| < draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16.txt | draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-17.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IS-IS for IP Internets S. Previdi, Ed. | IS-IS for IP Internets S. Previdi, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft L. Ginsberg, Ed. | Internet-Draft L. Ginsberg, Ed. | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils | Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils | |||
| Expires: October 21, 2018 A. Bashandy | Expires: December 17, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | A. Bashandy | |||
| H. Gredler | H. Gredler | |||
| RtBrick Inc. | RtBrick Inc. | |||
| S. Litkowski | S. Litkowski | |||
| B. Decraene | B. Decraene | |||
| Orange | Orange | |||
| J. Tantsura | J. Tantsura | |||
| Individual | Nuage Networks | |||
| April 19, 2018 | June 15, 2018 | |||
| IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing | IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing | |||
| draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 | draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-17 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end | Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end | |||
| paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of | paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of | |||
| topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are | topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are | |||
| advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). | advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). | |||
| This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be | This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be | |||
| introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane. | introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane. | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 10 ¶ | |||
| 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 October 21, 2018. | This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 2018. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2018 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 50 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 4 ¶ | |||
| 2.4.5. SID/Label Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 2.4.5. SID/Label Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 2.5. Multi-Topology SID/Label Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 2.5. Multi-Topology SID/Label Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 3. Router Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 3. Router Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
| 3.1. SR-Capabilities Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 3.1. SR-Capabilities Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
| 3.2. SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 3.2. SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
| 3.3. SR Local Block Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 3.3. SR Local Block Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| 3.4. SRMS Preference Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 3.4. SRMS Preference Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 4. Non backward compatible changes with prior versions of this | 4. Non backward compatible changes with prior versions of this | |||
| document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 4.1. Encoding of Multiple SRGBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 4.1. Encoding of Multiple SRGBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 5.1. Sub TLVs for Type 22,23,25,141,222, and 223 . . . . . . . 27 | 5.1. Sub TLVs for Type 22,23,25,141,222, and 223 . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 5.2. Sub TLVs for Type 135,235,236 and 237 . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 5.2. Sub TLVs for Type 135,235,236 and 237 . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 5.3. Sub TLVs for Type 242 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 5.3. Sub TLVs for Type 242 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 5.4. New TLV Codepoint and Sub-TLV registry . . . . . . . . . 29 | 5.4. New TLV Codepoint and Sub-TLV registry . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
| 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
| 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
| 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end | Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end | |||
| paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of | paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of | |||
| topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are | topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are | |||
| advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). Two | advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). | |||
| types of segments are defined, Prefix segments and Adjacency | Prefix segments represent an ecmp-aware shortest-path to a prefix (or | |||
| segments. Prefix segments represent an ecmp-aware shortest-path to a | a node), as per the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments | |||
| prefix, as per the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments | ||||
| represent a hop over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the | represent a hop over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the | |||
| IGP. A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path while an | IGP. A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path while an | |||
| adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path. SR's | adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path. SR's | |||
| control-plane can be applied to both IPv6 and MPLS data-planes, and | control-plane can be applied to both IPv6 and MPLS data-planes, and | |||
| do not require any additional signaling (other than the regular IGP). | do not require any additional signaling (other than the regular IGP). | |||
| For example, when used in MPLS networks, SR paths do not require any | For example, when used in MPLS networks, SR paths do not require any | |||
| LDP or RSVP-TE signaling. Still, SR can interoperate in the presence | LDP or RSVP-TE signaling. Still, SR can interoperate in the presence | |||
| of LSPs established with RSVP or LDP. | of LSPs established with RSVP or LDP. | |||
| There are additional segment types, e.g., Binding SID defined in | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. This draft also defines an | ||||
| advertisement for one type of BindingSID: the Mirror Context segment. | ||||
| This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be | This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be | |||
| introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane. | introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane. | |||
| Segment Routing architecture is described in | Segment Routing architecture is described in | |||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. | |||
| Segment Routing use cases are described in [RFC7855]. | Segment Routing use cases are described in [RFC7855]. | |||
| 2. Segment Routing Identifiers | 2. Segment Routing Identifiers | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 40 ¶ | |||
| and MAY be present in any of the following TLVs: | and MAY be present in any of the following TLVs: | |||
| TLV-135 (Extended IPv4 reachability) defined in [RFC5305]. | TLV-135 (Extended IPv4 reachability) defined in [RFC5305]. | |||
| TLV-235 (Multitopology IPv4 Reachability) defined in [RFC5120]. | TLV-235 (Multitopology IPv4 Reachability) defined in [RFC5120]. | |||
| TLV-236 (IPv6 IP Reachability) defined in [RFC5308]. | TLV-236 (IPv6 IP Reachability) defined in [RFC5308]. | |||
| TLV-237 (Multitopology IPv6 IP Reachability) defined in [RFC5120]. | TLV-237 (Multitopology IPv6 IP Reachability) defined in [RFC5120]. | |||
| Binding-TLV defined in Section 2.4. | Binding-TLV and Multi-Topology Binding-TLV defined in Section 2.4 | |||
| and Section 2.5 respectively. | ||||
| When the IP Reachability TLV is propagated across level boundaries, | When the IP Reachability TLV is propagated across level boundaries, | |||
| the Prefix-SID sub-TLV SHOULD be kept. | the Prefix-SID sub-TLV SHOULD be kept. | |||
| The Prefix-SID sub-TLV has the following format: | The Prefix-SID sub-TLV has the following format: | |||
| 0 1 2 3 | 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 | 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 | Algorithm | | | Type | Length | Flags | Algorithm | | |||
| skipping to change at page 32, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 32, line 13 ¶ | |||
| Email: sluong@cisco.com | Email: sluong@cisco.com | |||
| 9. References | 9. References | |||
| 9.1. Normative References | 9.1. Normative References | |||
| [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] | [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] | |||
| Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., | Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., | |||
| Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF | Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF | |||
| Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- | Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- | |||
| routing-extensions-24 (work in progress), December 2017. | routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 2018. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] | |||
| Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., | Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., | |||
| Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing | Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing | |||
| Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work | Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work | |||
| in progress), January 2018. | in progress), January 2018. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] | |||
| Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and | Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and | |||
| S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP", | S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP", | |||
| draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11 (work in | draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13 (work in | |||
| progress), April 2018. | progress), June 2018. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] | |||
| Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., | Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., | |||
| Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS | Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS | |||
| data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13 | data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14 | |||
| (work in progress), April 2018. | (work in progress), June 2018. | |||
| [ISO10589] | [ISO10589] | |||
| International Organization for Standardization, | International Organization for Standardization, | |||
| "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain | "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain | |||
| routeing information exchange protocol for use in | routeing information exchange protocol for use in | |||
| conjunction with the protocol for providing the | conjunction with the protocol for providing the | |||
| connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/ | connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/ | |||
| IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, Nov 2002. | IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, Nov 2002. | |||
| [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| skipping to change at page 34, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 34, line 39 ¶ | |||
| Email: ginsberg@cisco.com | Email: ginsberg@cisco.com | |||
| Clarence Filsfils | Clarence Filsfils | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| Brussels | Brussels | |||
| BE | BE | |||
| Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com | Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com | |||
| Ahmed Bashandy | Ahmed Bashandy | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | ||||
| 170, West Tasman Drive | ||||
| San Jose, CA 95134 | ||||
| US | ||||
| Email: bashandy@cisco.com | Email: abashandy.ietf@gmail.com | |||
| Hannes Gredler | Hannes Gredler | |||
| RtBrick Inc. | RtBrick Inc. | |||
| Email: hannes@rtbrick.com | Email: hannes@rtbrick.com | |||
| Stephane Litkowski | Stephane Litkowski | |||
| Orange | Orange | |||
| FR | FR | |||
| Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com | Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com | |||
| Bruno Decraene | Bruno Decraene | |||
| Orange | Orange | |||
| FR | FR | |||
| Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com | Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com | |||
| Jeff Tantsura | Jeff Tantsura | |||
| Individual | Nuage Networks | |||
| Email: jefftant@gmail.com | Email: jefftant@gmail.com | |||
| End of changes. 15 change blocks. | ||||
| 23 lines changed or deleted | 25 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/ | ||||