idnits 2.17.1 draft-filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane-02.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 27, 2020) is 1429 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for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16 == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-programming-02 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 28, 2020 Cisco Systems 6 May 27, 2020 8 SR-MPLS Data Plane with IPv6 Control Plane 9 draft-filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane-02 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 28, 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) | | 16002 | | IP4(A,B) | 168 +----------+ +--------------+ +----------+ 169 | 12345 | 170 +--------------+ 171 | IP4(A,B) | 172 +--------------+ 174 Figure 2: Packet processing in IPv6 network with SR-MPLS islands 176 o PE1 receives IPv4 traffic from A and headed to B 178 o PE1 PUSHes the VPN label 12345 and the prefix-SID 16002 of PE2 180 o Traffic is steered in MPLS island 1 according to the top label 181 16002 183 o Traffic reaches node 121, whose next-hop towards 16002 is not 184 MPLS-enabled 186 * Node 121 has determined(*) that traffic to 16002 should be sent 187 over an IPv6 encapsulation to node 231 189 * Node 121 encapsulates the traffic with IPv6 header (Next Header 190 137 [RFC4023]) to 2001:db8::231 192 o Node 231 removes the IPv6 encapsulation, exposes the MPLS label 193 16002 and forwards the traffic accordingly 195 o Traffic is steered in MPLS island 2 according to the top label 196 16002 198 o (PHP: Penultimate node POPs label 16002 and sends the traffic to 199 PE2) 201 o PE2 looks up the exposed VPN label 12345 and forwards the traffic 202 accordingly. 204 (*) Node 121 determines that node 231 is the closest MPLS- and IPv6- 205 pop-capable node on the shortest path to PE2 using a technique 206 outside the scope of the document. 208 5. IANA Considerations 210 None 212 6. Acknowledgements 214 TBD 216 7. Informative References 218 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] 219 Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., 220 and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment 221 Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16 222 (work in progress), June 2019. 224 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] 225 Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and 226 P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- 227 ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-07 (work in progress), 228 May 2020. 230 [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming] 231 Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, 232 d., Li, C., Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C., 233 Henderickx, W., and S. Salsano, "Service Programming with 234 Segment Routing", draft-ietf-spring-sr-service- 235 programming-02 (work in progress), March 2020. 237 [RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, Ed., 238 "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation 239 (GRE)", RFC 4023, DOI 10.17487/RFC4023, March 2005, 240 . 242 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 243 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 244 2006, . 246 [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, 247 N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) 248 Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and 249 IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data 250 Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, 251 . 253 [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., 254 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 255 Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, 256 July 2018, . 258 [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 259 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 260 Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, 261 DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, 262 . 264 [RFC8663] Xu, X., Bryant, S., Farrel, A., Hassan, S., Henderickx, 265 W., and Z. Li, "MPLS Segment Routing over IP", RFC 8663, 266 DOI 10.17487/RFC8663, December 2019, 267 . 269 [RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions 270 for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, 271 December 2019, . 273 [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., 274 Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS 275 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, 276 DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, 277 . 279 Authors' Addresses 281 Clarence Filsfils (editor) 282 Cisco Systems 284 Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com 285 Francois Clad (editor) 286 Cisco Systems 288 Email: fclad@cisco.com 290 Ketan Talaulikar 291 Cisco Systems 293 Email: ketant@cisco.com