Network Working Group Z. Li Internet-Draft L. Li Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Expires: September 12, 2019 March 11, 2019 PCEP Flow Specification for SRv6 draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-srv6-00 Abstract This draft proposes PCEP flow specification rules that are used to filter SRv6 packets. 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]. 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 September 12, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 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 Li & Li Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PCEP Flow Specification for SRv6 March 2019 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. The Flow Specification TLV for SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Introduction Traffic flows may be categorized and described using "Flow Specifications". [RFC5575] defines the Flow Specification and describes how Flow Specification Components are used to describe traffic flows. [RFC5575]defines how Flow Specifications may be distributed in BGP to allow specific traffic flows to be associated with routes. Segment Routing (SR) for unicast traffic has been proposed to cope with the use cases in traffic engineering, fast re-reroute, service chain, etc. SR architecture can be implemented over an IPv6 data plane using a new type of Segment Routing Header (SRH)[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] . SRv6 Network Programming[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] defined the SRv6 network programming concept and its most basic functions. SRv6 SID will have the form LOC:FUNCT:ARGS::. LOC: Each operator is free to use the locator length it chooses. Most often the LOC part of the SID is routable and leads to the node which instantiates that SID FUNCT: The FUNCT part of the SID is an opaque identification of a local function bound to the SID. (e.g. End:Endpoint, End.X, End.T, End.DX2 etc.) ARGS: A function may require additional arguments that would be placed immediately after the FUNCT PCEP[RFC5440] defines the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between PCE and PCE, enabling computation of path for Traffic Engine. PCEP Flow Specification (PCEP-FS) Li & Li Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PCEP Flow Specification for SRv6 March 2019 [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to support dissemination of Flow Specification. [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec] defined 3 new Flow Specification TLV Types: TBD5 for Route Distinguisher(RD), TBD6 for IPv4 Multicast Flow, TBD7 for IPv6 Multicast Flow. This document specifies a new subset of PCEP Flow Specification TLV Types to support Segment Routing over IPv6 data plane (SRv6) filtering. 2. Definitions and Acronyms o FS: Flow Specification o SR: Segment Routing o SRv6: IPv6 Segment Routing, SRv6 is a method of forwarding IPv6 packets on the network based on the concept of source routing. o SID: Segment Identifier o BSID: Binding SID 3. The Flow Specification TLV for SRv6 This document proposes new flow specifications rules that is encoded in PCEP FS TLVs. The following new FS TLV types are defined: o Whole SID Type TBD1 - Whole SID/BSID 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 | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ ~ [operator, value]+ ~ +---------------------------------------------------------------+ This type of new TLV contains a set of {operator, value} pairs that are used to match the SID/binding SID or a range of whole SID. The operator byte is encoded as: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | e | a |lt |gt |eq | reserve | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Li & Li Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PCEP Flow Specification for SRv6 March 2019 Where: e - end-of-list bit. Set in the last {op, value} pair in the list. a - AND bit. If unset, the previous term is logically ORed with the current one. If set, the operation is a logical AND. It should be unset in the first operator byte of a sequence. The AND operator has higher priority than OR for the purposes of evaluating logical expressions. lt - less than comparison between data and value. gt - greater than comparison between data and value. eq - equality between data and value. The bits lt, gt, and eq can be combined to produce match the SID or a range of SID(e.g. less than SID1 and greater than SID2). The value field is encoded as: 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 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ ~ SID(128bits) ~ +---------------------------------------------------------------+ The format of SID is described in [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] and [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] o Some bits of SID to match For some scenarios route policy with the whole128 bits SID matching is too long and not necessary. [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] defined the format of SID is LOC:FUNCT:ARGS::. In some scenarios, traffic packets can just match Locator, Function ID, Argument or combine of these different fields rather than whole 128 bits SID. This document defines a set of new component type TBD2 to reduce the length of matching. Type TBD2 - Some bits of SID Li & Li Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PCEP Flow Specification for SRv6 March 2019 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 | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ ~ [operator, value]+ ~ +---------------------------------------------------------------+ This type of new TLV contains a set of {operator, value} pairs that are used to match some bits of SID. The operator byte is encoded as: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | e | a | type |reserve| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Where: e - end-of-list bit. Set in the last {op, value} pair in the list. a - AND bit. If unset, the previous term is logically ORed with the current one. If set, the operation is a logical AND. It should be unset in the first operator byte of a sequence. The AND operator has higher priority than OR for the purposes of evaluating logical expressions. type: 0000 : SID's LOC bits 0001 : SID's FUNCT bits 0010 : SID's LOC:FUNCT bits 0011 : SID's FUNCT:ARGS bits The value field is encoded as SID with mask to match bits as type defined: 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 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ ~ SID(128bits) ~ +---------------------------------------------------------------+ ~ Mask ~ +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Li & Li Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PCEP Flow Specification for SRv6 March 2019 4. Security Considerations No new security issues are introduced to the PECP protocol by this specification. 5. IANA IANA is requested to a new entry in "Flow Spec component types registry" with the following values: +--------------------------------------------+ | Type | RFC or Draft | Description | +--------------------------------------------+ | TBD1 | This Draft | SID | +--------------------------------------------+ | TBD2 | This Draft | Some bits of SID | +--------------------------------------------+ 6. Contributors TBD 7. Acknowledgments TBD 8. References [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming", draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network- programming-07 (work in progress), February 2019. [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-16 (work in progress), February 2019. [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Jain, D., Mattes, P., Rosen, E., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05 (work in progress), November 2018. Li & Li Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PCEP Flow Specification for SRv6 March 2019 [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec] Dhody, D., Farrel, A., and Z. Li, "PCEP Extension for Flow Specification", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-03 (work in progress), February 2019. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, . [RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009, . Authors' Addresses Zhenbin Li Huawei 156 Beiqing Road Beijing, 100095 P.R. China Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Lei Li Huawei 156 Beiqing Road Beijing 100095 P.R. China Email: lily.lilei@huawei.com Li & Li Expires September 12, 2019 [Page 7]