrying IFIT information. So that IFIT		distribute SR policies carrying IFIT information. So that IFIT
	behavior can be enabled automatically when the SR policy is applied.		behavior can be enabled automatically when the SR policy is applied.
	This BGP extension allows to signal the IFIT capabilities together		This BGP extension allows to signal the IFIT capabilities together
	with the SR-policy. In this way IFIT methods are automatically		with the SR-policy. In this way IFIT methods are automatically
	activated and running. The flexibility and dynamicity of the IFIT		activated and running. The flexibility and dynamicity of the IFIT
	applications are given by the use of additional functions on the		applications are given by the use of additional functions on the
	controller and on the network nodes, but this is out of scope here.		controller and on the network nodes, but this is out of scope here.
			IFIT is a solution focusing on network domains according to [RFC8799]
			that introduces the concept of specific domain solutions. A network
			domain consists of a set of network devices or entities within a
			single administration. As mentioned in [RFC8799], for a number of
			reasons, such as policies, options supported, style of network
			management and security requirements, it is suggested to limit
			applications including the emerging IFIT techniques to a controlled
			domain. Hence, the IFIT methods MUST be typically deployed in such
			controlled domains.
	2. Motivation		2. Motivation
	IFIT Methods are being introduced in multiple protocols and below is		IFIT Methods are being introduced in multiple protocols and below is
	a proper picture of the relevant documents for Segment Routing.		a proper picture of the relevant documents for Segment Routing.
	Indeed the IFIT methods are becoming mature for Segment Routing over		Indeed the IFIT methods are becoming mature for Segment Routing over
	the MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over IPv6 data		the MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over IPv6 data
	plane (SRv6), that is the main focus of this draft:		plane (SRv6), that is the main focus of this draft:
	IOAM: the reference documents for the data plane are		IOAM: the reference documents for the data plane are
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options] for SRv6 and		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options] for SRv6 and
	skipping to change at page 13, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 49 ¶
	(that include both routers and controller applications) within the SR		(that include both routers and controller applications) within the SR
	domain must be configured to receive such information.		domain must be configured to receive such information.
	Implementation of IFIT methods (IOAM and Alternate Marking) are		Implementation of IFIT methods (IOAM and Alternate Marking) are
	mindful of security and privacy concerns, as explained in		mindful of security and privacy concerns, as explained in
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and RFC 8321 [RFC8321]. Anyway incorrect		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and RFC 8321 [RFC8321]. Anyway incorrect
	IFIT parameters in the BGP extension SHOULD NOT have an adverse		IFIT parameters in the BGP extension SHOULD NOT have an adverse
	effect on the SR Policy as well as on the network, since it affects		effect on the SR Policy as well as on the network, since it affects
	only the operation of the telemetry methodology.		only the operation of the telemetry methodology.
			IFIT data MUST be propagated in a limited domain in order to avoid
			malicious attacks and solutions to ensure this requirement are
			respectively discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and
			[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark].
			IFIT methods (IOAM and Alternate Marking) are applied within a
			controlled domain where the network nodes are locally administered.
			A limited administrative domain provides the network administrator
			with the means to select, monitor and control the access to the
			network, making it a trusted domain also for the BGP extensions
			defined in this document.
	9. Acknowledgements		9. Acknowledgements
	The authors of this document would like to thank Ketan Talaulikar,		The authors of this document would like to thank Ketan Talaulikar,
	Joel Halpern, Jie Dong for their comments and review of this		Joel Halpern, Jie Dong for their comments and review of this
	document.		document.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]		[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]
	Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.		Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.
	Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method",		Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method",
	draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-02 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-04 (work in progress), March
	October 2020.		2021.
	[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]		[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
	Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,		Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,
	Rosen, E., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment		Rosen, E., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment
	Routing Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-		Routing Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-
	te-policy-11 (work in progress), November 2020.		te-policy-11 (work in progress), November 2020.
	[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]		[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
	Patel, K., Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder, "The BGP		Patel, K., Velde, G. V. D., Sangli, S. R., and J. Scudder,
	Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-		"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-
	encaps-21 (work in progress), January 2021.		tunnel-encaps-22 (work in progress), January 2021.
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
	Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields		Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
	for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11 (work in		for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12 (work in
	progress), November 2020.		progress), February 2021.
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
	Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F.,		Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F.,
	Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ		Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ
	OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-		OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-
	export-02 (work in progress), November 2020.		export-03 (work in progress), February 2021.
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]
	Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,		Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,
	Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.		Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.
	Lemon, "In-situ OAM Flags", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-03		Lemon, "In-situ OAM Flags", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-04
	(work in progress), October 2020.		(work in progress), February 2021.
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]
	Bhandari, S., Brockners, F., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,		Bhandari, S., Brockners, F., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
	Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni, B.,		Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni, B.,
	Lapukhov, P., Spiegel, M., Krishnan, S., Asati, R., and M.		Lapukhov, P., Spiegel, M., Krishnan, S., Asati, R., and M.
	Smith, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-		Smith, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
	ipv6-options-04 (work in progress), November 2020.		ipv6-options-05 (work in progress), February 2021.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
	Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and		Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
	P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-		P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
	ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 (work in progress),		ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-11 (work in progress),
	November 2020.		April 2021.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with		[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
	Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,		Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
	May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.		May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
	skipping to change at page 14, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 5 ¶
	L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,		L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
	"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid		"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
	Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,		Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
	January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.		January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
	[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,		[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
	Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment		Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
	Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,		Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
	July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.		July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
			[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
			Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[I-D.chen-pce-pcep-ifit]		[I-D.chen-pce-pcep-ifit]
	Chen, H., Yuan, H., Zhou, T., Li, W., Fioccola, G., and Y.		Chen, H., Yuan, H., Zhou, T., Li, W., Fioccola, G., and Y.
	Wang, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol		Wang, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
	(PCEP) Extensions to Enable IFIT", draft-chen-pce-pcep-		(PCEP) Extensions to Enable IFIT", draft-chen-pce-pcep-
	ifit-01 (work in progress), September 2020.		ifit-02 (work in progress), February 2021.
	[I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr]		[I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr]
	Gandhi, R., Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Brockners, F., Wen, B.,		Gandhi, R., Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Brockners, F., Wen, B.,
	and V. Kozak, "MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ		and V. Kozak, "MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ
	OAM Data", draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-05 (work in		OAM Data", draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-06 (work in
	progress), January 2021.		progress), February 2021.
	[I-D.gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr]		[I-D.gandhi-mpls-rfc6374-sr]
	Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Salsano, S., and M.		Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Salsano, S., and M.
	Chen, "Performance Measurement Using RFC 6374 for Segment		Chen, "Performance Measurement Using RFC 6374 for Segment
	Routing Networks with MPLS Data Plane", draft-gandhi-mpls-		Routing Networks with MPLS Data Plane", draft-gandhi-mpls-
	rfc6374-sr-05 (work in progress), June 2020.		rfc6374-sr-05 (work in progress), June 2020.
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl]		[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl]
	Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Chen, M., Fioccola, G., and G.		Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Chen, M., Fioccola, G., and G.
	Mirsky, "RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels", draft-ietf-mpls-		Mirsky, "RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels", draft-ietf-mpls-
	rfc6374-sfl-08 (work in progress), December 2020.		rfc6374-sfl-10 (work in progress), March 2021.
	Appendix A.		Appendix A.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Fengwei Qin		Fengwei Qin
	China Mobile		China Mobile
	No. 32 Xuanwumenxi Ave., Xicheng District		No. 32 Xuanwumenxi Ave., Xicheng District
	Beijing		Beijing
	China		China
End of changes. 21 change blocks.
	33 lines changed or deleted		59 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/