idnits 2.17.1 draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe], [RFC8029]), 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 document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (October 16, 2018) is 2018 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) == Missing Reference: 'RFC5065' is mentioned on line 164, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC4271' is mentioned on line 169, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6286' is mentioned on line 169, but not defined ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe (ref. 'I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe') Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Routing area S. Hegde 3 Internet-Draft K. Arora 4 Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks Inc. 5 Expires: April 19, 2019 October 16, 2018 7 Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) 8 Egress Peer engineering Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes 9 draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-00 11 Abstract 13 Egress Peer Engineering is an application of Segment Routing to solve 14 the problem of egress peer selection. The SR-based BGP-EPE solution 15 allows a centralized (Software Defined Network, SDN)controller to 16 program any egress peer. The EPE solution requires a node to program 17 PeerNodeSID, PeerAdjSID, PeerSetSID as described in 18 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe].This document provides 19 Target FEC stack TLV definitions as defined in [RFC8029] for the EPE 20 SIDs. 22 Requirements Language 24 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 25 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 26 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 28 Status of This Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2019. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 52 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 53 publication of this document. Please review these documents 54 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 55 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 56 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 57 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 58 described in the Simplified BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 2. FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2.1. PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2.2. PeerSetSID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 1. Introduction 76 Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) as defined in 77 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] is an effective 78 mechanism to select the egress peer link based on different criteria. 79 The EPE SIDs provide means to represent egress peer links. Many 80 network deployments have built their networks consisting of multiple 81 Autonomous Systems either for ease of operations or as a result of 82 network mergers and acquisitons. The egress links connecting the two 83 Autonomous Systems could be managed using EPE-SIDs in this case as 84 well. It is important to be able to validate the control plane to 85 forwarding plane synchronization for these SIDs so that any anomaly 86 can be detected easily by the operator. 88 This document provides Target FEC stack TLV definitions for EPE SIDs. 89 Other procedures for mpls ping and traceroute as defined in [RFC8287] 90 are applicable for EPE-SIDs as well. 92 2. FEC Definitions 94 As described in [RFC8287] sec 5, 3 new type of segment IDs are 95 defined for the Target FEC stack TLV corresponding to each label in 96 the label stack 98 2.1. PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID 100 0 1 2 3 101 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 1 102 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 103 |Type = 37 | Length | 104 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 105 | Local AS Number (4 octets) | 106 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 107 | Remote As Number (4 octets) | 108 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 109 | Local Interface address (4/6 octets) | 110 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 111 | Remote Interface address (4/6 octets) | 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 | Advertising BGP router ID (4 octets) | 114 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 115 | Receiving Node BGP Router ID (4 octets) | 116 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 Figure 1: Peer Node/Adj Segment ID Sub TLV 120 Type: 37 (TBD) 122 Length: variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address 124 AS Number: 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN 125 inside the Confederation.[RFC5065] 127 Interface Address: BGP session IPv4/IPv6 local/remote address. 129 BGP Router ID: 4 octet unsigned integer representing the BGP 130 Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286]. 132 2.2. PeerSetSID 133 0 1 2 3 134 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 1 135 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 136 |Type = 38 | Length | 137 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 138 | No.of elements in set | | 139 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 140 | Local AS Number (4 octets) | 141 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 142 | Remote As Number (4 octets) | 143 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 144 | Local Interface address (4/6 octets) | 145 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 146 | Remote Interface address (4/6 octets) | 147 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 148 | Advertising BGP router ID (4 octets) | 149 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 150 | Receiving Node BGP Router ID (4 octets) | 151 ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++ 152 | ....... | 153 ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++ 155 Figure 2: Peer set SID Segment ID Sub TLV 157 Type : 38 (TBD) 159 Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address 161 No.of elements in set : Number of links in the set. 163 AS Number : 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN 164 inside the Confederation.[RFC5065] 166 Interface Address : BGP session IPv4/IPv6 local/remote address. 168 BGP Router ID : 4 octet unsigned integer representing the BGP 169 Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286] 171 3. Security Considerations 173 TBD 175 4. IANA Considerations 177 New Target FEC stack sub-TLV from the "sub-TLVs for TLV types 1,16 178 and 21" subregistry of the "Multi-Protocol Label switching (MPLs) 179 Label Switched Paths 9LSPs) Ping parameters" registry 181 PeerNode/PeerAdjSID segment ID Sub-TLV : 37 (suggested) 183 PeerSetSID segment ID Sub-TLV : 38 (suggested) 185 5. Acknowledgments 187 6. References 189 6.1. Normative References 191 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] 192 Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D. 193 Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer 194 Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central- 195 epe-10 (work in progress), December 2017. 197 [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, 198 N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) 199 Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and 200 IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data 201 Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, 202 . 204 6.2. Informative References 206 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 207 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 208 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 209 . 211 [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., 212 Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label 213 Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, 214 DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, 215 . 217 Authors' Addresses 218 Shraddha Hegde 219 Juniper Networks Inc. 220 Exora Business Park 221 Bangalore, KA 560103 222 India 224 Email: shraddha@juniper.net 226 Kapil Arora 227 Juniper Networks Inc. 229 Email: kapilaro@juniper.net