idnits 2.17.1 draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-03.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 10 longer pages, the longest (page 6) being 63 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 1. Introduction' ) ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 11. Security Considerations' ) ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 12. IANA Considerations' ) ** There are 158 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 17 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC4360], [RFC7911], [FLEXAGLO], [10013000], [RFC5492], [RFC2119], [RFC5512], [400101400001], [FLEXALGO], [RFC3107], [100101100001], [BGP-CAP], [RFC7311], [RFC5575], [10024000], [RFC8277], [10002000], [RFC4760]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The "Author's Address" (or "Authors' Addresses") section title is misspelled. == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (Mar 6, 2021) is 1118 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Missing reference section? 'RFC7911' on line 458 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'BGP-CAP' on line 468 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'FLEXAGLO' on line 472 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2119' on line 426 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC5492' on line 253 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC4760' on line 283 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '1000 2000' on line 338 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '1001 3000' on line 340 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '1002 4000' on line 341 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'FLEXALGO' on line 396 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '100101 100001' on line 406 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '400101 400001' on line 408 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC3107' on line 431 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC4360' on line 436 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC5512' on line 441 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC5575' on line 447 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC7311' on line 452 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC8277' on line 463 looks like a reference Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 19 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IDR Working Group Louis Chan 3 INTERNET-DRAFT 4 Intended status: Experimental Juniper Networks 5 Expires: Sep 6, 2021 Mar 6, 2021 7 Color Operation with BGP Label Unicast 8 draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-03.txt 10 Abstract 12 This document specifies how to carry colored path advertisement via an enhancement 13 to the existing protocol BGP Label Unicast. It would allow backward compatibility 14 with RFC8277. 16 The targeted solution is to use stack of labels advertised via BGP Label Unicast 17 2.0 for end to end traffic steering across multiple IGP domains. The operation is 18 similar to Segment Routing. 20 This proposed protocol will convey the necessary reachability information to the 21 ingress PE node to construct an end to end path. 23 Another two problems addressed here are the interworking with Flex-Algo, and the 24 MPLS label space limit problem. 26 Please note that there is a major change of protocol format starting from version 27 01 draft. Except the optional BGP capability code, these rest of BGP attributes 28 used in this draft are defined in previous RFC or in use today in other scenario. 30 Status of this Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 33 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force 36 (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 37 Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at 38 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be 41 updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is 42 inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other 43 than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on Sep 6, 2021. 47 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. 50 All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating 53 to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they 55 describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code 56 Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as 57 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 58 warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction ......................................................... 2 63 2. Conventions used in this document .................................... 4 64 3. Carrying Label Mapping Information with Color and Label Stack ........ 4 65 3.1. Use of Add-path to advertise multiple color paths ............... 4 66 3.2. Color extended community for BGP Labeled Unicast ................ 4 67 3.3. Color extended community for service prefixes ................... 5 68 3.4. Color Slicing Capability ........................................ 6 69 4. Uniqueness of path entries ........................................... 7 70 5. AIGP consideration ................................................... 8 71 6. Explicit Withdraw of a ................... 8 72 7. Error Handling Procedure ............................................. 8 73 8. Controller Compatibility ............................................. 8 74 9. Interworking with Flex Algo .......................................... 8 75 10. Label stacking to increase label space .............................. 9 76 11. Security Considerations ............................................. 9 77 12. IANA Considerations ................................................. 9 78 13. References ......................................................... 9 79 13.1. Normative References ........................................... 9 80 13.2. Informative References ......................................... 9 81 14. Acknowledgments ................................................... 10 83 1. Introduction 85 The proposed protocol is aimed to solve interdomain traffic steering, with 86 different transport services in mind. One application is low latency service across 87 multiple IGP domains, which could scale up to 100k or more routers network. 89 BGP is a flexible protocol. With additional of color attribute to BGP Label 90 Unicast, a path with specific color would be given a meaning in application - a low 91 latency path, a fully protected path, or a path for diversity. 93 The stack of labels would mean an end to end path across domains through each ABR 94 or ASBR. Each ABR or ASBR will take one label from the stack, and hence pick the 95 forwarding path to next ABR, ASBR, or the final destination. 97 And the label in the stack may be derived from any of the below 99 - Prefix SID 100 - Binding SID for RSVP LSP 101 - Binding SID for SR-TE LSP 102 - Local assigned label 104 The enhancement to the original RFC8277 is to add color extended community, with 105 multiple advertisement allowed. The result is similar to multi-topology BGP-LU with 106 different colors. 108 With Add-path [RFC7911] feature, non color RIB and colored RIB could be advertised 109 to the BGP neighbors without new additional attributes. Add-path capability is 110 required advertise multiple paths with same prefix but different colors. 112 A new [BGP-CAP] should be required to enforce such slicing operation during 113 negotiation. 115 On the other hand, to enable the service prefixes to be mapped accordingly, the 116 L3VPN, L2VPN, EVPN and IP prefix with BGP signaling, the color extended community 117 is also added there. In the PE node, the service prefixes with color will be 118 matched to a transport tunnel with the same color. 120 The following is an example. Between PE1 and PE2, there is a VPN service running 121 with label 16, which is associated with color 100. 123 PE1----ABR1-----ABR2-----PE2 125 PE1 will send the following labels with a color 100 path plus VPN label 127 [2001 13001 801 16], where 129 2001 - SR label to reach ABR1 131 13001 - a Binding-SID label for ABR1-ABR2 tunnel. Underlying tunnel type is RSVP-TE 133 801 - a Binding-SID label for ABR2-PE2 tunnel. Underlying tunnel type is SR-TE 135 16 - a VPN label, which is signaled via other means 137 [2001 13001 801] - denotes the label stack for this color 100 path to reach PE2 139 The document here is going to describe how PE1 gains enough information to build 140 this label stack across routing domains. 142 If PE1 wants to reach PE2 with another colored path, say color 200, the label stack 143 could be different. 145 At the same time, this architecture is also controller friendly, since all the 146 notation is Segment Routing compatible, like use of Binding-SID. 148 The above architecture could be used in conjunction with Flex-Algo [FLEXAGLO] where 149 one color could represent a Flex Algorithm. e.g. color 128 equals to Algo 128 151 When using with Flex Algo in huge network, there could be label space limit. The 152 MPLS label 20 bits long and the maximum label space is around 1 million. In order 153 to represent more IPv4 or IPv6 nodes, label stacking method is recommended. One IP 154 loopback address could be represent by one or more labels. In this case, (20 bits x 155 n) of label address space is possible. 157 2. Conventions used in this document 159 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", 160 "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be 161 interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 163 In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation only when in ALL 164 CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be interpreted as carrying 165 significance described in RFC 2119. 167 3. Carrying Label Mapping Information with Color and Label Stack 169 3.1. Use of Add-path to advertise multiple color paths 171 The use of Path Identifier is to allow multiple advertisement of the same prefix 172 but with different colors or null color. 173 The extended NLRI format would be like this 175 +--------------------------------+ 176 | Path Identifier (4 octets) | 177 +--------------------------------+ 178 | Length (1 octet) | 179 +--------------------------------+ 180 | Label (3 octets) ~ 181 +--------------------------------+ 182 ~ Label (3 octets) | 183 +--------------------------------+ 184 | Prefix (variable) | 185 +--------------------------------+ 187 3.2. Color extended community for BGP Labeled Unicast 189 The addition of Color Extended Community is an opaque extended community from 190 RFC4360 and RFC5512. The draft allows multiple color values advertisement. 192 0 1 2 3 193 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 1 195 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 196 | 0x03 | 0x0b |C|O| Reserved |X|X|X| 197 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 198 | Color Value ~ 199 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 200 ~ 0x03 | 0x0b |C|O| Reserved |X|X|X| 201 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 202 | Color Value | 203 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 205 Figure 1: Color value advertisement format 206 Both in BGP update and MP_UNREACH_NLRI message, multiple color extended communities 207 could be included. It means that multiple colors, indicating different kind of 208 services, could share the same label stack. With the use of Path-ID, the multiple 209 colors are considered as one bundled update. Any subsequent update is based on 210 Path-ID. 212 If color extended community is not present in a BGP update message, it would be 213 treated as normal BGP-LU without any color. 215 3 bits of XXX is reserved here for the draft. 217 The meaning for XXX is interpreted as sub-slice of color, with 0 to 7 in decimal, 218 or 000b and 111b in binary. These sub-slice could be used in either of the 219 following case. 221 a) Primary path and fallback paths in order of preference 222 0 - primary path 223 1 - first and most preferred backup path 224 .... 225 7 - least preferred backup path 227 b) ECMP paths up to 8, since all paths should be active in forwarding plane. 229 Color value 0 is reserved for future interoperability purpose. 231 Color value 1 - 31 are not recommended to use, and this range is reserved for 232 future use. 234 3.3. Color extended community for service prefixes 236 The same format of color extended community is advertised with service prefixes, 237 which could be VPN prefixes or IP prefixes. The order of the color extended 238 community could be interpreted as 240 - Order of primary and fallback colors 241 - Or, ECMP of equal split between color paths 243 The above would be interpreted by the receiving PE upon its local configuration. 245 It is optional to enable sub-slice notation. 247 But if sub-slice bits are used, it will be used to map directly to each of the sub- 248 slice path. If sub-slice path is not available for mapping, it should just fallback 249 to resolving by color. 251 3.4. Color Slicing Capability 253 The Color Slicing Capability is a BGP capability [RFC5492], with Capability Code xx 254 (TBD). 256 The color slicing capability is an optional but preferred to have capability. It 257 could be configurable parameters at both side of BGP session but with assumption of 258 BGP add-path support [RFC7911]. If the specific BGP capability is not negotiated, 259 it is assumed version 0 without sub-slice notation. In this case, multiple paths 260 with color attribute are advertised through BGP add-path. 262 The Capability Length field of this capability is variable. The Capability Value 263 field consists of one or more of the following tuples: 265 +------------------------------------------------+ 266 | Address Family Identifier (2 octets) | 267 +------------------------------------------------+ 268 | Subsequent Address Family Identifier (1 octet) | 269 +------------------------------------------------+ 270 | version (1 octet) | 271 +------------------------------------------------+ 272 | Reserved (3 octet) | 273 +------------------------------------------------+ 275 The meaning and use of the fields are as follows: 277 Address Family Identifier (AFI): 279 This field is the same as the one used in [RFC4760]. 281 Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI): 283 This field is the same as the one used in [RFC4760]. 285 Version: 287 This field is for capability negotiation. 289 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 291 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 292 |v v v v| |s| 293 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 294 Each of 4 bits of v represents a flag of version from 0 to 4, where LSB denotes 295 support of version 1, and MSB denotes version 4. Version 0 is the default mode of 296 operation, which is described in this document. To determine the common capability 297 between the two BGP PEER, logical AND function to use determine the highest 298 denominator of protocol version. 300 For example, if BGP receive 0b0110 from its peer and perform AND function with its 301 own capability 0b0010, the result is 0b0010. Version 2 is selected. 303 The other examples are 304 - 0b0110 AND 0b0110, version 3 is selected 305 - 0b0100 AND 0b0010, version 0 is selected 307 Version 1 (0b0001) is reserved. 309 S-flag is the indication of use of sub-slice. Set to 1 if sub-slice notation is 310 enforced. If either side is set to 0 for S-flag, sub-slice is not in use. 312 Reserved: 314 This field is reserved for future use. 316 4. Uniqueness of path entries 318 a) Use of color can be considered to slice into multiple BGP Label Unicast RIB. 319 Therefore, it should be treated as unique entries for the . 322 e.g. , [labels] 324 <123, 100, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1000 2000] 326 <124, 200, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1000 2000] 328 <222, {300,400}, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1000 2000] 330 <223, null, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1000 2000] 332 All these 4 NLRI are considered different but valid entries for different color 333 instances. 335 b) With sub-slice notation 336 , [labels] 338 <901, 100-0, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1000 2000] 340 <902, 100-1, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1001 3000] 341 <903, 100-7, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1002 4000] 343 These 3 NLRI are distinct, and the second and third NLRI could be used for 344 backup or ECMP purpose. 346 5. AIGP consideration 348 AIGP (RFC7311) would be also used in here to embed certain metric across. 350 6. Explicit Withdraw of a 351 According to RFC8277, MP_UNREACH_NLRI can be used to remove binding of a . 354 If a path-id is associated with a prefix with multiple colors, the withdrawal would 355 be applied to all associated colors. 357 To withdraw color(s) partially from the same path-id advertisement, BGP update 358 should be used instead. 360 7. Error Handling Procedure 362 If BGP receiver could not handle the NLRI, it should silently discard with error 363 logging. 365 8. Controller Compatibility 367 The proposed architecture is compatible with controller for end to end 368 provisioning. Persistent label, like Binding-SID is recommended to be used. Hence, 369 controller could learn these labels from the network, and program specific end to 370 end path. 372 In this case, BGP-LU2 will provide a second best path to an ingress PE node, while 373 a controller, with more external information, could provide a best path from 374 overall perspective. 376 Controller could also be deployed based on domain by domain perspective. e.g. 377 Optimizing latency of a RSVP LSP, or maintain the bandwidth and loading between SR- 378 TE LSPs. 380 9. Interworking with Flex Algo 382 Flex Algo is a way of network slicing, but it is only an IGP protocol. In order to 383 scale across different domains, BGP is recommended as the method to distribute the 384 information across. 386 With color notation in this proposal, one router can distribute to another domain 387 via BGP. 389 There are two ways of mapping Flex-Algo to color attribute in BGP-LU2 391 a) Color 128 equals Flex Algo 128 392 b) Or, Color 400 is mapped to Flex Algo 128 394 10. Label stacking to increase label space 396 Due to the use of Flex-Algo [FLEXALGO], the MPLS label space might run into limit. 397 Each node will need extra labels for each Algo. 399 The idea is to use multiple labels to represent a single node. In this case, the 400 label space becomes (2^20)^n, depending on n stacking level. 402 For IPv6 address, there would be enough label space even if running with SR-MPLS. 404 For example, for node 1.1.1.1, 2 consecutive labels are used to represent the node. 406 Algo 0: [100101 100001] 408 Algo 128: [400101 400001] 410 How the forwarding plane treats the stacked labels is out of the discussion here. 412 11. Security Considerations 414 TBD 416 12. IANA Considerations 418 TBD. It will require a new BGP capability code to enable such color operation. 420 New SAFI might be required as well. 422 13. References 424 13.1. Normative References 426 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", 427 BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 429 13.2. Informative References 431 [RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in BGP-4", RFC 432 3107, DOI 10.17487/RFC3107, May 2001, 434 . 436 [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended 437 Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006 439 . 441 [RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address 442 Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 443 5512, April 2009. 445 . 447 [RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., and D. 448 McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 449 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009, 451 . 452 [RFC7311] Mohapatra, P., Fernando, R., Rosen, E., and J. Uttaro, 453 "The Accumulated IGP Metric Attribute for BGP", RFC 7311, 454 DOI 10.17487/RFC7311, August 2014, 456 . 458 [RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, "Advertisement of 459 Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911, DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016, 461 . 463 [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes", RFC 8277, 464 DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, 466 . 468 [BGP-CAP] Chandra, R. and J. Scudder, "Capabilities Advertisement 470 with BGP-4", RFC 2842, May 2000. 472 [FLEXAGLO] S. Hegde, P. Psenak and etc, IGP Flexible Algorithm 474 476 14. Acknowledgments 478 The following people have contributed to this document: 480 Jeff Haas, Juniper Networks 482 Shraddha Hedge, Juniper Networks 484 Santosh Kolenchery, Juniper Networks 486 Shihari Sangli, Juniper Networks 488 Krzysztof Szarkowicz, Juniper Networks 489 Yimin Shen, Juniper Networks 491 Author Address 493 Louis Chan (editor) 494 Juniper Networks 495 2604, Cityplaza One, 1111 King's Road 496 Taikoo Shing 497 Hong Kong 499 Phone: +85225876659 500 Email: louisc@juniper.net