idnits 2.17.1 draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 date (October 31, 2019) is 1629 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 288, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC4271' is mentioned on line 299, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6286' is mentioned on line 299, 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: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 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 M. Srivastava 5 Expires: May 3, 2020 S. Ninan 6 Juniper Networks Inc. 7 October 31, 2019 9 Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) 10 Egress Peer engineering Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes 11 draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-03 13 Abstract 15 Egress Peer Engineering is an application of Segment Routing to solve 16 the problem of egress peer selection. The SR-based BGP-EPE solution 17 allows a centralized (Software Defined Network, SDN)controller to 18 program any egress peer. The EPE solution requires a node to program 19 PeerNodeSID, PeerAdjSID, PeerSetSID as described in 20 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]. This document 21 provides new sub-TLVs for EPE SIDs that would be used in Target stack 22 TLV (Type 1) as defined in [RFC8029] for the EPE SIDs. 24 Requirements Language 26 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 27 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 28 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 30 Status of This Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2020. 47 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 57 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 58 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 59 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 60 described in the Simplified BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 65 2. FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 2.1. PeerAdjSID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 2.2. PeerNodeSID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 2.3. PeerSetSID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 74 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 1. Introduction 79 Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) as defined in 80 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] is an effective 81 mechanism to select the egress peer link based on different criteria. 82 The EPE SIDs provide means to represent egress peer links. Many 83 network deployments have built their networks consisting of multiple 84 Autonomous Systems either for ease of operations or as a result of 85 network mergers and acquisitons. The inter-AS links connecting the 86 two Autonomous Systems could be traffic engineered using EPE-SIDs in 87 this case as well. It is important to be able to validate the 88 control plane to forwarding plane synchronization for these SIDs so 89 that any anomaly can be detected easily by the operator. 91 This document provides Target FEC stack TLV definitions for EPE SIDs. 92 Other procedures for mpls ping and traceroute as defined in [RFC8287] 93 are applicable for EPE-SIDs as well. 95 2. FEC Definitions 97 As described in [RFC8287] sec 5, 3 new type of sub-TLVs for the 98 Target FEC Stack TLV are defined for the Target FEC stack TLV 99 corresponding to each label in the label stack. If a malformed FEC 100 sub-TLV is received, then a return code of 1, "Malformed echo request 101 received" as defined in [RFC8029] SHOULD be sent. 103 2.1. PeerAdjSID Sub-TLV 105 0 1 2 3 106 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 1 107 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 108 |Type = TBD | Length | 109 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 110 | Local AS Number (4 octets) | 111 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 112 | Remote As Number (4 octets) | 113 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 114 | Local BGP router ID (4 octets) | 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 | Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) | 117 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 | Local Interface address (4/16 octets) | 119 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 120 | Remote Interface address (4/16 octets) | 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 Figure 1: PeerAdjSID Sub-TLV 125 Type : TBD 127 Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address 129 Local AS Number : 131 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the 132 Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to 133 which PeerAdjSID advertising node belongs to. 135 Remote AS Number : 137 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the 138 Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS of the 139 remote node for which the PeerAdjSID is advertised. 141 Local BGP Router ID : 143 4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP 144 Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286]. 146 Remote BGP Router ID : 148 4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP 149 Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286]. 151 Local Interface Address : 153 In case of PeerAdjSID Local interface address corresponding to the 154 PeerAdjSID should be apecified in this field. For IPv4,this field is 155 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets. 157 Remote Interface Address : 159 In case of PeerAdjSID Remote interface address corresponding to the 160 PeerAdjSID should be apecified in this field. For IPv4,this field is 161 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets. 163 2.2. PeerNodeSID Sub-TLV 164 0 1 2 3 165 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 1 166 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 167 |Type = TBD | Length | 168 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 169 | Local AS Number (4 octets) | 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 | Remote As Number (4 octets) | 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 | Local BGP router ID (4 octets) | 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 175 | Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) | 176 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 | No.of IPv4 interface pairs | No.of IPv6 interface pairs | 178 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 179 | Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets) | 180 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 181 | Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets) | 182 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 183 | Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets) | 184 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 185 | ...... | 186 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 188 Figure 2: PeerNodeSID Sub-TLV 190 Type : TBD 192 Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address 194 Local AS Number : 196 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the 197 Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to 198 which PeerNodeSID advertising node belongs to. 200 Remote AS Number : 202 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the 203 Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS of the 204 remote node for which the PeerNodeSID is advertised. 206 Local BGP Router ID : 208 4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP 209 Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286]. 211 Remote BGP Router ID : 213 4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP 214 Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286]. 216 Number of IPv4 interface pairs: 218 Total number of IPV4 local and remote interface address pairs. 220 Number of IPv6 interface pairs: 222 Total number of IPV6 local and remote interface address pairs. 224 There can be multiple Layer 3 interfaces on which a peerNodeSID 225 loadbalances the traffic. All such interfaces local/remote address 226 MUST be included in the FEC. 228 When a PeerNodeSID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only 229 address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the FEC definition 230 should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6 address 231 pairs. 233 Local Interface Address : 235 In case of PeerNodeSID, the interface local address ipv4/ipv6 which 236 corresponds to the PeerNodeSID MUST be specified. For IPv4,this 237 field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets. 239 Remote Interface Address : 241 In case of PeerNodeSID, the interface remote address ipv4/ipv6 which 242 corresponds to the PeerNodeSID MUST be specified. For IPv4,this 243 field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets. 245 2.3. PeerSetSID Sub-TLV 246 0 1 2 3 247 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 1 248 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 249 |Type = TBD | Length | 250 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 251 | Local AS Number (4 octets) | 252 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 253 | Local BGP router ID (4 octets) | 254 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 255 | No.of elements in set | Reserved | 256 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 257 | Remote As Number (4 octets) | 258 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 259 | Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets) | 260 ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++ 261 | No.of IPv4 interface pairs | No.of IPv6 interface pairs | 262 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 263 | Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets) | 264 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 265 | Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets) | 266 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 267 | Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets) | 268 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 269 | ...... | 270 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 272 Figure 3: PeerSetSID Sub-TLV 274 Type : TBD 276 Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address and number of 277 elements in the set 279 Local AS Number : 281 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the 282 Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS to 283 which PeerSetSID advertising node belongs to. 285 Remote AS Number : 287 4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the 288 Confederation.[RFC5065]. The AS number corresponds to the AS of the 289 remote node for which the PeerSetSID is advertised. 291 Advertising BGP Router ID : 293 4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP 294 Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286]. 296 Receiving BGP Router ID : 298 4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP 299 Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286]. 301 No.of elements in set: 303 Number of remote ASes, the set SID load-balances on. 305 PeerSetSID may be associated with a number of PeerNodeSIDs and 306 PeerAdjSIDs. Link address details of all these SIDs should be 307 included in the peerSetSID FEC so that the data-plane can be 308 correctly verified on the remote node. 310 Number of IPv4 interface pairs: 312 Total number of IPV4 local and remote interface address pairs. 314 Number of IPv6 interface pairs: 316 Total number of IPV6 local and remote interface address pairs. 318 There can be multiple Layer 3 interfaces on which a peerNodeSID 319 loadbalances the traffic. All such interfaces local/remote address 320 MUST be included in the FEC. 322 When a PeerSetSID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only 323 address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the Link address 324 TLV should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6 325 address pairs. 327 Local Interface Address : 329 In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID, the interface local address ipv4/ 330 ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID MUST be 331 specified. For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 332 16 octets. 334 Remote Interface Address : 336 In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID, the interface remote address ipv4/ 337 ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNodeSID/PeerAdjSID MUST be 338 specified. For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 339 16 octets. 341 3. Security Considerations 343 The EPE SIDs are advertised for egress links for Egress Peer 344 Engineering purposes or for inter-As links between co-operating ASes. 345 When co-operating domains are involved, they can allow the packets 346 arriving on trusted interfaces to reach the control plane and get 347 processed. When EPE SIDs which are created for egress TE links where 348 the neighbor AS is an independent entity, it may not allow packets 349 arriving from external world to reach the control plane. In such 350 deployments mpls OAM packets will be dropped by the neighboring AS. 352 4. IANA Considerations 354 New Target FEC stack sub-TLV from the "sub-TLVs for TLV types 1,16 355 and 21" subregistry of the "Multi-Protocol Label switching (MPLs) 356 Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping parameters" registry 358 PeerAdjSID segment ID Sub-TLV : TBD 360 PeerNode segment ID Sub-TLV : TBD 362 PeerSetSID segment ID Sub-TLV : TBD 364 5. Acknowledgments 366 6. References 368 6.1. Normative References 370 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] 371 Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D. 372 Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer 373 Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central- 374 epe-10 (work in progress), December 2017. 376 [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, 377 N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) 378 Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and 379 IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data 380 Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, 381 . 383 6.2. Informative References 385 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 386 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 387 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 388 . 390 [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., 391 Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label 392 Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, 393 DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, 394 . 396 Authors' Addresses 398 Shraddha Hegde 399 Juniper Networks Inc. 400 Exora Business Park 401 Bangalore, KA 560103 402 India 404 Email: shraddha@juniper.net 406 Kapil Arora 407 Juniper Networks Inc. 409 Email: kapilaro@juniper.net 411 Mukul Srivastava 412 Juniper Networks Inc. 414 Email: msri@juniper.net 416 Samson Ninan 417 Juniper Networks Inc. 419 Email: samsonn@juniper.net