idnits 2.17.1 draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt-06.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 6, 2019) is 1753 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus-01 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 6man R. Bonica 3 Internet-Draft Juniper Networks 4 Intended status: Standards Track Y. Kamite 5 Expires: January 7, 2020 NTT Communications Corporation 6 C. Lenart 7 Verizon 8 N. So 9 F. Xu 10 Reliance Jio 11 G. Presbury 12 Hughes Network Systems 13 G. Chen 14 Baidu 15 Y. Zhu 16 G. Yang 17 China Telecom 18 Y. Zhou 19 ByteDance 20 July 6, 2019 22 The Per-Path Service Instruction (PPSI) Option 23 draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt-06 25 Abstract 27 SRv6+ encodes Per-Path Service Instructions (PPSI) in a new IPv6 28 option, called the PPSI Option. This document describes the PPSI 29 Option. 31 Status of This Memo 33 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 34 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 36 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 37 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 38 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 39 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 41 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 42 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 43 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 44 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2020. 48 Copyright Notice 50 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 51 document authors. All rights reserved. 53 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 54 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 55 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 56 publication of this document. Please review these documents 57 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 58 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 59 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 60 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 61 described in the Simplified BSD License. 63 Table of Contents 65 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 66 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 3. PPSI Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 4. The PPSI Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 5. Destination Option Header Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 Appendix A. Virtual Private Networks (VPN) . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 79 1. Introduction 81 An SRv6+ [I-D.bonica-spring-srv6-plus] path provides unidirectional 82 connectivity from its ingress node to its egress node. While an 83 SRv6+ path can follow the least cost path from ingress to egress, it 84 can also follow any other path. 86 SRv6+ paths are encoded as IPv6 [RFC8200] header chains. When an 87 SRv6+ ingress node receives a packet, it encapsulates the packet in 88 an IPv6 header chain. It then forwards the encapsulated packet to 89 the path's egress node. When the egress node receives the packet, it 90 processes the SRv6+ payload (i.e., the original packet). 92 SRv6+ paths are programmable. They support several instruction 93 types, including Per-Path Service Instructions (PPSI). PPSIs 94 determine how path egress nodes process SRv6+ payloads. In the 95 absence of a PPSI, the egress node processes SRv6+ payloads as 96 described in [RFC8200]. 98 The following are examples of PPSIs: 100 o Remove any SRv6+ encapsulation and forward the SRv6+ payload 101 through a specified interface. 103 o Remove any SRv6+ encapsulation and forward the SRv6+ payload using 104 a specified routing table. 106 SRv6+ encodes PPSIs in a new IPv6 option, called the PPSI Option. 107 This document describes the PPSI Option. 109 PPSIs can be used to support Virtual Private Networks (VPN). 110 Therefore, Appendix A of this document describes VPN technology and 111 how PPSIs can be used to support a VPN. 113 2. Requirements Language 115 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 116 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 117 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 118 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 119 capitals, as shown here. 121 3. PPSI Identifiers 123 PPSI Identifiers identify PPSIs. When a path egress node 124 instantiates a PPSI, it also allocates a PPSI Identifier and 125 associates the PPSI with the identifier. 127 PPSI Identifiers have node-local significance. This means that a 128 path egress node must assign a unique PPSI Identifier to each PPSI 129 that it instantiates. However, one path egress node can assign a 130 PPSI Identifier to an instruction that it instantiates, while another 131 path egress node can assign the same PPSI Identifier to a different 132 PPSI that it instantiates. 134 4. The PPSI Option 136 The PPSI Option contains the following fields: 138 o Option Type: 8-bit selector. PPSI option. Value TBD by IANA. 139 (Suggested value: 144). See Note below. 141 o Opt Data Len - 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the option, in 142 octets, excluding the Option Type and Option Length fields. This 143 field MUST be set to 4. 145 o PPSI identifier - (32-bit selector). Identifies a PPSI. 147 The SRv6+ PPSI option MAY appear in a Destination Options header that 148 precedes an upper-layer header. It MUST NOT appear in a Hop-by-hop 149 Options header or in a Destination Options header that precedes a 150 Routing header. 152 When the SRv6+ PPSI option appears in a Destination Options header, 153 it MUST be the only option listed in the header. This is because the 154 PPSI defines all path egress node behaviors. 156 NOTE : The highest-order two bits of the Option Type (i.e., the "act" 157 bits) are 10. These bits specify the action taken by a destination 158 node that does not recognize the option. The required action is to 159 discard the packet and, regardless of whether or not the packet's 160 Destination Address was a multicast address, send an ICMPv6 [RFC4443] 161 Parameter Problem, Code 2, message to the packet's Source Address, 162 pointing to the unrecognized Option Type. 164 The third highest-order bit of the Option Type (i.e., the "chg" bit) 165 is 0. This indicates that Option Data cannot be modified along the 166 path between the packet's source and its destination. 168 5. Destination Option Header Considerations 170 As per [RFC8200], the Destination Options header includes a Next 171 Header field. The Next Header field identifies the header following 172 the Destination Options header. 174 SRv6+ can carry Ethernet payload after a Destination option header. 175 Therefore, this document requests IANA to assign a protocol number 176 for Ethernet. (The suggested value is 143.) 178 6. Security Considerations 180 SRv6+ domains MUST NOT span security domains. In order to enforce 181 this requirement, security domain edge routers MUST do one of the 182 following: 184 o Discard all inbound SRv6+ packets 186 o Authenticate [RFC4302] [RFC4303] all inbound SRv6+ packets 188 7. IANA Considerations 190 IANA is requested to allocate a code point from the Destination 191 Options and Hop-by-hop Options registry 192 (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ 193 ipv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2). This option is called 194 "Per-Path Service Instruction Option". The "act" bits are 10 and the 195 "chg" bit is 0. The suggested value is 144. 197 IANA is also requested to allocate a code point for Ethernet from the 198 Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers registry 199 (https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol- 200 numbers.xhtml). The suggested value is 143. 202 8. Acknowledgements 204 Thanks to Brian Carpenter, Adrian Farrel, Tom Herbert, John Leddy and 205 Tony Li for their comments. 207 9. References 209 9.1. Normative References 211 [I-D.bonica-spring-srv6-plus] 212 Bonica, R., Hegde, S., Kamite, Y., Alston, A., Henriques, 213 D., Halpern, J., and J. Linkova, "IPv6 Support for Segment 214 Routing: SRv6+", draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus-01 (work in 215 progress), July 2019. 217 [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, 218 DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, 219 . 221 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 222 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 223 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 224 . 226 [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, 227 DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005, 228 . 230 [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 231 RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, 232 . 234 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet 235 Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet 236 Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, 237 RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, 238 . 240 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 241 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 242 May 2017, . 244 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 245 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, 246 DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, 247 . 249 9.2. Informative References 251 [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. 252 Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, 253 DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, 254 . 256 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol 257 Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, 258 DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, 259 . 261 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 262 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 263 2006, . 265 [RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private 266 LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and 267 Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007, 268 . 270 [RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed. and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private 271 LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) 272 Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007, 273 . 275 [RFC6624] Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2 276 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and 277 Signaling", RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012, 278 . 280 [RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., 281 Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based 282 Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 283 2015, . 285 [RFC8077] Martini, L., Ed. and G. Heron, Ed., "Pseudowire Setup and 286 Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", 287 STD 84, RFC 8077, DOI 10.17487/RFC8077, February 2017, 288 . 290 Appendix A. Virtual Private Networks (VPN) 292 Virtual Private Network (VPN) technologies allow network providers to 293 emulate private networks with shared infrastructure. For example, 294 assume that red sites and blue sites connect to a provider network. 295 The provider network facilitates communication among red sites and 296 facilitates communication among blue sites. However, it prevents 297 communication between red sites and blue sites. 299 The IETF has standardized many VPN technologies, including: 301 o Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) [RFC6624]. 303 o Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) [RFC4364]. 305 o Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [RFC4761][RFC4762]. 307 o Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC7432]. 309 o Pseudowires [RFC8077]. 311 The above-mentioned technologies include the following components: 313 o Customer Edge (CE) devices. 315 o Provider Edge (PE) devices. 317 o Routing Instances. 319 o Service Instructions. 321 o Service Instruction Identifiers. 323 o Transport tunnels. 325 CE devices participate in closed communities called VPNs. CEs that 326 participate in one VPN can communicate with one another but cannot 327 communicate with CEs that participate in another VPN. 329 CE devices connect to provider networks through PE devices. Each PE 330 maintains one Routing Instance for each VPN that it supports. A 331 Routing Instance is a VPN specific Forwarding Information Base (FIB). 332 In EVPN, Routing Instances are called Ethernet Virtual Instances 333 (EVI). 335 Assume that one CE sends a packet through a provider network to 336 another CE. The packet enters the provider network through an 337 ingress PE and leaves the provider network through an egress PE. The 338 packet may traverse one or more intermediate nodes on route from PE 339 to PE. 341 When the ingress PE receives the packet, it: 343 o Identifies the Routing Instance that supports the originating CE's 344 VPN. 346 o Searches that Routing Instance for the packet's destination. 348 If the search fails, the ingress PE discards the packet. If the 349 search succeeds, it yields the following: 351 o A Service Instruction Identifier. 353 o The egress PE's IP address. 355 The ingress PE prepends the Service Instruction Identifier and a 356 transport header to the packet, in that order. It then forwards the 357 packet through a transport tunnel to the egress PE. 359 The egress PE removes the transport header, if it has not already 360 been removed by an upstream device. It then examines and removes the 361 Service Instruction Identifier. Finally, it executes a service 362 instruction that is associated with the Service Instruction 363 Identifier. The service instruction causes the egress PE to forward 364 the packet to its destination (i.e., a directly connected CE). 366 In the above-mentioned VPN technologies, the ingress PE encodes 367 Service Instruction Identifiers in Multiprotocol Label Switching 368 (MPLS) [RFC3031] labels. Depending upon the transport tunnel type, 369 the transport header can be: 371 o A MPLS label or label stack. 373 o An IPv4 [RFC0791] header. 375 o An IPv6 [RFC8200] header. 377 o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784] header 378 encapsulated in IPv4 or IPv6. 380 Some PE devices cannot process MPLS headers. While these devices 381 have several alternatives to MPLS-based transport tunnels, they 382 require an alternative to MPLS-based encoding of Service Instruction 383 Identifiers. The PPSI Option can be used to encode Service 384 Instruction Identifiers . It is applicable when VPN payload is 385 transported over IPv6. 387 Authors' Addresses 389 Ron Bonica 390 Juniper Networks 391 2251 Corporate Park Drive 392 Herndon, Virginia 20171 393 USA 395 Email: rbonica@juniper.net 397 Yuji Kamite 398 NTT Communications Corporation 399 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku 400 Tokyo 108-8118 401 Japan 403 Email: : y.kamite@ntt.com 405 Chris Lenart 406 Verizon 407 22001 Loudoun County Parkway 408 Ashburn, Virginia 20147 409 USA 411 Email: chris.lenart@verizon.com 413 Ning So 414 Reliance Jio 415 3010 Gaylord PKWY, Suite 150 416 Frisco, Texas 75034 417 USA 419 Email: Ning.So@ril.com 420 Fengman Xu 421 Reliance Jio 422 3010 Gaylord PKWY, Suite 150 423 Frisco, Texas 75034 424 USA 426 Email: Fengman.Xu@ril.com 428 Greg Presbury 429 Hughes Network Systems 430 11717 Exploration Lane 431 Germantown, Maryland 20876 432 USA 434 Email: greg.presbury@hughes.com 436 Gang Chen 437 Baidu 438 No.10 Xibeiwang East Road Haidian District 439 Beijing 100193 440 P.R. China 442 Email: phdgang@gmail.com 444 Yongqing Zhu 445 China Telecom 446 109 West Zhongshan Ave, Tianhe District 447 Guangzhou 448 P.R. China 450 Email: zhuyq.gd@chinatelecom.cn 452 Guangming Yang 453 China Telecom 454 109 West Zhongshan Ave, Tianhe District 455 Guangzhou 456 P.R. China 458 Email: yanggm.gd@chinatelecom.cn 459 Yifeng Zhou 460 ByteDance 461 Building 1, AVIC Plaza, 43 N 3rd Ring W Rd Haidian District 462 Beijing 100000 463 P.R. China 465 Email: yifeng.zhou@bytedance.com