Internet-Draft SRv6 Path Segment September 2024
Li, et al. Expires 13 March 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
SPRING Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-10
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
C. Li
Huawei Technologies
W. Cheng
China Mobile
M. Chen
Huawei Technologies
D. Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Y. Zhu
China Telecom

Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6)

Abstract

Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by encoding an ordered list of instructions, called "segments". The SR architecture can be implemented over an MPLS data plane as well as an IPv6 data plane.

Currently, Path Segment has been defined to identify an SR path in SR-MPLS networks, and is used for various use-cases such as end-to-end SR Path Protection and Performance Measurement (PM) of an SR path. This document defines the Path Segment to identify an SRv6 path in an IPv6 network.

Status of This Memo

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 13 March 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Segment routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a source routing paradigm that explicitly indicates the forwarding path for packets at the ingress node by inserting an ordered list of instructions, called segments.

When segment routing is deployed on an MPLS data plane, called SR-MPLS [RFC8660], a segment identifier (SID) is present as an MPLS label. When segment routing is deployed on an IPv6 data plane, a SID is presented as a 128-bit value, and it can be an IPv6 address of a local interface but it does not have to be. To support SR in an IPv6 network, a Segment Routing Header (SRH) [RFC8754] is used.

In SR, a path needs to be identified for several use cases such as binding bidirectional paths [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path] and end-to-end performance measurement [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm].

Additionally, in an SR-MPLS network, when a packet is transmitted along an SR path, the labels in the MPLS label stack will be swapped or popped, so no label or only the last label may be left in the MPLS label stack when the packet reaches the egress node. Thus, the egress node can not determine from which ingress node or SR path the packet came. To identify an SR-MPLS path, a Path Segment is defined in [RFC9545].

An SRv6 path could be identified by the content of a segment list. However, the segment list is not be a good key identifier, since the length of a segment list is flexible according to the number of required SIDs. Also, the length of a segment list may be too long to be a key when it contains many SIDs. For instance, if packet A uses an SRH with 3 SIDs while Packet B uses an SRH with 10 SIDs, the key to identify these two paths will be a 384-bits value and a 1280-bits value, respectively. Further, an SRv6 path cannot be identified by the information carried by the SRH in reduced mode [RFC8754] as the first SID is not present.

Furthermore, different SRv6 policies may use the same segment list for different candidate paths, so the traffic of different SRv6 policies are merged, resulting in the inability to measure the performance of the specific path. However, each SRv6 policies may need to measure the segment list in its own candidat path, and this is independent with other SRv6 policies. Without a Path ID to specify the path will cause the statistic of the traffic from multiple paths using the same segment list under different SRv6 policies merge into an aggregated result on the egress endpoint node.

To solve the above issues, this document defines a new SRv6 segment called the "SRv6 Path Segment", which in total is an 128-bits value, to identify an SRv6 path.

When the SRv6 Path Segment is used in reduced mode SRH [RFC8754], the entire path information is indicated by the Path Segment, and the performance will be better than using the entire segment list as the path identifier, while the overhead is equivalent to the SRH in normal mode. Furthermore, with SRv6 Path Segment, each SRv6 candidate path can be identified and measured, even when they use the same segment list.

1.1. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

1.2. Terminology

PM: Performance Measurement.

SID: Segment ID.

SR: Segment Routing.

SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane.

SRH: Segment Routing Header.

SR path: A path described by a segment list [RFC9545].

SRv6 path: A path described by an SRv6 segment list.

PSID: Path Segment Identifier.

PSP: Penultimate Segment Popping.

Further, this document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8402] and [RFC8986].

2. Use Cases for SRv6 Path Segment

Similar to SR-MPLS Path Segment [RFC9545], SRv6 Path Segment may also be used to identify an SRv6 Path in some use cases:

3. SRv6 Path Segment

As defined in [RFC8986], an SRv6 segment is a 128-bit value.

To identify an SRv6 path, this document defines a new segment called SRv6 Path Segment. An SRv6 Path Segment MUST NOT used for routing so it MUST NOT be copied to the IPv6 destination address. [RFC8754] states that the SR segment endpoint node creates Forwarding Information Base (FIB) entries for its local SIDs (without constraining the details of implementation). In order to provide a new independent 128-bit ID space for Path Segment, the Path Segment is required to be stored seperate from the other SIDs (for example in a different table from the FIB).

Depending on the use case, an SRv6 Path Segment identifies:

In other words, a SRv6 PSID can be used for a segment list, or multiple segment lists, or all the segment lists in a Candidate path, or part of or all the Candidate path in an SRv6 policy, depending on the need of use cases.

Moreover, a segment list may be allocated more than one PSID if needed. For example, the same segment list in different Candidate Path or SR policy can use different PSID. In this way, the traffic in different Candidate Path or SR policy can be differentiated even when they are using the same segment list.

3.1. Format of an SRv6 Path Segment

This document defines two formats of the SRv6 Path Segment. A future document MAY add further new formats for the SRv6 Path Segment, provided the SRv6 PSID value remains unique irrespective of the format.

3.1.1. SRv6 Path Segment: Locator and Local ID

As per [RFC8986], an SRv6 SID consists of LOC:FUNCT:ARG, where a locator (LOC) is encoded in the L most significant bits of the SID, followed by F bits of function (FUNCT) and A bits of arguments (ARG). L, the locator length, is flexible, and an operator is free to use the locator length of their choice. F and A may be any value as long as L+F+A <= 128. When L+F+A is less than 128, then the remaining bits of the SID MUST be zero.

SRv6 Path Segment can follow the format, where the LOC part identifies the egress node that allocates the Path Segment, and the FUNCT part is a unique local ID to identify an SRv6 Path and its endpoint behavior, which is END.PSID (End Function with Path Segment Identifier). The code point of END.PSID is 100. The Argument part is set as 0 by default. Future use cases may define the detailed usage of Arguments part.

 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 |  Locator            |     Function ID  |Arg                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 |<-------------------------128 bits--------------------------->|

        Figure 1. PSID Format following LOC:FUNCT:ARG

3.1.2. SRv6 Path Segment: Global ID

An SRv6 Path Segment ID can be a Global ID, and its format depends on the use case and out of the scope of this document.

 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                         Global PSID                          |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 |<-------------------------128 bits--------------------------->|

             Figure 2. 128-bit Global PSID

4. Encoding of an SRv6 Path Segment

This section describes the SRv6 Path Segment encoding in SRH.

The SRv6 Path Segment MUST appear only once in a segment list, and it MUST appear as the last entry in the segment list.

4.1. SRH.P-flag

To indicate the existence of a Path Segment in the SRH, this document defines a P-flag in the SRH flag field, and it is to be allocated, see IANA allocation section. The encapsulation of SRv6 Path Segment 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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Next Header   |  Hdr Ext Len  | Routing Type  | Segments Left |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  Last Entry   |     Flags     |              Tag              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    |            Segment List[0] (128 bits IPv6 address)            |
    |                                                               |
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    |                                                               |
                                  ...
    |                                                               |
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    |          Segment List[n-1] (128 bits IPv6 address)            |
    |                                                               |
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    |    SRv6 Path Segment (Segment List[n],128 bits IPv6 value)    |
    |                                                               |
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    //                                                             //
    //         Optional Type Length Value objects (variable)       //
    //                                                             //
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 3. SRv6 Path Segment in SID List

SRH.P-flag processing can be enabled or disabled by configuration on devices, it can be done by CLI, NETCONF YANG or other ways, and this is out of the scope of this document.

The pseudo code of SRH.P-flag processing is described as below.

    S01.  if SRH.P-flag processing is enabled:
    S02.     if SRH.P-flag is set:
    S03.        SRv6 Path Segment processing       ;;ref1

Ref1: The SRv6 Path Segment processing is accosiated with the specific application, such as SRv6 Path Segment based Performance measurement, so this is out of the scope of this document.

In order to support the intermediate nodes to process the PSID, the PSID value MUST be unique globally within the domain. In some use cases, only the egress need to process the SRv6 Path Segment, therefore, the P-flag processing can be done at the egress node only while the intermediate nodes do not need to process it. In this case, the PSID value can be unique only locally on the egress node. However, please note that, in this case, if the PSID is processed on an intermediate node, errors may occur due to the value conflict of PSIDs. This feature can be enabled by configuration like CLI , NETCONF YANG or other ways. In this case, the pseudo code is described as below.

    S01.  if SRH.P-flag processing is enabled:
    S02.    if intermediate node processing is disabled:
    S03.        if SRH.P-flag is set and SRH.SL == 0:
    S03.            SRv6 Path Segment processing
    S04     else:
    S05.        if SRH.P-flag is set:
    S06.            SRv6 Path Segment processing

When the SRH.P-flag is set, the Path Segment processing is enabled. In the cases that the intermediate processing of Path Segment is disabled, a node will process the Path Segment only when it is the last segment endpoint node indicating by SL == 0. In this case, when the nodes are an intermediate node, it will ignore the processing of Path Segment. When the intermediate processing is enabled, all the segment endpoint nodes along the path are able to process the Path Segment if a Path Segment is encoded in the SRH. There are some use cases that metadata of the packets will be collected and processed on the intermediate nodes, especially for the stateful use cases. The details of these use cases are out of the scope of this document, and will be described in other documents in the future.

5. SRv6 Path Segment Allocation

A Path Segment is a segment on the egress node, and it can be allocated through several ways, such as CLI configuration on the engress node, or allocated from the central controller by using BGP [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment], PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment] or other ways. The mechanisms through which a Path Segment is allocated are out of scope of this document.

When a PSID is allocated on the egress, it MUST be distributed to the ingress node of the path that identified by the path segment. In this case, only the egress will process the PSID, and other nodes specified by SIDs in the segment list do not know how to process the PSID.

Depending on the use case, a PSID may be distributed to the SRv6 nodes along the SRv6 path. In this case, the SRv6 nodes that learned the PSID may process the PSID depending on the use case. This is out of the scope of this document, and may be studied in the future if needed.

6. Processing of SRv6 Path Segment

When the SRv6 Path Segment is used, the following rules apply:

7. IANA Considerations

This I-D requests the IANA to allocate, within the "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors" sub-registry belonging to the top-level "Segment-routing with IPv6 data plane (SRv6) Parameters" registry, the following allocations:

   Value      Description                               Reference
   --------------------------------------------------------------
   100       End.PSID - SRv6 Path Segment                [This.ID]

This document also requests IANA to allocate bit position TBA1 within the "Segment Routing Header Flags" registry defined in [RFC8402].

   Value      Description                               Reference
   --------------------------------------------------------------
   TBA1       P-flag to indicate using Path Segment      [This.ID]

8. Security Considerations

This document does not introduce additional security requirements and mechanisms other than the ones described in [RFC8402].

Similar to SR-MPLS Path Segment [RFC9545], the data plane processing of a PSID is a local implementation of an SRv6 segment endpoint node, which follows the same logic of an existing SRv6 data plane.

In this document, only the egress node and the ingress node of the associated path will learn the information of a PSID. The intermediate nodes of this path will not learn it. However, in some cases, the whole Segment list with PSID may be used in a sub-set of a longer path. In this case, the whole segment list may be shared to the ingress node of the longer path. Similar to other SIDs defined in [RFC8402], the PSID must be distributed in a trusted domain under the considerations defined in Section 8.2 of [RFC8402].

A PSID is used within an SRv6 trusted domain [RFC8402] and must not leak outside the domain; therefore, no new security threats are introduced compared to current SRv6.

As per [RFC8402], SR domain boundary routers MUST filter any external traffic destined to an SID associated with a segment within the trusted domain; this applies to a PSID as well. Other security considerations of SRv6 described in Section 8.2 of [RFC8402] apply to this document. The distribution of a PSID from an egress node to an ingress node is performed within an SR-trusted domain, and it is out of the scope of this document. The details of the mechanism and related security considerations will be described in other documents.

9. Contributors

   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com


   Jie Dong
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: jie.dong@huawei.com

10. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Stefano Previdi, Zafar Ali, Lijie Deng, Zehua Hu, Joel Halpern, Yao Liu, Greg Mirsky, Quan Xiong, Weier Li and Xinyue Zhang for their valuable comments and suggestions.

11. References

11.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
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>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8402]
Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8754]
Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8986]
Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer, D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986, DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.

11.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment]
Li, C., Li, Z., Yin, Y., Cheng, W., and K. Talaulikar, "SR Policy Extensions for Path Segment and Bidirectional Path", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-12, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment/>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path]
Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Segment Routing (SR) Paths", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-14, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-14>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment]
Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Path Segment in Segment Routing (SR)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm]
Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Chen, M., and R. F. Foote, "Performance Measurement Using Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) for Segment Routing Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-15, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-15>.
[RFC7799]
Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8660]
Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC9256]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
[RFC9545]
Cheng, W., Ed., Li, H., Li, C., Ed., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler, "Path Segment Identifier in MPLS-Based Segment Routing Networks", RFC 9545, DOI 10.17487/RFC9545, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9545>.

Authors' Addresses

Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore 560066
Karnataka
India
Yongqing Zhu
China Telecom
Guangzhou