idnits 2.17.1 draft-filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 17, 2019) is 1621 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16 == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-programming-00 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 SPRING C. Filsfils, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft F. Clad, Ed. 4 Intended status: Informational K. Talaulikar 5 Expires: May 20, 2020 Cisco Systems 6 November 17, 2019 8 SR-MPLS Data Plane with IPv6 Control Plane 9 draft-filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane-00 11 Abstract 13 This document reminds the existence of the "Segment Routing (SR) MPLS 14 data-plane with IPv6 control-plane" solution that is mature from a 15 standardization, productization and commercial deployment viewpoint. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2020. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2. Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 3. Reference diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 4. Packet processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 1. Introduction 62 This document reminds the existence of the "Segment Routing (SR) MPLS 63 dataplane with IPv6 control-plane". This solution is mature from a 64 standardization, productization and commercial deployment viewpoint. 65 Other proposed source routing solutions with MPLS-like label lookup 66 or mapping ids should list all their data-plane and control-plane 67 differences with respect to this mature solution and should justify 68 these differences with genuine benefits not available in the mature 69 solution described in this document and others referenced here that 70 are published by the SPRING and MPLS WGs. 72 2. Context 74 This is an existing solution. 76 o Mature IETF standardization 78 o Mature productization 80 o Commercially deployed 82 The IETF standardization references are: 84 o Architecture: 86 * Segment Routing [RFC8402] 88 o Data-plane: 90 * Homogenous MPLS deployment: 91 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] 93 * Hopping over IP-only parts of network: 94 [I-D.ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip] 96 o Control-plane: 98 * IS-IS: [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] 100 * OSPFv3: [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] 102 * BGP: [RFC4364] 104 * BGP-LS: [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] 106 * SR Policy headend: [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] 108 o Service programming: [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming] 110 o OAM: [RFC8287] 112 3. Reference diagram 114 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 115 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 116 | | | | | | 117 | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | 118 | | |121| |231| | | 119 | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | 120 | | +---+ | | +---+ | | 121 | | |PE1| | | |PE2| | | 122 | | +---+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +---+ | | 123 | | |122| |232| | | 124 | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | 125 | | (MPLS island 1) | | (MPLS island 2) | | 126 | +-------------------+ (IPv6 network) +-------------------+ | 127 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 129 Figure 1: IPv6 network with SR-MPLS islands 131 o Single IGP domain, IPv6 only 133 * PE1 is configured with a loopback IP address 2001:db8::1 135 * PE2 is configured with a loopback IP address 2001:db8::2 137 * Each other node k is configured with a loopback IP address 138 2001:db8::k 140 o 2 SR-MPLS islands running with an IPv6 control plane 142 * PE1 is configured with a Prefix-SID 16001 associated with 143 2001:db8::1 145 * PE2 is configured with a Prefix-SID 16002 associated with 146 2001:db8::2 148 4. Packet processing 150 +------------------------------------------------------------+ 151 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 152 | | | | | | 153 | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | 154 | | +---->+121+----->------+231+-----+ | | 155 | | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | | 156 | | +---+ | | | | +---+ | | 157 A +-----+PE1+-----+ | | +---->+PE2+-----> B 158 | | +---+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +---+ | | 159 | | |122| |232| | | 160 | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | 161 | | (MPLS island 1) | | (MPLS island 2) | | 162 | +-------------------+ (IPv6 network) +-------------------+ | 163 +------------------------------------------------------------+ 165 +----------+ +----------+ +--------------+ +----------+ +----------+ 166 | IP4(A,B) | | 16002 | |IP6( | | 16002 | | IP4(A,B) | 167 +----------+ +----------+ |2001:db8::121,| +----------+ +----------+ 168 | 12345 | |2001:db8::231)| | 12345 | 169 +----------+ +--------------+ +----------+ 170 | IP4(A,B) | | UDP | | IP4(A,B) | 171 +----------+ +--------------+ +----------+ 172 | 16002 | 173 +--------------+ 174 | 12345 | 175 +--------------+ 176 | IP4(A,B) | 177 +--------------+ 179 Figure 2: Packet processing in IPv6 network with SR-MPLS islands 181 o PE1 receives IPv4 traffic from A and headed to B 183 o PE1 PUSHes the VPN label 12345 and the prefix-SID 16002 of PE2 185 o Traffic is steered in MPLS island 1 according to the top label 186 16002 188 o Traffic reaches node 121, whose next-hop towards 16002 is not 189 MPLS-enabled 191 * Node 121 has determined(*) that traffic to 16002 should be sent 192 over an IP/UDP tunnel to node 231 194 * Node 121 encapsulates the traffic with IPv6 and UDP header to 195 2001:db8::231 197 o Node 231 removes the IP/UDP encapsulation, exposes the MPLS label 198 16002 and forwards the traffic accordingly 200 o Traffic is steered in MPLS island 2 according to the top label 201 16002 203 o (PHP: Penultimate node POPs label 16002 and sends the traffic to 204 PE2) 206 o PE2 looks up the exposed VPN label 12345 and forwards the traffic 207 accordingly. 209 (*) Node 121 determines that node 231 is the closest MPLS- and IP/ 210 UDP-pop-capable node on the shortest path to PE2 using a technique 211 outside the scope of the document. 213 5. IANA Considerations 215 None 217 6. Acknowledgements 219 TBD 221 7. Informative References 223 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] 224 Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., 225 and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment 226 Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16 227 (work in progress), June 2019. 229 [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] 230 Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., 231 Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for 232 Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- 233 extensions-25 (work in progress), May 2019. 235 [I-D.ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip] 236 Xu, X., Bryant, S., Farrel, A., Hassan, S., Henderickx, 237 W., and Z. Li, "SR-MPLS over IP", draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over- 238 ip-07 (work in progress), June 2019. 240 [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] 241 Psenak, P. and S. Previdi, "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment 242 Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing- 243 extensions-23 (work in progress), January 2019. 245 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] 246 Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., 247 Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS 248 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22 249 (work in progress), May 2019. 251 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] 252 Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and 253 P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- 254 ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-03 (work in progress), 255 May 2019. 257 [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming] 258 Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, 259 d., Li, C., Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C., 260 Henderickx, W., and S. Salsano, "Service Programming with 261 Segment Routing", draft-ietf-spring-sr-service- 262 programming-00 (work in progress), October 2019. 264 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 265 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 266 2006, . 268 [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, 269 N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) 270 Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and 271 IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data 272 Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, 273 . 275 [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., 276 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 277 Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, 278 July 2018, . 280 Authors' Addresses 282 Clarence Filsfils (editor) 283 Cisco Systems 285 Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com 286 Francois Clad (editor) 287 Cisco Systems 289 Email: fclad@cisco.com 291 Ketan Talaulikar 292 Cisco Systems 294 Email: ketant@cisco.com