The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working
documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is
at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 April 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Revised BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The fast protection of a transit node of a Segment Routing (SR)
path or tunnel is described
in [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] and
[I-D.hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding].
[RFC8424] presents extensions to RSVP-TE for
the fast protection of the ingress node of
a traffic engineering (TE) Label Switching Path (LSP).
However, these documents do not discuss any protocol extensions
for the fast protection of
the ingress node of an SR path or tunnel.¶
This document fills that void and specifies protocol extensions to
Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
for the fast protection of the ingress node of an SR path or tunnel.
Ingress node and ingress, fast protection and protection as well as
SR path and SR tunnel
will be used exchangeably in the following sections.¶
To protect against the failure of the (primary) ingress node of
a (primary) SR path, a backup ingress node is configured or selected and
is different from the (primary) ingress node.
A backup SR path from the backup ingress node is computed and
installed. Primary ingress and ingress as well as
primary SR path and SR path will be used exchangeably.¶
Figure 1
shows an example of protecting
ingress PE1 of a SR path, which is from ingress PE1 to egress PE3.¶
In normal operations, CE1 sends the traffic with destination PE3
to ingress PE1,
which imports the traffic into the SR path.¶
When CE1 detects the failure of ingress PE1, it switches the traffic to
backup ingress PE2, which imports the traffic from CE1 into a backup
SR path.
The backup path is from the backup ingress PE2 to the egress PE3.
When the traffic is imported into the backup path,
it is sent to the egress PE3 along the path.¶
After the failure of the ingress of an SR path happens,
there are a couple of different ways to detect the failure.
In each way, there may be some specific behavior for
the traffic source (e.g., CE1) and the backup ingress (e.g., PE2).¶
In one way, the traffic source (e.g., CE1) is responsible
for fast detecting the failure of the ingress (e.g., PE1) of
an SR path. Fast detecting the failure means detecting the failure
in a few or tens of milliseconds.
The backup ingress (e.g., PE2) is ready to import the traffic
from the traffic source into the backup SR path installed.¶
In normal operations,
the source sends the traffic to the ingress of the SR path.
When the source detects the failure of the ingress,
it switches the traffic to the backup ingress,
which delivers the traffic to the egress of the SR path
via the backup SR path.¶
In another way,
the backup ingress is
responsible for fast detecting the failure of the ingress of
an SR path.¶
In normal operations,
the source (e.g., CE1) sends the traffic to the ingress (e.g., PE1)
and may send the traffic to the backup ingress (e.g., PE2).
It sends the traffic to the backup ingress (e.g., PE2)
after the ingress fails.¶
The backup ingress does not import any traffic
from the source into the backup SR path in normal operations.
When it detects the failure of the ingress,
it imports the traffic from the source into the backup SR path.¶
For a SR path from a primary ingress node to an egress node,
a backup ingress node is selected to protect the failure of the
primary ingress node of the SR path.
This section describes the extensions to BGP
for representing the information for protecting the primary ingress
node in a BGP UPDATE message and distributing the information
to the backup ingress node.
The information includes a SR backup path.¶
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
specifies a way of representing a SR path in a BGP UPDATE message
and distributing the SR path to the ingress node of the SR path.¶
This is extended to represent the information for protecting
the primary ingress by defining a few of new Sub-TLVs.¶
A new Sub-TLV, called SR Path Ingress Protection Sub-TLV,
is defined.
When a UPDATE message is sent to the backup ingress node
for protecting the primary ingress node of a SR path,
the message contains this Sub-TLV.
Its format is illustrated below.¶
request a backup ingress to let
the forwarding entry for the backup SR path be Active.¶
0:
request a backup ingress to let
the forwarding entry for the backup SR path be inactive
initially and to make the entry be active after detecting the
failure of the primary ingress node of the primary SR path.¶
A few optional Sub-TLVs are defined,
which are Primary Ingress Sub-TLV, Service Sub-TLV and
Traffic Description Sub-TLV.¶
A Primary Ingress Sub-TLV indicates the IP address of the primary ingress
node of a primary SR path.
It has two formats: one for primary ingress node IPv4 address
and the other for primary ingress node IPv6 address,
which are illustrated below.¶
Type:
Its value (1 suggested) is to be assigned by IANA.¶
A Service Sub-TLV contains a service ID or label to be added
into a packet to be carried by a SR path.
It has three formats:
the first one for the service identified by a label,
the second one for the service identified by a service
identifier (ID) of 32 bits, and
the third one for the service identified by a service
identifier (ID) of 128 bits.
Their formats are illustrated below.¶
Type:
Its value (3 suggested) is to be assigned by IANA.¶
A Traffic Description Sub-TLV describes the traffic to be
imported into a backup SR path.
Five Traffic Description Sub-TLVs are defined. Two of them
are FEC Sub-TLVs and the others are interface Sub-TLVs.¶
Two FEC Sub-TLVs are IPv4 and IPv6 FEC Sub-TLVs.
Their formats are illustrated below.¶
Type:
Its value (6 suggested) is to be assigned by IANA.¶
2 octets.
This is optional. It indicates the ID of a virtual network.¶
An Interface sub-TLV indicates the interface from which
the traffic is received and imported into the backup SR path/tunnel.
It has three formats: one for interface index,
the other two for IPv4 and IPv6 address,
which are illustrated below.¶
Type:
Its value (8 suggested) is to be assigned by IANA.¶
When a backup ingress node receives a UPDATE message
containing the information for protecting the primary ingress node
of a SR path, it installs a forwarding entry in its FIB
based on the information.
The information is encoded in a SR policy of
the following structure:¶
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
Attributes:
Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
Tunnel Type (15): SR Policy
SR Path Ingress Protection Sub-TLV
Primary Ingress Sub-TLV
Service Sub-TLV
Traffic Description Sub-TLV
Preference Sub-TLV
Binding SID Sub-TLV
Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) Sub-TLV
Priority Sub-TLV
Policy Name Sub-TLV
Segment List Sub-TLV
Weight Sub-TLV
Segment Sub-TLV
Segment Sub-TLV
...
...
After receiving a SR policy with a SR Path Ingress Protection Sub-TLV,
the backup ingress node will install one or more candidate paths into
its "BGP table". Another module such as SRPM will choose one or more paths
and install the forwarding entries for them in the data plane.¶
The forwarding entries for the paths installed in the data plane
will be set to be inactive
if the flag A in the SR Path Ingress Protection Sub-TLV is zero.
When the primary ingress node fails, these forwarding entries are set to
be active. The failure of the primary ingress may be detected
by the backup ingress node through using
a mechanism such as BFD. The IP address of the primary ingress in
the Primary Ingress Sub-TLV may be used for detecting the failure of
the primary ingress node.¶
If the flag A in the SR Path Ingress Protection Sub-TLV is one,
then the forwarding entries for the paths installed in the data plane
will be set to be active.¶
When there is a Service Sub-TLV in the SR Path Ingress Protection
Sub-TLV, the ID or Label in the Service Sub-TLV will be included in
the forwarding entries.
When a packet is imported into a backup SR path using the forwarding entries,
the service ID or Label is pushed first and then the sequence of
segments represented in the Segment List Sub-TLV.¶
Protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP security other than those as discussed
in the Security Considerations section of [RFC5575].¶
Under Existing Registry Name:
"BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs",
IANA is requested to assign a new Sub-TLV value for
SR Path Ingress Protection as follows:¶
Value sub-TLV Name Reference
----- ------------------------------------ --------------
TBD1 SR Path Ingress Protection Sub-TLV This Document
Initial values for the registry are given below.
The future assignments are to be made through IETF Review
[RFC5226].¶
Value sub-TLV Name Reference
----- ------------------------------------- --------------
0 Reserved
1 Primary Ingress IPv4 Address Sub-TLV This Document
2 Primary Ingress IPv6 Address Sub-TLV This Document
3 Service Label Sub-TLV This Document
4 32 Bits Service ID Sub-TLV This Document
5 128 Bits Service ID Sub-TLV This Document
6 IPv4 FEC Sub-TLV This Document
7 IPv6 FEC Sub-TLV This Document
8 Interface Index Sub-TLV This Document
9 Interface IPv4 Address Sub-TLV This Document
10 Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV This Document
11-255 Unassigned
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7356]
Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356, DOI 10.17487/RFC7356, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7356>.
[RFC8424]
Chen, H., Ed. and R. Torvi, Ed., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Label Switched Path (LSP) Ingress Fast Reroute (FRR) Protection", RFC 8424, DOI 10.17487/RFC8424, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8424>.
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Francois, P., Voyer, D., Clad, F., and P. Camarillo, "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-05, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-05>.
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5462]
Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC5575]
Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.