| Internet-Draft | Path ID and Bi-directional Path in BGP-L | August 2023 |
| Li, et al. | Expires 17 February 2024 | [Page] |
This document specifies the way of collecting configuration and states of SR policies carrying Path Segment and bidirectional path information by using BPG-LS. Such information can be used by external conponents for many use cases such as performance measurement, path re-optimization and end-to-end protection.¶
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 17 February 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.¶
Segment routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a source routing paradigm that allows the ingress node steers packets into a specific path according to the Segment Routing Policy [RFC9256].¶
However, the SR Policies defined in [RFC9256] only supports unidirectional SR paths and there is no path ID in a Segment List to identify an SR path. For identifying an SR path and supporting bidirectional path [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment], new policies carrying Path Segment and bidirectional path information are defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment], as well as the extensions to BGP to distribute new SR policies. The Path Segment can be a Path Segment in SR-MPLS [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment] and SRv6 [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment], or other IDs that can identify a path.¶
In many network scenarios, the configuration and state of each TE Policy is required by a controller which allows the network operator to optimize several functions and operations through the use of a controller aware of both topology and state information [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].¶
To collect the TE Policy information that is locally available in a router, [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] describes a new mechanism by using BGP-LS update messages.¶
Based on the mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution], this document describes a mechanism to distribute configuration and states of the new SR policies defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment] to external components using BGP-LS.¶
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8402] and [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].¶
A mechanism to collect states of SR Policies via BGP-LS is proposed by [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]. The characteristics of an SR policy can be described by a TE Policy State TLV, which is carried in the optional non-transitive BGP Attribute "LINK_STATE Attribute" defined in [RFC7752]. The TE Policy State TLV contains several sub-TLVs such as SR TE Policy sub-TLVs.¶
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment] defines the BGP extensions for Path Segment. The encoding is shown below.¶
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
Attributes:
Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
Tunnel Type: SR Policy
Binding SID
Preference
Priority
Policy Name
Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
Segment List
Weight
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
Segment List
Weight
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
...
Figure 1. Path Segment in SR policy
¶
Also, [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment] defines SR policy extensions for bidirectional SR path, the encoding is shown below:¶
SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
Attributes: Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
Tunnel Type: SR Policy
Binding SID
Preference
Priority
Policy Name
Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
Segment List
Weight
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
Reverse Segment List
Weight
Path Segment
Segment
Segment
...
Figure 2. SR policy for Bidirectional path
¶
In order to collect configuration and states of unidirectional and bidirectional SR policies defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment], this document defines new sub-TLVs in SR TE Policy sub-TLVs.¶
This section defines the SR Path Segment sub-TLV to describe a Path Segment, and it can be included in the Segment List sub-TLV as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] . An SR Path Segment sub-TLV can be associated with an SR path specified by a Segment List sub-TLV. Multiple Path Segment MAY be included in a Segment List for different use cases. When all the SID Lists within a candidate path share the same Path Segment ID, the Path Segment can be used to collect the aggregated information of the candidate path. The format of Path Segment TLV is shown below.¶
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flag | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Path Segment ID (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Sub-TLVs (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3. Path Segment sub-TLV
¶
Where,¶
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|D|B| |L| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
¶
Where:¶
The SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV (1250) and the SRv6 SID Structure TLV (1252) defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] are used as sub-TLVs of the SR Path Segment Sub-TLV to optionally indicate the SRv6 Endpoint behavior and SID structure for the Binding SID value in the TLV when the Path Segment is an SRv6 Path Segment.¶
In some scenarios like mobile backhaul transport network, there are requirements to support bidirectional path. In SR, a bidirectional path can be represented as a binding of two unidirectional SR paths [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]. An SR policy carrying SR bidirectional path information is expressed in Figure 2. [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment] defines a new sub-TLV to describe a reversed SR path of an SID list.¶
This section defines a Reverse Segment List sub-TLV to specify a reverse SR path associated with the path specified by the Segment List, and it reuses the format of SR Segment List TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]:¶
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MTID | Algorithm | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Weight (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-TLVs (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5. Reverse Segment List Sub-TLV
¶
All fields, except the type are defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution], and this TLV reuses it directly. The Type of this TLV is TBA.¶
The SR Segment sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] MUST be included as an ordered set of sub-TLVs within the SR Segment List TLV when the SID-List is not empty. A SID-List may be empty in certain cases (e.g. for a dynamic path) where the headend has not yet performed the computation and hence not derived the segments required for the path; in such cases, the SR Segment List TLV SHOULD NOT include any SR Segment sub-TLVs [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].¶
Note: currently, only one reverse SID list is supported, so the weight field CAN be ignored when processing. However, multiple reverse SID list MAY be supported in the future, and the use case of supporting this still need to be discussed.¶
The operations procedures of [RFC7752] can apply to this document.¶
Typically but not limited to, the uni/bidirectional SR policies carrying path identification information can be distributed by the ingress node.¶
Generally, BGP-LS is used for collecting link states and synchronizing with the external component. The consumer of the uni/bidirectional SR policies carrying path identification information is not BGP LS process by itself, and it can be any applications such as performance measurement [I-D.gandhi-spring-udp-pm] and path re-coputation or re-optimization, etc. The operation of sending information to other precesses is out of scope of this document.¶
IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Node Anchor, Link Descriptor and Link Attribute TLVs". The following TLV codepoints are suggested (for early allocation by IANA):¶
Codepoint Description Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------
TBA Path Segment sub-TLV This document
TBA Reverse Segment List sub-TLV This document
¶
Mach(Guoyi) Chen Huawei Technologies Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: Mach.chen@huawei.com Jie Dong Huawei Technologies Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: jie.dong@huawei.com James N Guichard Futurewei Technologies 2330 Central Express Way Santa Clara USA Email: james.n.guichard@futurewei.com¶
Many thanks to Shraddha Hedge for her detailed review and professional comments.¶