idnits 2.17.1 draft-pzm-bess-spring-interdomain-vpn-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 24, 2019) is 1646 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-28) exists of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-01 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 SPRING WG Shaofu. Peng 3 Internet-Draft Zheng. Zhang 4 Intended status: Standards Track Greg. Mirsky 5 Expires: April 26, 2020 ZTE Corporation 6 October 24, 2019 8 SRv6 and MPLS interworking for VPN service 9 draft-pzm-bess-spring-interdomain-vpn-00 11 Abstract 13 This document describes a method to achieve an inter-domain 14 connection for a VPN (Virtual Private Network) service. 16 Status of This Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2020. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2.1. SRv6 to SR-MPLS domain signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2.2. SR-MPLS to SRv6 domain signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 1. Introduction 63 [I-D.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking] describes SRv6 and MPLS/ 64 SR-MPLS interworking and co-existence procedures. The document 65 leverages the function defined in 66 [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] to give guidance to the 67 forwarding in routers. 69 [RFC4364] describes a method by which a Service Provider may use an 70 IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for its 71 customers. When SRv6 and SR-MPLS are co-existed in the backbone, 72 controller or a control plane, for example, using BGP, should be used 73 to instantiate the VPN service as described in 74 [I-D.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking]. 76 In case of option B inter-domain interconnection [RFC4364], only ASBR 77 needs to do the stitching work between two ASes. Thus PEs in SRv6 78 and SR-MPLS domains do not have to support both SRv6 and SR-MPLS 79 functions. This document discusses the use of BGP for achieving VPN 80 service through option B defined in [RFC4364] across a backbone that 81 includes SRv6 and SR-MPLS domains. 83 2. Specification 85 2.1. SRv6 to SR-MPLS domain signaling 87 [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] defines the new TLVs for the BGP 88 Prefix-SID Attribute that can be used to signaling of SRv6 SID for L3 89 and L2 services. In this document, we use L3 case as the example, 90 the procedures for L2 are the same as in L3 scenario. 92 +-------------+ +-------------+ 93 | AS1 | | AS2 | 94 | | | | 95 CE1+----+PE1 ASBR1+---+ASBR2 PE2+----+CE2 96 | | | | 97 | SRV6 | | SR-MPLS | 98 +-------------+ +-------------+ 99 Figure 1 101 For example, CE1 and CE2 are connected through a backbone that 102 includes AS1 and AS2. AS1 supports SRv6 only, and AS2 supports SR- 103 MPLS only. ASBR1 supports both SRv6 and SR-MPLS capabilities, but 104 ASBR2 supports SR-MPLS capability only. 106 For a prefix advertised by CE1 to PE1, PE1 assigns SID with End.DT4 107 (or End.DT6) defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] 108 section 4 (e.g., End.DT4 is used while the prefix is IPv4 prefix, 109 End.DT6 is used while the prefix is IPv6 prefix), and advertises it 110 to ASBR1. Because ASBR2 supports SR-MPLS function only, the SRv6 SID 111 advertised by ASBR1 cannot be executed by ASBR2 because ASBR2 cannot 112 recognize it. 114 ASBR1 uses specific execution function that is different from the 115 function used in a single SRv6 domain or a single SR-MPLS domain. In 116 this situation, ASBR1 assigns an MPLS label for the prefix received 117 from PE1 and advertises it to ASBR2. The MPLS label has local 118 significance that indicates this packet is associated with an SRv6 119 SID list which leads the packet from ASBR1 to PE1. The advertisement 120 is the same as the format in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]. 122 When a data flow packet which has the destination to CE1 is received 123 by ASBR1, ASBR1 recognizes the MPLS label, removes the label and adds 124 an SRH to the packet, then forwards it to PE1. 126 2.2. SR-MPLS to SRv6 domain signaling 128 In the same example, PE2 advertises a prefix received from CE2 with 129 assigned SID to ASBR2 according to [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid], 130 ASBR2 assigns SID for this prefix and advertises it to ASBR1. When 131 ASBR1 advertises this prefix to PE1, ASBR1 should assign an SRv6 SID 132 for it. The SID indicates the new execution function (e.g., END.RM, 133 it indicates that MPLS should replace the SRH) for exchanging the 134 packet header from SRH to MPLS list. The new function format is like 135 the defination in [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] section 136 4. 138 When a data flow packet, which has the destination to CE2, is 139 received by ASBR1, ASBR1 recognizes the SRv6 SID, removes the SRH and 140 adds a or a list of MPLS label in the packet, and forwards it to PE2. 142 3. IANA Considerations 144 There is no IANA consideration. 146 4. Security Considerations 148 This document introduces no new security consideration beyond those 149 already specified in [RFC4364], [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid], 150 [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming], 151 [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] and 152 [I-D.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking]. 154 5. References 156 5.1. Normative References 158 [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] 159 Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Brissette, P., Agrawal, S., 160 Leddy, J., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., 161 daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Steinberg, D., Raszuk, R., 162 Decraene, B., Matsushima, S., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, 163 "SRv6 BGP based Overlay services", draft-ietf-bess- 164 srv6-services-00 (work in progress), October 2019. 166 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid] 167 Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A., 168 and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for 169 BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress), 170 June 2018. 172 [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] 173 Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., 174 daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 175 Network Programming", draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network- 176 programming-04 (work in progress), October 2019. 178 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 179 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 180 2006, . 182 5.2. Informative References 184 [I-D.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking] 185 Agrawal, S., Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, 186 d., and Z. Li, "SRv6 and MPLS interworking", draft- 187 agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-01 (work in 188 progress), July 2019. 190 Authors' Addresses 192 Shaofu Peng 193 ZTE Corporation 195 Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn 197 Zheng Zhang 198 ZTE Corporation 200 Email: zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com 202 Greg Mirsky 203 ZTE Corporation 205 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com