| < draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-14.txt | draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-15.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPRING S. Matsushima | SPRING S. Matsushima | |||
| Internet-Draft Softbank | Internet-Draft Softbank | |||
| Intended status: Informational C. Filsfils | Intended status: Informational C. Filsfils | |||
| Expires: September 25, 2022 Z. Ali | Expires: October 7, 2022 Z. Ali | |||
| Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
| Z. Li | Z. Li | |||
| Huawei Technologies | Huawei Technologies | |||
| K. Rajaraman | K. Rajaraman | |||
| Arrcus | Arrcus | |||
| A. Dhamija | A. Dhamija | |||
| Rakuten | Rakuten | |||
| March 24, 2022 | April 5, 2022 | |||
| SRv6 Implementation and Deployment Status | SRv6 Implementation and Deployment Status | |||
| draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-14 | draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-15 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This draft provides an overview of IPv6 Segment Routing (SRv6) | This draft provides an overview of IPv6 Segment Routing (SRv6) | |||
| deployment status. It lists various SRv6 features that have been | deployment status. It lists various SRv6 features that have been | |||
| deployed in the production networks. It also provides an overview of | deployed in the production networks. It also provides an overview of | |||
| SRv6 implementation and interoperability testing status. | SRv6 implementation and interoperability testing status. | |||
| Requirements Language | Requirements Language | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶ | |||
| 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 September 25, 2022. | This Internet-Draft will expire on October 7, 2022. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2022 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 ¶ | |||
| 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2. Deployment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Deployment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2.1. Softbank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2.1. Softbank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2.2. China Telecom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.2. China Telecom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 2.3. Iliad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.3. Iliad Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 2.4. LINE Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.4. LINE Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 2.5. China Unicom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.5. China Unicom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 2.6. CERNET2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 2.6. CERNET2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 2.7. MTN Uganda Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 2.7. MTN Uganda Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 2.8. NOIA Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2.8. NOIA Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 2.9. Indosat Ooredoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2.9. Indosat Ooredoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 2.10. Rakuten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2.10. Rakuten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 2.11. Bell Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 2.11. Bell Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 2.12. Alibaba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 2.12. Alibaba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 2.13. Additional Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 2.13. Free France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 2.14. PSP Flavor Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 2.14. Additional Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 2.15. Insertion Behavior Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 2.15. PSP Flavor Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 3. Implementation Status of SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 2.16. Insertion Behavior Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 3.1. Open-source platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3. Implementation Status of SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 3.2. Additional Routing platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 3.1. Open-source platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 3.3. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 3.2. Additional Routing platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 3.4. PSP Flavor Implementations Status . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 3.3. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 3.5. Insertion Behavior Implementations Status . . . . . . . . 13 | 3.4. PSP Flavor Implementations Status . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 4. Interoperability Status of SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 3.5. Insertion Behavior Implementations Status . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 4.1. Cisco/ Nokia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 4. Interoperability Status of SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 4.2. EANTC 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 4.1. Cisco/ Nokia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 4.3. EANTC 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 4.2. EANTC 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 4.4. EANTC 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 4.3. EANTC 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 4.5. SIGCOM 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 4.4. EANTC 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 4.6. EANTC 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 4.5. EANTC 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 5. Significant industry collaboration for SRv6 standardization . 20 | 4.6. SIGCOM 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
| 5.1. Industry Collaboration for RFC8754 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 4.7. EANTC 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
| 5.2. Industry Collaboration for SRv6 Network Programming . . . 21 | 5. Significant industry collaboration for SRv6 standardization . 21 | |||
| 5.3. Academic Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 5.1. Industry Collaboration for RFC8754 . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
| 6. Appendix 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 5.2. Industry Collaboration for SRv6 Network Programming . . . 22 | |||
| 7. Appendix 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 5.3. Academic Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
| 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 6. Appendix 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
| 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 7. Appendix 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 13. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
| 13. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | ||||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| This draft provides an overview of IPv6 Segment Routing (SRv6) | This draft provides an overview of IPv6 Segment Routing (SRv6) | |||
| deployment status. It lists various SRv6 features that have been | deployment status. It lists various SRv6 features that have been | |||
| deployed in the production networks. It also provides an overview of | deployed in the production networks. It also provides an overview of | |||
| SRv6 implementation and interoperability testing status. | SRv6 implementation and interoperability testing status. | |||
| 2. Deployment Status | 2. Deployment Status | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶ | |||
| o END.DT4 function as per [RFC8986]. | o END.DT4 function as per [RFC8986]. | |||
| o BGP VPN SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]. | o BGP VPN SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]. | |||
| o BGP Prefix Independent Convergence (PIC) core and edge [I-D.ietf- | o BGP Prefix Independent Convergence (PIC) core and edge [I-D.ietf- | |||
| rtgwg-bgp-pic]. | rtgwg-bgp-pic]. | |||
| o Support for Ping and Traceroute as defined in [I-D.ietf-6man- | o Support for Ping and Traceroute as defined in [I-D.ietf-6man- | |||
| spring-srv6-oam]. | spring-srv6-oam]. | |||
| 2.3. Iliad | 2.3. Iliad Italy | |||
| As part of the 5G rollout, Iliad has deployed a nationwide SRv6 | As part of the 5G rollout, Iliad has deployed a nationwide SRv6 | |||
| network to provide a new mobile offering in Italy. This is a | network to provide a new mobile offering in Italy. This is a | |||
| complete mobile IP network. | complete mobile IP network. | |||
| The SRv6 backbone is based on Cisco NCS 5500. All the cell site | The SRv6 backbone is based on Cisco NCS 5500. All the cell site | |||
| routers are Iliad's Nodebox, which are SRv6 capable and has been | routers are Iliad's Nodebox, which are SRv6 capable and has been | |||
| build in-house by the provider. In this deployment SRv6 is running | build in-house by the provider. In this deployment SRv6 is running | |||
| on NCS 5500 and Iliad's Nodebox. I.e., the deployment includes | on NCS 5500 and Iliad's Nodebox. I.e., the deployment includes | |||
| interoperating multiple implementations of SRv6. | interoperating multiple implementations of SRv6. | |||
| As of the end of 2020, the SRv6 network consists of: | As of the end of 2020, the SRv6 network consists of: | |||
| o 1200 Cisco NCS 5500 routers. | o 1350 Cisco NCS 5500 routers. | |||
| o 5800 Iliad's Nodeboxes. | o 9200 Iliad's Nodeboxes. | |||
| o The network services 6.8 million mobile subscribers (as of Q3 | o The network services 8.5 million mobile subscribers (as of Q4 | |||
| 2020). | 2021). | |||
| o The network is carrying 450 Gbps of commercial traffic at peak | o The network is carrying 700 Gbps of commercial traffic at peak | |||
| hours. | hours. | |||
| o It is expected to grow to more than 10000 Nodeboxes in the coming | o The SRv6 SIDs are allocated from a /40 sub-block of FC/8. | |||
| years. The SRv6 SIDs are allocated from a /40 sub-block of FC/8. | ||||
| The following SRv6 features have been deployed: | The following SRv6 features have been deployed: | |||
| o A Segment Routing Header [RFC8754]. based data plane. | o A Segment Routing Header [RFC8754] based data plane. | |||
| o End (PSP), End.X (PSP), End.DT4, END.DX2, H.Encaps.Red, | o End (PSP), End.X (PSP), End.DT4, END.DX2, H.Encaps.Red, | |||
| H.Insert.Red functions as per [RFC8986] , [I-D.filsfils-spring- | H.Insert.Red, END.DT6 functions as per [RFC8986] , [I-D.filsfils- | |||
| srv6-net-pgm-insertion]. | spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion]. | |||
| o BGP VPN SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]. | o BGP VPN SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]. | |||
| o ISIS SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-isis-srv6-extensions]. | o ISIS SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-isis-srv6-extensions]. | |||
| o SRH based Topology Independent (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute mechanisms | o SRH based Topology Independent (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute mechanisms | |||
| using H.Insert.Red for the O(50msec) protection against node and | using H.Insert.Red for the O(50msec) protection against node and | |||
| link, as described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], [I- | link, as described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], [I- | |||
| D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion]. | D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion]. | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 49 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 49 ¶ | |||
| D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion]. | D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion]. | |||
| 2.9. Indosat Ooredoo | 2.9. Indosat Ooredoo | |||
| Indosat Ooredoo is deploying a multivendor SRv6 based 5G-ready | Indosat Ooredoo is deploying a multivendor SRv6 based 5G-ready | |||
| transport network [Indosat-Ooredoo-announcement]. Indosat Ooredoo is | transport network [Indosat-Ooredoo-announcement]. Indosat Ooredoo is | |||
| starting its SRv6 deployment with Cisco and Huawei. | starting its SRv6 deployment with Cisco and Huawei. | |||
| 2.10. Rakuten | 2.10. Rakuten | |||
| As part of the 5G and IoT services rollout, Rakuten is deploying | As part of the 5G and IoT services rollout, Rakuten is deploying a | |||
| L3VPN and EVPN-VPWS services over a nationwide SRv6 network using | nationwide SRv6 uSID based network delivering end-to-end slicing | |||
| Cisco NCS540 and NCS 5500 series routers [Rakuten-announcement]. | capabilities from RAN to the Mobile Core in datacenters at ultra- | |||
| scale using Cisco NCS 540 and NCS 5500 series of routers [Rakuten- | ||||
| announcement]. SRv6 SIDs are allocated from the ULA block [RFC4193]. | ||||
| The following SRv6 features are in deployment, with the goal to | ||||
| simplify and scale the network while guaranteeing end-to-end SLAs: | ||||
| o A Segment Routing Header [RFC8754] based data plane. | ||||
| o Compressed-SID (C-SID) with NEXT-C-SID Flavor (SRv6 uSID) [draft- | ||||
| ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression]. | ||||
| o L3VPN and EVPN-VPWS services with SRv6 uSIDs | ||||
| o SRv6 uSID ISIS Flex-Algo for Low-Cost vs Low-Delay end-to-end SLA | ||||
| differentiation [I-D.draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo] | ||||
| o SRv6 uSID TILFA for 50msec TILFA protection with uLoop avoidance | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] | ||||
| o ISIS SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-isis-srv6-extensions] | ||||
| o BGP SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] | ||||
| o BGP Prefix Independent Convergence (PIC) core and edge [I-D.ietf- | ||||
| rtgwg-bgp-pic] | ||||
| o Support for Ping and Traceroute as defined in [I-D.ietf-6man- | ||||
| spring-srv6-oam] | ||||
| 2.11. Bell Canada | 2.11. Bell Canada | |||
| As part of their MEC rollout, Bell Canada reports successful | As part of their MEC rollout, Bell Canada reports successful | |||
| deployment of a nationwide SRv6 uSID network and interoperability | deployment of a nationwide SRv6 uSID network and interoperability | |||
| between Cisco, Arrcus and Noviflow. In this deployment, SRv6 SIDs | between Cisco, Arrcus and Noviflow. In this deployment, SRv6 SIDs | |||
| are allocated from the ULA block [RFC4193]. | are allocated from the ULA block [RFC4193]. | |||
| The following SRv6 features have been deployed: | The following SRv6 features have been deployed: | |||
| o A Segment Routing Header [RFC8754] based data plane. | o A Segment Routing Header [RFC8754] based data plane. | |||
| o Compressed-SID (C-SID) with NEXT-C-SID Flavor (SRv6 uSID) [draft- | o Compressed-SID (C-SID) with NEXT-C-SID Flavor (SRv6 uSID) [draft- | |||
| ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression]. | ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression]. | |||
| o Traffic engineering with END (PSP), END.X (PSP), END.DT4, END.DT6 | o Traffic engineering using SRv6 uSID with END (PSP), END.X (PSP), | |||
| END.B6.Encaps.Red, END.B6.Encaps, H.Encaps.red and H.Insert.Red | END.B6.Encaps.Red, END.B6.Encaps, H.Encaps.red and H.Insert.Red | |||
| functions as per [RFC8986], [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm- | functions as per [RFC8986], [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm- | |||
| insertion]. | insertion]. | |||
| o L3VPN services for IPv4 and IPv6 traffic with SRv6 uSIDs. | ||||
| o SRv6 service programming [draft-ietf-spring-sr-service- | o SRv6 service programming [draft-ietf-spring-sr-service- | |||
| programming] using H.Encaps.Red and H.Insert.Red encapsulation as | programming] using SRv6 uSID with H.Encaps.Red and H.Insert.Red | |||
| per [RFC8986], [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion]. | encapsulation as per [RFC8986], [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm- | |||
| insertion]. | ||||
| o SRv6 to MPLS interworking with End.DTM, End.DPM functions [draft- | o SRv6 to MPLS interworking with End.DTM, End.DPM functions [draft- | |||
| agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking]. | agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking]. | |||
| o ISIS SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-isis-srv6-extensions]. | o ISIS SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-isis-srv6-extensions]. | |||
| o SRv6 BGP services extensions [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]. | o SRv6 BGP services extensions [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]. | |||
| o SRH based Topology Independent (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute mechanisms | o SRv6 uSID TILFA for 50msec TILFA protection with uLoop avoidance | |||
| using H.Insert.Red for the O(50msec) protection against node and | [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] | |||
| link, as described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], [I- | ||||
| D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion]. | ||||
| o BGP Prefix Independent Convergence (PIC) core and edge [I-D.ietf- | o BGP Prefix Independent Convergence (PIC) core and edge [I-D.ietf- | |||
| rtgwg-bgp-pic]. | rtgwg-bgp-pic]. | |||
| o Support for Ping and Traceroute as defined in [I-D.ietf-6man- | o Support for Ping and Traceroute as defined in [I-D.ietf-6man- | |||
| spring-srv6-oam]. | spring-srv6-oam]. | |||
| 2.12. Alibaba | 2.12. Alibaba | |||
| Alibaba's next-gen 'Predictable Network' provides predictable network | Alibaba's next-gen 'Predictable Network' provides predictable network | |||
| services to every single application, based on the full stack SRv6 | services to every single application, based on the full stack SRv6 | |||
| innovations across endpoints (container,host,P4 gateway), network | innovations across endpoints (container,host,P4 gateway), network | |||
| devices and controller/network service center. | devices and controller/network service center. | |||
| 2.13. Additional Deployments | 2.13. Free France | |||
| Free France is deploying a nationwide SRv6 network using Cisco NCS | ||||
| 5500/540 routers. | ||||
| The following SRv6 features are in deployment: | ||||
| o A Segment Routing Header [RFC8754] based data plane. | ||||
| o End (PSP), End.X (PSP), End.DT4, END.DX2, H.Encaps.Red, | ||||
| H.Insert.Red, END.DT6 functions as per [RFC8986] , [I-D.filsfils- | ||||
| spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion]. | ||||
| o BGP VPN SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]. | ||||
| o ISIS SRv6 extensions [I-D.ietf-isis-srv6-extensions]. | ||||
| o SRH based Topology Independent (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute mechanisms | ||||
| using H.Insert.Red for the O(50msec) protection against node and | ||||
| link, as described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], [I- | ||||
| D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion]. | ||||
| o Support for Ping and Traceroute as defined in [I-D.ietf-6man- | ||||
| spring-srv6-oam]. | ||||
| 2.14. Additional Deployments | ||||
| There are over 20 additional deployments without a public | There are over 20 additional deployments without a public | |||
| announcements. Several other deployments are in preparation. | announcements. Several other deployments are in preparation. | |||
| Details to be added after the public announcements. | Details to be added after the public announcements. | |||
| 2.14. PSP Flavor Deployments | 2.15. PSP Flavor Deployments | |||
| As noted above, SRv6 deployments at Softbank, Iliad, MTN Uganda Ltd. | As noted above, SRv6 deployments at Softbank, Iliad, MTN Uganda Ltd. | |||
| and NOIA Network all use PSP flavor for END and END.X behaviors as | and NOIA Network all use PSP flavor for END and END.X behaviors as | |||
| documented in [RFC8986]. | documented in [RFC8986]. | |||
| 2.15. Insertion Behavior Deployments | 2.16. Insertion Behavior Deployments | |||
| All deployments utilizing TI-LFA reported in this draft use insertion | All deployments utilizing TI-LFA reported in this draft use insertion | |||
| behavior as documented in [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header- | behavior as documented in [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header- | |||
| insertion]. | insertion]. | |||
| 3. Implementation Status of SRv6 | 3. Implementation Status of SRv6 | |||
| The hardware and software platforms listed below are either shipping | The hardware and software platforms listed below are either shipping | |||
| or have demonstrated support for SRv6 including [RFC8754] and | or have demonstrated support for SRv6 including [RFC8754] and | |||
| [RFC8986]. This section also indicates the supported SRv6 functions | [RFC8986]. This section also indicates the supported SRv6 functions | |||
| skipping to change at page 16, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 33 ¶ | |||
| o L3VPN for IPv6 traffic using the SRv6 H.Encaps and End.DT6 | o L3VPN for IPv6 traffic using the SRv6 H.Encaps and End.DT6 | |||
| behaviors. | behaviors. | |||
| o EVPN over SRv6 for E-Line and EVPN L3VPN services. | o EVPN over SRv6 for E-Line and EVPN L3VPN services. | |||
| o SRH based Topology Independent (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute mechanisms | o SRH based Topology Independent (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute mechanisms | |||
| using H.Insert.Red and END(PSP) behaviors for local SRLG | using H.Insert.Red and END(PSP) behaviors for local SRLG | |||
| protection. | protection. | |||
| 4.3. EANTC 2020 | 4.3. EANTC 2022 | |||
| In April 2022, the European Advanced Networking Test Center (EANTC) | ||||
| successfully validated multiple SRv6 implementations. As reported in | ||||
| [EANTC-22], "The tests covered pretty much the same scope as in past | ||||
| years", please refer to [EANTC-21] for details. The participating | ||||
| vendor included Juniper, Huawei, Arrcus, Nokia, ZTE, Spirent and | ||||
| Ixia. Cisco reported non-participation due company's COVID travel | ||||
| restrictions. | ||||
| 4.4. EANTC 2020 | ||||
| In March 2020, the European Advanced Networking Test Center (EANTC) | In March 2020, the European Advanced Networking Test Center (EANTC) | |||
| successfully validated multiple implementations of the following SRv6 | successfully validated multiple implementations of the following SRv6 | |||
| RFCs and drafts: | RFCs and drafts: | |||
| o A Segment Routing Header [RFC8754] based data plane | o A Segment Routing Header [RFC8754] based data plane | |||
| o SRv6 network programming [RFC8986] | o SRv6 network programming [RFC8986] | |||
| o SRv6 BGP services extension [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] | o SRv6 BGP services extension [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] | |||
| o SRv6 ISIS extensions [draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions] | o SRv6 ISIS extensions [draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions] | |||
| o SRH based Topology Independent (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute [draft-ietf- | o SRH based Topology Independent (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute [draft-ietf- | |||
| rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01] | rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01] | |||
| The Results from this event were published in a white paper by EANTC | The Results from this event were published in a white paper by EANTC | |||
| [EANTC-20]. | [EANTC-20]. | |||
| skipping to change at page 17, line 33 ¶ | skipping to change at page 19, line 5 ¶ | |||
| o SRH based Topology Independent (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute mechanisms | o SRH based Topology Independent (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute mechanisms | |||
| using H.Insert.Red and END(PSP) behaviors for link protection. | using H.Insert.Red and END(PSP) behaviors for link protection. | |||
| o EVPN over SRv6 for E-Line and EVPN L3VPN services. | o EVPN over SRv6 for E-Line and EVPN L3VPN services. | |||
| o Multiple implementations of Classic (non-SRv6 capable) P nodes | o Multiple implementations of Classic (non-SRv6 capable) P nodes | |||
| were tested to validate that a transit node only needs to be IPv6 | were tested to validate that a transit node only needs to be IPv6 | |||
| capable. | capable. | |||
| 4.4. EANTC 2019 | 4.5. EANTC 2019 | |||
| In March 2019, the European Advanced Networking Test Center (EANTC) | In March 2019, the European Advanced Networking Test Center (EANTC) | |||
| successfully validated multiple implementations of [RFC8754], | successfully validated multiple implementations of [RFC8754], | |||
| [RFC8986], [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services], [draft-bashandy-isis- | [RFC8986], [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services], [draft-bashandy-isis- | |||
| srv6-extensions], [draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01] and | srv6-extensions], [draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01] and | |||
| [draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam]. The Results from this event were | [draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam]. The Results from this event were | |||
| showcased at the MPLS + SDN + NFV World Congress conference in April | showcased at the MPLS + SDN + NFV World Congress conference in April | |||
| 2019 [EANTC-19]. | 2019 [EANTC-19]. | |||
| Five different implementations of the SRv6 drafts, including | Five different implementations of the SRv6 drafts, including | |||
| skipping to change at page 18, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 20, line 5 ¶ | |||
| o OAM procedures (Ping and traceroute) [draft-ietf-6man-spring- | o OAM procedures (Ping and traceroute) [draft-ietf-6man-spring- | |||
| srv6-oam] | srv6-oam] | |||
| Bidirectional traffic was sent between the ingress PE and Egress PE, | Bidirectional traffic was sent between the ingress PE and Egress PE, | |||
| i.e., the PEs were performing both the encapsulation (H.Encaps) and | i.e., the PEs were performing both the encapsulation (H.Encaps) and | |||
| the decapsulation (END.DT4/ END.DT6) functionality, simultaneously. | the decapsulation (END.DT4/ END.DT6) functionality, simultaneously. | |||
| Multiple implementations of Classic (non-SRv6 capable) P nodes were | Multiple implementations of Classic (non-SRv6 capable) P nodes were | |||
| tested to validate that a transit node only needs to be IPv6 capable. | tested to validate that a transit node only needs to be IPv6 capable. | |||
| 4.5. SIGCOM 2017 | 4.6. SIGCOM 2017 | |||
| The following interoperability testing scenarios were publicly | The following interoperability testing scenarios were publicly | |||
| showcased on August 21-24, 2017 at the SIGCOMM conference. | showcased on August 21-24, 2017 at the SIGCOMM conference. | |||
| Five different implementations of SRv6 behaviors were used for this | Five different implementations of SRv6 behaviors were used for this | |||
| testing: | testing: | |||
| o Software implementation in Linux using the srext kernel module | o Software implementation in Linux using the srext kernel module | |||
| created by University of Rome, Tor Vergata, Italy. | created by University of Rome, Tor Vergata, Italy. | |||
| skipping to change at page 19, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 20, line 44 ¶ | |||
| validated the interoperability of H.Encaps and End.DX6 behaviors | validated the interoperability of H.Encaps and End.DX6 behaviors | |||
| combined with the End and End.X functions. | combined with the End and End.X functions. | |||
| o L3 VPN with traffic engineering and service chaining. This | o L3 VPN with traffic engineering and service chaining. This | |||
| scenario validated the L3 VPN service with underlay optimization | scenario validated the L3 VPN service with underlay optimization | |||
| and service programming using SRH. | and service programming using SRH. | |||
| The results confirm consistency among SRH [RFC8754], network | The results confirm consistency among SRH [RFC8754], network | |||
| programming [RFC8986] and the dependent SRv6 drafts. | programming [RFC8986] and the dependent SRv6 drafts. | |||
| 4.6. EANTC 2018 | 4.7. EANTC 2018 | |||
| In March 2018, the European Advanced Networking Test Center (EANTC) | In March 2018, the European Advanced Networking Test Center (EANTC) | |||
| successfully validated multiple implementations of [RFC8754] and | successfully validated multiple implementations of [RFC8754] and | |||
| [RFC8986]. The Results from this event were showcased at the MPLS + | [RFC8986]. The Results from this event were showcased at the MPLS + | |||
| SDN + NFV World Congress conference in April 2018 [EANTC-18]. | SDN + NFV World Congress conference in April 2018 [EANTC-18]. | |||
| Four different implementations of the SRv6 drafts, including | Four different implementations of the SRv6 drafts, including | |||
| [RFC8754] and [RFC8986] were used in this testing: | [RFC8754] and [RFC8986] were used in this testing: | |||
| o Hardware implementation in Cisco NCS 5500 router. | o Hardware implementation in Cisco NCS 5500 router. | |||
| skipping to change at page 30, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 32, line 24 ¶ | |||
| [EANTC-20] "EANTC Multi-vendor Interoperability Test", | [EANTC-20] "EANTC Multi-vendor Interoperability Test", | |||
| "White Paper 2020", Paris, 2020, | "White Paper 2020", Paris, 2020, | |||
| http://www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/ | http://www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/ | |||
| MPLS2020/EANTC-MPLSSDNNFV2020-WhitePaper.pdf | MPLS2020/EANTC-MPLSSDNNFV2020-WhitePaper.pdf | |||
| [EANTC-21] ""EANTC Multi-vendor Interoperability Test", | [EANTC-21] ""EANTC Multi-vendor Interoperability Test", | |||
| "White Paper 2021", Paris, 2021, | "White Paper 2021", Paris, 2021, | |||
| https://eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/2021/ | https://eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/2021/ | |||
| MPLSSDNInterop/EANTC-MPLSSDNInterop-2021-WhitePaper.pdf | MPLSSDNInterop/EANTC-MPLSSDNInterop-2021-WhitePaper.pdf | |||
| [EANTC-22] "EANTC Multi-vendor Interoperability Test", | ||||
| "White Paper 2022", Paris, 2022, | ||||
| https://eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/2022/ | ||||
| EANTC-InteropTest2022-TestReport.pdf | ||||
| [SRH-REF-BY] | [SRH-REF-BY] | |||
| "IETF Documents Referencing | "IETF Documents Referencing | |||
| draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header Draft", | draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header Draft", | |||
| https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ | https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ | |||
| draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header/referencedby/ | draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header/referencedby/ | |||
| [NETPGM-REF-BY] | [NETPGM-REF-BY] | |||
| "IETF Documents Referencing RFC8986", | "IETF Documents Referencing RFC8986", | |||
| https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ | https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ | |||
| draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming/referencedby/ | draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming/referencedby/ | |||
| End of changes. 28 change blocks. | ||||
| 64 lines changed or deleted | 133 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/ | ||||