idnits 2.17.1 draft-filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 (May 15, 2020) is 1442 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for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16 == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-programming-02 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: November 16, 2020 Cisco Systems 6 May 15, 2020 8 SR-MPLS Data Plane with IPv6 Control Plane 9 draft-filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane-01 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 November 16, 2020. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2020 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: [RFC8660] 92 * Hopping over IP-only parts of network: [RFC8663] 94 o Control-plane: 96 * IS-IS: [RFC8667] 97 * OSPFv3: [RFC8666] 99 * BGP: [RFC4364] 101 * BGP-LS: [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] 103 * SR Policy headend: [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] 105 o Service programming: [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming] 107 o OAM: [RFC8287] 109 3. Reference diagram 111 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 112 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 113 | | | | | | 114 | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | 115 | | |121| |231| | | 116 | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | 117 | | +---+ | | +---+ | | 118 | | |PE1| | | |PE2| | | 119 | | +---+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +---+ | | 120 | | |122| |232| | | 121 | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | 122 | | (MPLS island 1) | | (MPLS island 2) | | 123 | +-------------------+ (IPv6 network) +-------------------+ | 124 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 126 Figure 1: IPv6 network with SR-MPLS islands 128 o Single IGP domain, IPv6 only 130 * PE1 is configured with a loopback IP address 2001:db8::1 132 * PE2 is configured with a loopback IP address 2001:db8::2 134 * Each other node k is configured with a loopback IP address 135 2001:db8::k 137 o 2 SR-MPLS islands running with an IPv6 control plane 139 * PE1 is configured with a Prefix-SID 16001 associated with 140 2001:db8::1 142 * PE2 is configured with a Prefix-SID 16002 associated with 143 2001:db8::2 145 4. Packet processing 147 +------------------------------------------------------------+ 148 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 149 | | | | | | 150 | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | 151 | | +---->+121+----->------+231+-----+ | | 152 | | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | | 153 | | +---+ | | | | +---+ | | 154 A +-----+PE1+-----+ | | +---->+PE2+-----> B 155 | | +---+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +---+ | | 156 | | |122| |232| | | 157 | | +-+-+ +-+-+ | | 158 | | (MPLS island 1) | | (MPLS island 2) | | 159 | +-------------------+ (IPv6 network) +-------------------+ | 160 +------------------------------------------------------------+ 162 +----------+ +----------+ +--------------+ +----------+ +----------+ 163 | IP4(A,B) | | 16002 | |IP6( | | 16002 | | IP4(A,B) | 164 +----------+ +----------+ |2001:db8::121,| +----------+ +----------+ 165 | 12345 | |2001:db8::231)| | 12345 | 166 +----------+ +--------------+ +----------+ 167 | IP4(A,B) | | UDP | | IP4(A,B) | 168 +----------+ +--------------+ +----------+ 169 | 16002 | 170 +--------------+ 171 | 12345 | 172 +--------------+ 173 | IP4(A,B) | 174 +--------------+ 176 Figure 2: Packet processing in IPv6 network with SR-MPLS islands 178 o PE1 receives IPv4 traffic from A and headed to B 180 o PE1 PUSHes the VPN label 12345 and the prefix-SID 16002 of PE2 182 o Traffic is steered in MPLS island 1 according to the top label 183 16002 185 o Traffic reaches node 121, whose next-hop towards 16002 is not 186 MPLS-enabled 188 * Node 121 has determined(*) that traffic to 16002 should be sent 189 over an IP/UDP tunnel to node 231 191 * Node 121 encapsulates the traffic with IPv6 and UDP header to 192 2001:db8::231 194 o Node 231 removes the IP/UDP encapsulation, exposes the MPLS label 195 16002 and forwards the traffic accordingly 197 o Traffic is steered in MPLS island 2 according to the top label 198 16002 200 o (PHP: Penultimate node POPs label 16002 and sends the traffic to 201 PE2) 203 o PE2 looks up the exposed VPN label 12345 and forwards the traffic 204 accordingly. 206 (*) Node 121 determines that node 231 is the closest MPLS- and IP/ 207 UDP-pop-capable node on the shortest path to PE2 using a technique 208 outside the scope of the document. 210 5. IANA Considerations 212 None 214 6. Acknowledgements 216 TBD 218 7. Informative References 220 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] 221 Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., 222 and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment 223 Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16 224 (work in progress), June 2019. 226 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] 227 Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and 228 P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- 229 ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-07 (work in progress), 230 May 2020. 232 [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming] 233 Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, 234 d., Li, C., Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C., 235 Henderickx, W., and S. Salsano, "Service Programming with 236 Segment Routing", draft-ietf-spring-sr-service- 237 programming-02 (work in progress), March 2020. 239 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 240 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 241 2006, . 243 [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, 244 N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) 245 Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and 246 IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data 247 Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, 248 . 250 [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., 251 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 252 Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, 253 July 2018, . 255 [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 256 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 257 Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, 258 DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, 259 . 261 [RFC8663] Xu, X., Bryant, S., Farrel, A., Hassan, S., Henderickx, 262 W., and Z. Li, "MPLS Segment Routing over IP", RFC 8663, 263 DOI 10.17487/RFC8663, December 2019, 264 . 266 [RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions 267 for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, 268 December 2019, . 270 [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., 271 Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS 272 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, 273 DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, 274 . 276 Authors' Addresses 278 Clarence Filsfils (editor) 279 Cisco Systems 281 Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com 283 Francois Clad (editor) 284 Cisco Systems 286 Email: fclad@cisco.com 287 Ketan Talaulikar 288 Cisco Systems 290 Email: ketant@cisco.com