< draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-01.txt		draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-02.txt >
	Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed.		Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed.
	Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.		Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.
	Intended status: Standards Track A. Bashandy		Intended status: Standards Track A. Bashandy
	Expires: November 30, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc.		Expires: April 19, 2016 Cisco Systems, Inc.
	B. Decraene		B. Decraene
	S. Litkowski		S. Litkowski
	Orange		Orange
	M. Horneffer		M. Horneffer
	Deutsche Telekom		Deutsche Telekom
	R. Shakir		R. Shakir
	British Telecom		Individual
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	E. Crabbe		E. Crabbe
	Individual		Individual
	May 29, 2015		October 17, 2015
	Segment Routing with MPLS data plane		Segment Routing with MPLS data plane
	draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-01		draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node		Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node
	steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called		steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called
	segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can		segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can
	represent any instruction, topological or service-based. SR allows		represent any instruction, topological or service-based. SR allows
	to enforce a flow through any topological path and service chain		to enforce a flow through any topological path and service chain
	while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node to the SR		while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node to the SR
	domain.		domain.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 12 ¶
	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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://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 November 30, 2015.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2015 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
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://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 3, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 5 ¶
	6. Segment List History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6. Segment List History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The Segment Routing architecture [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]		The Segment Routing architecture [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
	can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with no change in		can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with no change in
	the MPLS forwarding plane. This drafts describes how Segment Routing		the MPLS forwarding plane. This drafts describes how Segment Routing
	operates on top of the MPLS data plane.		operates on top of the MPLS data plane.
	The Segment Routing use cases are described in in		The Segment Routing problem statement is described in
	[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases].		[I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement].
	Link State protocol extensions for Segment Routing are described in		Link State protocol extensions for Segment Routing are described in
	[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],		[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and		[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].		[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].
	2. Illustration		2. Illustration
	Segment Routing, applied to the MPLS data plane, offers the ability		Segment Routing, applied to the MPLS data plane, offers the ability
	to tunnel services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) from an ingress PE to an egress		to tunnel services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) from an ingress PE to an egress
	skipping to change at page 3, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 44 ¶
	homogeneous deployments.		homogeneous deployments.
	The operator only needs to allocate one node segment per PE and the		The operator only needs to allocate one node segment per PE and the
	SR IGP control-plane automatically builds the required MPLS		SR IGP control-plane automatically builds the required MPLS
	forwarding constructs from any PE to any PE.		forwarding constructs from any PE to any PE.
	P1---P2		P1---P2
	/ \		/ \
	A---CE1---PE1 PE2---CE2---Z		A---CE1---PE1 PE2---CE2---Z
	\ /		\ /
	P4---P4		P3---P4
	Figure 1: IGP-based MPLS Tunneling		Figure 1: IGP-based MPLS Tunneling
	In Figure 1 above, the four nodes A, CE1, CE2 and Z are part of the		In Figure 1 above, the four nodes A, CE1, CE2 and Z are part of the
	same VPN.		same VPN.
	PE2 advertises (in the IGP) a host address 192.0.2.2/32 with its		PE2 advertises (in the IGP) a host address 192.0.2.2/32 with its
	attached node segment 102.		attached node segment 102.
	CE2 advertises to PE2 a route to Z. PE2 binds a local label LZ to		CE2 advertises to PE2 a route to Z. PE2 binds a local label LZ to
	skipping to change at page 10, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 37 ¶
	intermediate node is also able to determine the paths from the		intermediate node is also able to determine the paths from the
	ingress edge router to itself, and from itself to the egress edge		ingress edge router to itself, and from itself to the egress edge
	router.		router.
	In the MPLS instantiation, as the packet travels through the SR		In the MPLS instantiation, as the packet travels through the SR
	domain, the stack is depleted and the segment list history is		domain, the stack is depleted and the segment list history is
	gradually lost.		gradually lost.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	TBD		This document doesn't introduce any codepoint.
	8. Manageability Considerations		8. Manageability Considerations
	TBD		TBD
	9. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	TBD		TBD
	10. Contributors		10. Contributors
	skipping to change at page 11, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 21 ¶
	Saku Ytti		Saku Ytti
	Email: saku@ytti.fi		Email: saku@ytti.fi
	11. Acknowledgements		11. Acknowledgements
	12. References		12. References
	12.1. Normative References		12.1. Normative References
	[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, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6		[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
	(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.		(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
			December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
	[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol		[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
	Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.		Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
	[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,		[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
	Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack		Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
	Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.		Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
	12.2. Informative References		12.2. Informative References
	[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]		[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
	Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,		Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
	Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,		Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
	"Segment Routing interoperability with LDP", draft-		"Segment Routing interoperability with LDP", draft-
	filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-03 (work in		filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-03 (work in
	progress), March 2015.		progress), March 2015.
	[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases]
	Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
	Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
	Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., Kini, S., and E.
	Crabbe, "Segment Routing Use Cases", draft-filsfils-
	spring-segment-routing-use-cases-01 (work in progress),
	October 2014.
	[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]		[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
	Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,		Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
	Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS		Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS
	Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-		Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-
	routing-extensions-04 (work in progress), May 2015.		routing-extensions-05 (work in progress), June 2015.
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]		[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-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, "OSPFv3		Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
	Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-		Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
	segment-routing-extensions-02 (work in progress), February		segment-routing-extensions-03 (work in progress), June
	2015.		2015.
	[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-04 (work in progress), February 2015.		routing-extensions-05 (work in progress), June 2015.
			[I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement]
			Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
			Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "SPRING Problem Statement
			and Requirements", draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-04
			(work in progress), April 2015.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
	and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-		and r. rjs@rob.sh, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-
	spring-segment-routing-03 (work in progress), May 2015.		ietf-spring-segment-routing-06 (work in progress), October
			2015.
	[RFC1940] Estrin, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., Varadhan, K., and D.		[RFC1940] Estrin, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., Varadhan, K., and D.
	Zappala, "Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and		Zappala, "Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and
	Forwarding Specification (Version 1)", RFC 1940, May 1996.		Forwarding Specification (Version 1)", RFC 1940,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC1940, May 1996,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1940>.
	[RFC5443] Jork, M., Atlas, A., and L. Fang, "LDP IGP		[RFC5443] Jork, M., Atlas, A., and L. Fang, "LDP IGP
	Synchronization", RFC 5443, March 2009.		Synchronization", RFC 5443, DOI 10.17487/RFC5443, March
			2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5443>.
	[RFC6138] Kini, S. and W. Lu, "LDP IGP Synchronization for Broadcast		[RFC6138] Kini, S., Ed. and W. Lu, Ed., "LDP IGP Synchronization for
	Networks", RFC 6138, February 2011.		Broadcast Networks", RFC 6138, DOI 10.17487/RFC6138,
			February 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6138>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Clarence Filsfils (editor)		Clarence Filsfils (editor)
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Brussels		Brussels
	BE		BE
	Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com		Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
	Stefano Previdi (editor)		Stefano Previdi (editor)
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Via Del Serafico, 200		Via Del Serafico, 200
	Rome 00142		Rome 00142
	Italy		Italy
	Email: sprevidi@cisco.com		Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
	Ahmed Bashandy		Ahmed Bashandy
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	skipping to change at page 13, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 4 ¶
	Orange		Orange
	FR		FR
	Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com		Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
	Stephane Litkowski		Stephane Litkowski
	Orange		Orange
	FR		FR
	Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com		Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
	Martin Horneffer		Martin Horneffer
	Deutsche Telekom		Deutsche Telekom
	Hammer Str. 216-226		Hammer Str. 216-226
	Muenster 48153		Muenster 48153
	DE		DE
	Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de		Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de
	Rob Shakir		Rob Shakir
	British Telecom		Individual
	London
	UK		Email: rjs@rob.sh
	Email: rob.shakir@bt.com
	Jeff Tantsura		Jeff Tantsura
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	300 Holger Way		300 Holger Way
	San Jose, CA 95134		San Jose, CA 95134
	US		US
	Email: Jeff.Tantsura@ericsson.com		Email: Jeff.Tantsura@ericsson.com
	Edward Crabbe		Edward Crabbe
	Individual		Individual
End of changes. 25 change blocks.
	36 lines changed or deleted		44 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/