Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for Segment List December 2021
Liu & Peng Expires 22 June 2022 [Page]
Workgroup:
IDR WG
Internet-Draft:
draft-lp-idr-sr-path-protection-02
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
Y. Liu
ZTE
S. Peng
ZTE

BGP Extensions of SR Policy for Path Protection

Abstract

This document proposes extensions of BGP to provide protection information of segment lists within a candidate path when delivering SR policy. And it also extends BGP-LS to provide some extra information of the segment list in the advertisement.

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 22 June 2022.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Segment Routing [RFC8402] allows a headend node to steer a packet flow along any path. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] details the concept of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy. An SR Policy is a set of candidate paths, each consisting of one or more segment lists. The headend of an SR Policy may learn multiple candidate paths for an SR Policy.

Candidate path can be used for path protection, that is, the lower preference candidate path may be designated as the backup for a specific or all (active) candidate path(s). Backup candidate path provide protection only when all the segment lists in the active CP are invalid.

If a candidate path is associated with a set of Segment-Lists, each Segment-List is associated with weight for weighted load balancing.

The protection mechanism for SR Policy is not flexible enough. For example, there're three segment lists(SL1, SL2, SL3) in candidate path 1, it may be desired that SL1 and SL2 are the primary path, SL3 are the backup path for SL1 and will be active only when SL1 fails.

[I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] proposes extensions to PCEP to specify the protection relationship between segment lists in the candidate path.

[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] specifies BGP extensions for the advertisement of SR Policies and each candidate path is carried in an NLRI. This document proposes extensions of BGP in order to provide protection information of segment lists when delivering SR policy.

[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] describes a mechanism to collect the SR policy information that is locally available in a node and advertise it into BGP Link State (BGP-LS) updates. This document also extends it to provide some extra information of the segment list in a candidate path in the BGP-LS advertisement.

1.1. Requirements Language

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 [RFC2119].

2. BGP Extensions for Advertising Segment List

2.1. Extensions of Segment List sub-TLV

Segment List sub-TLV is introduced in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] and it includes the elements of the paths (i.e., segments).

This document introduces a one-bit flag in the RESERVED field.

    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            |B|  RESERVED   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                           sub-TLVs                          //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 1: Segment List sub-TLV

B-Flag(Backup Flag): one bit. When set to 0, it indicates that the segment list acts as the active member in the candidate path. When set to 1, it indicates that the segment list acts as the backup path in the candidate path.

Using segment lists for path protection can be compatible with using candidate paths. When a path fails, the backup segment list within the same candidate path is used preferentially for path protection. If the backup list is also invalid, then other candidate path can be enabled for protection.

2.2. List Identifier Sub-TLV

This document introduces a new sub-sub-tlv of Segment List sub-TLV, where,

    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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      List Identifier                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      Optional sub-TLVs                        ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 2: List Identifier Sub-TLV

2.2.1. List Protection Sub-TLV

The List Protection Info sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of List Identifier sub-TLV, where:

    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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Backup  List ID 1                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          ...                                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Backup  List ID N                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 3: List Protection Info Sub-TLV
  • Type: 1 octet. TBD.
  • Length: 1 octet, specifies the length of the value field not including Type and Length fields.
  • RESERVED: 2 octet of reserved bits. SHOULD be unset on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
  • Backup List ID: 4 octets. It is the List Identifier of the backup segment list that protects this segment list. If there're multiple backup paths, the list ID of each path should be included in the TLV.

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
                Preference
                Priority
                Policy Name
                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
                Segment List
                    Weight
                    Segment
                    Segment
                    ...
                Segment List
                    ...
                ...

The new SR Policy encoding structure with List Identifier sub-TLV is shown 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
                 List Identifier
                   List Protection Info
                 Weight
                 Segment
                 Segment
                 ...
             Segment List
                 ...
             ...

3. BGP-LS Extensions for Distributing Segment List States

[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] describes a mechanism to collect the SR Policy information that is locally available in a node and advertise it into BGP Link State (BGP-LS) updates. The SR Policy information includes status of the candidate path, e.g, whether the candidate path is administrative shut or not.

SR Segment List TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] to to report the SID-List(s) of a candidate path. Figure 4 shows the flags in SR Segment List TLV.

       0                   1
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |D|E|C|V|R|F|A|T|M|S|B|         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Flag Field of SR Segment List TLV

The D,E,C,V,R,F,A,M flags are defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].

This document introduces two new flags, where,

4. IANA Considerations

4.1. New Registry: Flag Field of Segment List sub-TLV

This document introduces a one-bit flag field in the Segment List sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] for the Backup Flag (B-Flag).

4.2. Existing Registry: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLVs

This document defines a new sub-TLV in the registry "SR Policy List Sub-TLVs" [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] to be assigned by IANA:

        Codepoint   Description                           Reference
        -------------------------------------------------------------
        TBD         List Identifier Sub-TLV               This document

4.3. New Registry: List Identifier Sub-TLVs

This document requests the creation of a new registry called "List Identifier Sub-TLVs" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation" registry. Following initial Sub-TLV codepoint are assigned by this document.

        Codepoint   Description                           Reference
        -------------------------------------------------------------
        TBD         List Protection Sub-TLV               This document

4.4. Existing Registry: Flag Field of SR Segment List TLV

This document requests bit 9 and bit 10 in the flag field of "SR Segment List TLV" [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] under the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry.

       Bit     Description                                Reference
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
        9     Administrative Shut State Flag(S-Flag)      This document
       10     Backup Path State Flag(B-Flag)              This document

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] and [I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution].

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-14, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-14>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Dong, J., Chen, M., Gredler, H., and J. Tantsura, "Distribution of Traffic Engineering (TE) Policies and State using BGP-LS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-16, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-16>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-14, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-14>.
[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>.

6.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-pce-multipath]
Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Saad, T., Beeram, V. P., Bidgoli, H., Yadav, B., and S. Peng, "PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-multipath-03, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-multipath-03>.
[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>.

Authors' Addresses

Yao Liu
ZTE
Nanjing
China
Shaofu Peng
ZTE
Nanjing
China