idnits 2.17.1 draft-alston-spring-crh-bgp-signalling-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 24, 2019) is 1730 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'I-D.bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr' is defined on line 171, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4271' is defined on line 188, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4760' is defined on line 193, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8200' is defined on line 202, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header' is defined on line 209, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls' is defined on line 215, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming' is defined on line 221, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3031' is defined on line 227, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-05 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental draft: draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr (ref. 'I-D.bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr') == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-21 == Outdated reference: A later version (-28) exists of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-01 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 13 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 SPRING Working Group A. Alston 3 Internet-Draft D. Henriques 4 Intended status: Standards Track Liquid Telecom 5 Expires: January 25, 2020 R. Bonica 6 Juniper Networks 7 July 24, 2019 9 BGP Extensions for IPv6 Compressed Routing Header (CRH) 10 draft-alston-spring-crh-bgp-signalling-01 12 Abstract 14 This document describes a new BGP extension for signalling the 15 mapping between Segment Identifiers (SID's), as used by a SRv6+ 16 Compressed Routing Header (CRH) and the IPv6 Addresses they 17 represent. The extension defines both a new optional BGP attribute 18 to signal the Maximum SID Value (MSV) and a new Sub-Address Family 19 (SAFI) of the IPv6 Address family. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 25, 2020. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3. SID Signalling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3.1. NLRI Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 4.1. Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters . 4 61 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 1. Overview 70 The SRv6+ Compressed Routing Header uses an ordered sequence of 71 segment identifiers (SID) to specify the end to end path a packet 72 should follow through the network. This allows for much smaller 73 header sizes than found in the SRH (Segment Routing Header), which 74 utilizes an ordered sequence of 128 bit IPv6 address to achieve the 75 same goal. In addition, this method prevents the overloading of the 76 IPv6 address space. 78 This results in the need to signal the mapping between the SIDs used 79 in the CRH and the IPv6 addresses they represent. While such 80 signalling can be achieved through IGP extensions 81 [I-D.bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions] in a single network domain, 82 circumstances may dictate that the SID to address mapping be signaled 83 both to systems that do not partake in the IGP used within that 84 network domain, and between autonomous systems. 86 It is envisaged that such signalling will be required to signal, 87 among other things, deep packet inspection systems and flow analysis 88 systems that need the ability to see the full path a packet is 89 traversing, while at the same time not necessarily partaking in the 90 IGP which would normally be used for such signalling. This also 91 allows signalling of SID to Address mapping in environments that do 92 not run an IGP capable of such signalling. 94 2. Requirements Language 96 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 97 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 98 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 99 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 100 capitals, as shown here. 102 3. SID Signalling 104 3.1. NLRI Format 106 The format of the NLRI contained within the MP Reach Attribute is 107 comprised of a 16 bit Length (2 octets) field, followed by a series 108 of 20 octet tuples. The length of the first element of each tuple 109 MUST be 4 octets in length and represents the 32 bit SID. The second 110 element of the tuple is an IPv6 address and MUST be 16 octets in 111 length. The length of the NLRI can be calculated as (20)*N where N 112 is the number of tuples contained within the NLRI. 114 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 | NLRI Length | 117 | 2 octets | 118 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 119 | | 120 | SID 1 | 121 | (4 octets) | 122 | | 123 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 124 | | 125 | IPv6 Address 1| 126 | (16 octets) | 127 | | 128 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 129 | | 130 | SID N | 131 | (4 octets) | 132 | | 133 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 134 | | 135 | IPv6 Address N| 136 | (16 octets) | 137 | | 138 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 140 4. IANA Considerations 142 This document defines new Sub-TLVs in the following existing 143 registry: 145 o Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters 147 4.1. Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters 149 A new SAFI in the IANA registry for "Subsequent Address Family 150 Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters" will be required: 152 Codepoint Description Reference 153 ----------------------------------------------- 154 TBD SRv6+ CRH Signalling SAFI This document 156 5. Security Considerations 158 SRv6+ CRH BGP Signalling is envisioned to be run within a trusted 159 domain. 161 Further aspects of security are TBD. 163 6. Acknowledgements 165 The authors wish to acknowledge Ben Roberts for his support. 167 7. References 169 7.1. Normative References 171 [I-D.bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr] 172 Bonica, R., Kamite, Y., Niwa, T., Alston, A., Henriques, 173 D., So, N., Xu, F., Chen, G., Zhu, Y., Yang, G., and Y. 174 Zhou, "The IPv6 Compressed Routing Header (CRH)", draft- 175 bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-05 (work in progress), July 2019. 177 [I-D.bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions] 178 Kaneriya, P., Shetty, R., Hegde, S., and R. Bonica, "IS-IS 179 Extensions To Support The IPv6 Compressed Routing Header 180 (CRH)", draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions-00 (work in 181 progress), May 2019. 183 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 184 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 185 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 186 . 188 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 189 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 190 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 191 . 193 [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, 194 "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, 195 DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, 196 . 198 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 199 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 200 May 2017, . 202 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 203 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, 204 DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, 205 . 207 7.2. Informative References 209 [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] 210 Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., 211 Matsushima, S., and d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment 212 Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- 213 header-21 (work in progress), June 2019. 215 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] 216 Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., 217 Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS 218 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22 219 (work in progress), May 2019. 221 [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] 222 Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., 223 daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 224 Network Programming", draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network- 225 programming-01 (work in progress), July 2019. 227 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol 228 Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, 229 DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, 230 . 232 Authors' Addresses 234 Andrew Alston 235 Liquid Telecom 236 Nairobi 237 Kenya 239 Email: Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com 241 Daniam Henriques 242 Liquid Telecom 243 Johannesburg 244 South Africa 246 Email: daniam.henriques@liquidtelecom.com 248 Ron Bonica 249 Juniper Networks 250 Herndon, Virginia 20171 251 USA 253 Email: rbonica@juniper.net