Internet-Draft BGP SR Policy Composite Candidate Path March 2023
Li, et al. Expires 2 September 2023 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-li-idr-sr-policy-composite-path-04
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
H. Li
New H3C Technologies
M. Chen
New H3C Technologies
C. Lin
New H3C Technologies
W. Jiang
China Mobile
W. Cheng
China Mobile

BGP Extensions of SR Policy for Composite Candidate Path

Abstract

Segment Routing is a source routing paradigm that explicitly indicates the forwarding path for packets at the ingress node. An SR Policy is associated with one or more candidate paths. A candidate path is either dynamic, explicit or composite. This document defines extensions to BGP to distribute SR policies carrying composite candidate path information. So that composite candidate paths can be installed when the SR policy is applied.

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 2 September 2023.

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. The ingress node steers packets into a specific path according to the Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy) as defined in [RFC9256]. In order to distribute SR policies to the headend, [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] specifies a mechanism by using BGP.

An SR Policy is associated with one or more candidate paths. A composite candidate path acts as a container for grouping of SR Policies. As described in section 2.2 in [RFC9256], the composite candidate path construct enables combination of SR Policies, each with explicit candidate paths and/or dynamic candidate paths with potentially different optimization objectives and constraints, for a load-balanced steering of packet flows over its constituent SR Policies.

[I-D.draft-jiang-spring-parent-sr-policy-use-cases] describes some use cases for SR policy group composite candidate path.

This document defines extensions to Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) to distribute SR policies carrying composite candidate path information. So that composite candidate paths can be installed when the SR policy is applied.

2. Terminology

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.

3. Constituent SR Policy Attributes in SR Policy

As defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], the SR policy encoding structure is as follows:

SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
    Attributes:
        Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
            Tunnel Type: SR Policy
                Binding SID
                SRv6 Binding SID
                Preference
                Priority
                Policy Name
                Policy Candidate Path Name
                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
                Segment List
                    Weight
                    Segment
                    Segment
                    ...
                ...

As described in section 2.2 in [RFC9256], the endpoints of the constituent SR Policies and the parent SR Policy MUST be identical, and the colors of each of the constituent SR Policies and the parent SR Policy MUST be different. Therefore a constituent SR Policy is referenced only by color in the composite candidate path since its headend and endpoint are identical to the parent SR policy.

SR policy with composite candidate path information is expressed as below:

SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint>
    Attributes:
        Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
            Tunnel Type: SR Policy
                Binding SID
                SRv6 Binding SID
                Preference
                Priority
                Policy Name
                Policy Candidate Path Name
                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
                Segment List
                    Weight
                    Segment
                    Segment
                    ...
                Constituent SR Policy
                    Weight
                ...

3.1. Constituent SR Policy Sub-TLV

The Constituent SR Policy sub-TLV encodes a single composite path towards the endpoint. The Constituent SR Policy sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute, and MAY appear multiple times in the SR Policy encoding. The ordering of Constituent SR Policy sub-TLVs does not matter. The Constituent SR Policy sub-TLV MAY contain a Weight sub-TLV.

Since a candidate path is either dynamic, explicit or composite, the Constituent SR Policy sub-TLV and the Segment List sub-TLV SHOULD NOT appear in the same candidate path.

The Constituent SR Policy sub-TLV has the following format:

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     |           RESERVED            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                             Color                             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                            sub-TLVs                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

where:

4. Operations

The document does not bring new operation beyond the description of operations defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]. The existing operations defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] can apply to this document directly.

Typically but not limit to, the SR policies carrying composite candidate path information are configured by a controller.

After configuration, the SR policies carrying path composite candidate path information will be advertised by BGP update messages. The operation of advertisement is the same as defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], as well as the receiption.

5. Security Considerations

Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not affect the security considerations discussed in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].

6. IANA Considerations

This document defines a new Sub-TLV in registries "SR Policy List Sub-TLVs" [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]:

Table 1
Value Description Reference
TBA Constituent SR Policy Sub-TLV This document

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., Rosen, E., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20, , <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20.txt>.
[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>.

7.2. Informative References

[I-D.draft-jiang-spring-parent-sr-policy-use-cases]
Jiang, W., Cheng, W., Lin, C., and Y. Qiu, "Use Cases for Parent SR Policy", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-jiang-spring-parent-sr-policy-use-cases-01, , <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-spring-parent-sr-policy-use-cases-01.txt>.
[RFC9256]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.

Authors' Addresses

Hao Li
New H3C Technologies
Mengxiao Chen
New H3C Technologies
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
Wenying Jiang
China Mobile
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile