| Internet-Draft | Label stacks in TEA | October 2022 |
| Zhang & Hares | Expires 14 April 2023 | [Page] |
RFC 9012 defines an MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV for Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute, and specifies that it is to be pushed BEFORE other labels. This document clarifies the use case for that, defines a new Tunnel Label Stack sub-TLV for a label stack to be pushed AFTER other labels (e.g., the label embedded in the NLRI for a labeled address family, and/or the stack in an MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV), and defines two new Segment sub-TLVs to encode a segment list in a compact format.¶
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 14 April 2023.¶
Copyright (c) 2022 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.¶
[RFC9012] defines an MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV for Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute and specifies that:¶
"If a packet is to be sent through the tunnel identified in a particular TLV, and if that TLV contains an MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV, then the label stack appearing in the sub-TLV MUST be pushed onto the packet before any other labels are pushed onto the packet."¶
Specifically, the label stack in the sub-TLV is to be pushed BEFORE any other labels are pushed. This may sound counter-intuitive, in that if a label stack (e.g. for Segment Routing) is to be used to steer traffic to the tunnel endpoint, the stack should be pushed AFTER other labels (e.g. the label embedded in the NLRI).¶
This document clarifies that it is NOT for steering traffic to but for steering AFTER the tunnel endpoint. Consider the following use case:¶
controller
. .
. .
site1 --- PE1 -------- PE2 --- site2
¶
Two sites are connected to two PEs respectively, and traffic steering is desired within each site not just among the PEs. While PE2 could push the label stack used for steering within site2, there may be situations where PE2 is not a device capable of pushing a large label stack so PE1 is tasked with pushing the label stack that is used after the tunnel end point PE2, within site2.¶
Notice that in the above example, it may be desired that PE2 or the controller wants PE1 to send service traffic to PE2 via a specific path through the underlay network. The path may be an Segment Routing path identified as a label stack encoded in the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute of the service routes that PE1 receives.¶
PE1 needs to impose the label stack AFTER it imposes other labels like service labels or the labels for traffic steering at site2 after the traffic arrives at PE2. Obviously, a new sub-TLV is needed to encode the label stack for steering traffic to the tunnel endpoint, as the existing MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV is for steering after traffic reaches the tunnel endpoint.¶
This document defines a new Tunnel Label Stack sub-TLV for that purpose. It has exactly the same syntax as the existing MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV. Section 3.6 of [RFC9012] applies to this new sub-TLV, with the following differences:¶
Both the existing MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV and the new Tunnel Label Stack sub-TLV MAY be present in a tunnel TLV.¶
Section 2.4.4 of [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] specifies a Segment List sub-TLV that is optional in a tunnel TLV. It encodes a segment list in an SR Policy tunnel, containing zero or more Segment sub-TLVs.¶
Each Segment sub-TLV specifies a segment of various types defined in Section 4 of [RFC9256]. For example, if a segment list is a 10-label stack, then the Segment List sub-TLV for it has 10 sub-TLVs, each being a Type A Segment as defined in 2.4.4.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]:¶
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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
It is clear that this is not efficient on-the-wire encoding format, and it involves additional encoding/decoding processing.¶
To address this inefficiency, this document specifies two new types of Segment sub-TLVs, each encoding a label stack or an SRv6 SID list respectively. A new segment type may be added in a future revision to encode a compressed SRv6 SID list.¶
Note that, while each new type is called a Segment sub-TLV in a Segment List sub-TLV, it actually encodes a segment list (a label stack or an SRv6 SID list). A Segment List sub-TLV MAY have a mixed Segment sub-TLVs of any types, e.g., a Type A segment that encodes one label and another new segment type that encodes a label stack. The actual segment list is a concatenation of all the labels in this example.¶
The Type L Segment Sub-TLV encodes multiple SR-MPLS SIDs. The format is as follows and is used to encode MPLS Label fields as specified in [RFC3032] [RFC5462]:¶
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 TBD1 | Length | Flags | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | TC |S| TTL // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Repeated Label Entries | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
The Type TBD1 is to be assigned by IANA from the "SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation" registry.¶
The Length value is (4 * number of labels + 2).¶
Other fields are as defined in 2.4.4.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].¶
The Type M Segment Sub-TLV encodes multiple SRv6 SIDs with optional SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure:¶
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 TBD2 | Length | Flags | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // SRv6 SID (16 octets) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Repeated SRv6 SIDs // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure (optional) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
The Type TBD2 is to be assigned by IANA from the "SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation" registry.¶
The Length value is (16 * number of SIDs + 2) when SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure is not present. If it is present, the Length value is increased by 8.¶
Other fields are as defined in 2.4.4.2.2 of [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].¶
This document does not introduce any new security issues besides what is already discussed in RFC9012 and [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].¶
IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV type for "Tunnel Label Stack" from "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry, in the 0~127 range.¶
IANA is requested to assign two new sub-TLV types from the "SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs" under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation" registry, for Type L and Type M segments respectively.¶
The authors thank Eric Rosen and John Scudder for their valuable comments and suggestions.¶