| Network | C. Weiqiang |
| Internet-Draft | China Mobile |
| Intended status: Standards Track | G. Mirsky |
| Expires: August 23, 2020 | ZTE Corp. |
| P. Shaofu | |
| L. Aihua | |
| ZTE Corporation | |
| W. Xiaolan | |
| New H3C Technologies Co. Ltd | |
| C. Wei | |
| Centec | |
| S. Zadok | |
| Broadcom | |
| February 20, 2020 |
Unified Identifier in IPv6 Segment Routing Networks
draft-mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr-05
Segment Routing architecture leverages the paradigm of source routing. It can be realized in a network data plane by prepending the packet with a list of instructions, a.k.a. segments. A segment can be encoded as a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) label, IPv4 address, or IPv6 address. Segment Routing can be applied in MPLS data plane by encoding segments in the MPLS label stack. It also can be applied to IPv6 data plane by encoding a list of segment identifiers in IPv6 Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH). This document extends the use of the SRH to unified segment identifiers encoded, for example, as MPLS label or IPv4 address, to compress the SRH, and support more detailed network programming and interworking between SR-MPLS and SRv6 domains.
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 August 23, 2020.
Copyright (c) 2020 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 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.
Segment Routing architecture [RFC8402] leverages the paradigm of source routing. It can be realized in a network data plane by prepending the packet with a list of instructions, a.k.a. segment identifiers (SIDs). A segment can be encoded as a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) label, IPv4 address, or IPv6 address. Segment Routing can be applied in MPLS data plane by encoding 20-bits SIDs in MPLS label stack [RFC8660]. It also can be applied to IPv6 data plane by encoding a list of 128-bits SIDs in IPv6 Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH) [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
This document extends the use of the SRH [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] to unified identifiers encoded as MPLS label or IPv4 address to support more detailed network programming and interworking between SR-MPLS and SRv6 domains.
SR: Segment Routing
SRH: Segment Routing Extension Header
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
SR-MPLS: Segment Routing using MPLS data plane
SID: Segment Identifier
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol
DA: Destination Address
ILM: Incoming Label Map
FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class
FTN: FEC-to-NHLFE map
OAM: Operation, Administration and Maintenance
TE: Traffic Engineering
SRv6: Segment Routing in IPv6
U-SID: Unified Segment Identifier
PSP: Penultimate Segment Popping
FIB: Forwarding Information Base
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.
Many functions related to Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) require identification of the SR tunnel ingress and the path, constructed by segments, between the ingress and the egress SR nodes. Combination of IPv6 encapsulation [RFC8200] and SRH [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header], referred to as SRv6, comply with these requirements while it is challenging when applying SR in MPLS networks, also referred to as SR-MPLS.
On the other hand, the size of IPv6 SID presents a scaling challenge to use topological instructions that define strict explicit traffic-engineered (TE) path or support network programming in combination with service-based instructions. At the same time, that is where SR-MPLS approach provides better results due to smaller SID length. It can be used to compress the SRv6 header size when a smaller namespace of available SIDs is sufficient for addressing the particular network.
SR-MPLS is broadly used in metro networks. With the gradual deployment of SRv6 in the core networks, supporting interworking between SR-MPLS and SRv6 becomes the necessity for operators. It is operationally more efficient and straightforward if SRv6 can use the same size SIDs as in SR-MPLS. The SRH can be extended to define the same as in SR-MPLS SID length to support the unified segment identifier (U-SID). As a result, end-to-end SR tunnel may use U-SIDs across SR-MPLS and SRv6 domains.
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] (128 bits IPv6 address) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
// Optional Type Length Value objects (variable) //
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: SRH format
SRH format has been defined in Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] as presented in Figure 1
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MPLS Label | Context |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Format of Unified SID with MPLS Label
This document defines a new field Size in the SRH Flags field as a two-bits field with the following values:
Entries of the segment list in the SRH MUST be of the same length.
U-SID can be used for interworking between SR-MPLS and SRv6 domains. SR-MPLS is often used in a metro network, for example, in the backhaul metro network of CMCC. If the core network uses SRv6, for example, the core network of the same operator, U-SID can be used in the SRv6 domain to interwork with SR-MPLS in the metro network to form an end-to-end tunnel.
SR-MPLS uses SR SIDs as MPLS label in MPLS stack, and the SIDs are 32-bits long. SRv6 uses SR SIDs as IPv6 extension header in SRH, and the SIDs are 128-bits long.
+---------+ +----------------------------------+
| | | IPv6 header |
| Ethernet| +----------------------------------+
| | | SRH |
+---------+ +----------------------------------+
| USID1 | | USID1 | USID2 | ... | USID4 |
+---------+ +----------------------------------+
| USID2 | | USID5 |... | USIDn | Null |
+---------+ +----------------------------------+
| ... | + Payload |
+---------+ +----------------------------------+
| USIDn |
+---------+
| Payload |
+---------+
Figure 3: 32-bits long U-SIDs Encapsulation
The U-SID uses the same 32-bits long SIDs in MPLS stack and SRH. Thus, four 32-bits long U-SIDs can be placed in the space of a single 128-bits long header. The encapsulation is illustrated in Figure 3.
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| A +-----------+ B +-----------+ E +-----------+ F |
+-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
| SR-MPLS | | SRv6 |
| | | |
+-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
| C |-----------| D +-----------+ G +-----------+ H |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
+--------------+
| Eth(E->G) |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Eth(A->B) | |IPv6 DA:G.intf|
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| USID(B) | | Eth(B->E) | |SRH |
+--------------+ +--------------+ |NH:MPLS SL:2|
| USID(E1) | | USID(E1) | |USID(ADJ E->G)|
+--------------+ +--------------+ |USID(ADJ G->H)|
| USID(E2) | | USID(E2) | |USID(ADJ H->F)|
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| USID(F) | | USID(F) | | USID(F) |
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
|Label(service)| |Label(service)| |Label(service)|
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| Payload | -> | Payload | -> | Payload |
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
Figure 4: SR-MPLS and SRv6 interworking
The SR-MPLS and SRv6 interworking is illustrated in Figure 4. An end-to-end SR tunnel from A to F crosses the SR-MPLS and SRv6 domains. The SR-MPLS domain could be using IPv4 or IPv6 address family. The SRv6 border nodes (E/G) receive SR-MPLS packets and forward them into the SRv6 domain using an SR-MPLS Binding SID [RFC8660].
The SRv6 edge node E assigns two SIDs, e.g., E1 and E2, E1 is an SR-MPLS Node-SID, E2 is an SR-MPLS Binding-SID, which represents an SRv6 policy (from E to F, via segment list E-G-H-F) with U-SID encapsulation. At the headend A, the end-to-end segment list could be B-E1-E2-F. Figure 6 demonstrates an example of the packet forwarding, where U-SID is an MPLS label.
The controller may assign the end-to-end SR tunnel U-SIDs (from A to F), and another method is outside the scope of this document.
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| A +-----------+ B +-----------+ E +-----------+ F |
+-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
| SR-MPLS | | SRv6 |
| | | |
+-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
| C |-----------| D +-----------+ G +-----------+ H |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
+--------------+
| Eth(F->H) |
+--------------+
|IPv6 DA:H.intf|
+--------------+
|SRH |
|NH:MPLS SL:2|
|USID(ADJ F->H)|
+--------------+ |USID(ADJ H->G)|
| Eth(E->B) | |USID(ADJ G->E)|
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| Eth(B->A) | | USID(B) | | USID(B) |
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| USID(A) | | USID(A) | | USID(A) |
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
|Label(service)| |Label(service)| |Label(service)|
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| Payload | <- | Payload | <- | Payload |
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
Figure 5: SR-MPLS and SRv6 reverse interworking
The reverse interworking is illustrated in Figure 5. An end-to-end SR tunnel from F to A crosses the SRv6 and SR-MPLS domains. The SRv6 border nodes (E/G) receive SRv6 packets and forward them into the SR-MPLS domain using an SR-MPLS Binding SID or normal Prefix/Adjacency SID.
The SRv6 edge node F assigns an SR-MPLS Binding-SID F2, which represents an SRv6 policy (from F to E, via segment list F-H-G-E) with U-SID encapsulation. At the headend F, the end-to-end segment list could be F2-B-A.
When SRH is used to include 32-bits long U-SIDs, the ingress and transit nodes of an SR tunnel act as described in Section 5.1 and Section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] respectively.
If U-SID is used to support interworking between SR-MPLS and SRv6 domains, it is beneficial that U-SID type matches to an MPLS label. In that case, an ILM (Incoming Label Map) entry can be used to map a U-SID to an IPv6 address. As a result, it is not necessary to introduce a new type of index-based mapping table. For ILM entry of Adjacency-SID, the mapping result copied to DA (Destination Address) is the remote interface IPv6 address, for ILM entry of Node-SID, the mapping result that is copied into DA is a remote node loopback IPv6 address.
Operations on an MPLS label of U-SID type are the same as those defined in [RFC8663]. However, SR-MPLS over SRH has the following advantages compared with SR-MPLS over UDP:
Procedures of SR-MPLS over IP of [RFC8663] described how to construct an adjusted SR-MPLS FTN (FEC-to-NHLFE map) and ILM entry towards a prefix-SID when next-hops are IP-only routers. The action of FTN and ILM entry will steer the packet along an outer tunnel to the destination node that has originated the FEC (Forwarding Equivalence Class). UDP header is removed and put again at the each segment endpoint. However, for SR-MPLS over SRH in this document we don’t try to depend on that adjusted FIB (Forwarding Information Base) entry, because there are not any actions needed to get from the FIB entry, a traditional ILM entry (maybe without out-label because of IP-only next-hop) is enough to get the FEC information, i.e., to map a U-SID to an IPv6 address and copy to DA. Note that an implementation can get both FEC and next-hop/interface forwarding information from the ILM entry, to avoid extra FIB lookup. An SRv6 policy chosen to encapsulate U-SID list within SRH is determined at the ingress node of this SRv6 policy, SRH is preserved along the SR to egress, though PSP (Penultimate Segment Popping) may be used, that is different from SR-MPLS over IP/UDP method [RFC8663], so the source address (i.e., the ingress of the SRv6 policy) is not discarded.
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| A +-------+ B +-------+ C +--------+ D +--------+ H |
+-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +-----+
| | |
| | |
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
| E +-------+ F +--------+ G |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
|IP(A->E)| |IP(A->G)| |IP(A->G)|
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
|SRH | |SRH | |SRH |(or PSP)
| SL:2 | | SL:1 | | SL:0 |
| L(E) | | L(E) | | L(E) |
| L(G) | | L(G) | | L(G) |
| L(H) | | L(H) | | L(H) |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| Packet | ---> | Packet | ---> | Packet |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
Figure 6: Packet Forwarding Example
U-SID based packet forwarding is similar to the processing described in [RFC8663]. But it differs from that in FIB action and segment list processing. For completeness, we repeat the description of [RFC8663] with modification as follows.
In the example shown in Figure 6, assume that routers A, E, G, and H are U-SID capable (i.e., both SR-MPLS and SRv6 capable ) while the remaining routers (B, C, D, and F) are only capable of forwarding IP packets. Routers A, E, G, and H advertise their Segment Routing related information via IS-IS or OSPF.
Now assume that router A (the Domain ingress) wants to send a packet to router H (the Domain egress) via an SRv6 policy with the explicit path {E->G->H}. Router A will impose an MPLS label stack within SRH on the packet that corresponds to that explicit path. Router A searches ILM entry by the top label (that indicated router E), get the FEC information and next-hop/interface forwarding information, a loopback IPv6 address of E, and then copy to DA and sends the packet. The value of SRH.SL is 2.
When the IPv6 packet arrives at router E, router E picks the next segment (label) within SRH based on the SRH.SL value of 2, searches ILM entry by the next label, get the FEC information and next-hop/interface forwarding information, a loopback IPv6 address of G, and then copy to DA and sends the packet. The value of SRH.SL is 1.
When the IPv6 packet arrives at router G, router G gets the next segment (label) within SRH based on the SRH.SL value of 1, looks up ILM entry by the next label, gets the FEC information and next-hop/interface forwarding information, a loopback IPv6 address of H, and then copies it to IP DA and transmits the packet. Because the value of SRH.SL is 0, the SRH can be removed if the behavior flavor codepoint of next segment (label) is set to PSP.
S01. When an SRH is processed {
S02. If (Segments Left == zero) {
S03. Proceed to process the next header in the packet,
whose type is identified by the Next Header field in
the Routing header.
S04. }
S05. Else {
S06. If local configuration requires TLV processing {
S07. Perform TLV processing (see TLV Processing)
S08. }
S09. max_last_entry =
( Hdr Ext Len * 8/ sizeof(SRH_element) ) - 1
S10. If ((Last Entry > max_last_entry) or
S11. (Segments Left is greater than (Last Entry+1)) {
S12. Send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, message to
the Source Address, pointing to the Segments Left
field, and discard the packet.
S13. }
S14. Else {
S15. Decrement Segments Left by 1.
S16. Use Segment List[Segments Left] as the key
in exact match lookup of FIB
S17. If (Lookup_result == Empty)
S18. Send an ICMP Destination Unreachable and
discard the packet
S19. Else {
S20. Copy Lookup_result as the destination address
of the IPv6 header.
S21. If (IPv6 Hop Limit is less than or equal <= to 1) {
S22. Send an ICMP Time Exceeded -- Hop Limit Exceeded in
Transit message to the Source Address and discard
the packet.
S23. }
S24. Else {
S25. Decrement the Hop Limit by 1
S26. Resubmit the packet to the IPv6 module
for transmission to the new destination.
S27. }
S28. }
S29. }
S30. }
S31. }
Processing of SRH with elements carrying 20 bits-long SIDs closely follows SRH processing as defined in Section 4.3.1.1 [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] and is demonstrated in the pseudo-code below:
The introduction of the Unified Identifier may rely on the existing SR extensions to the routing protocols. But some enhancements in the control plane are still required. This section references to the existing protocols and identifies necessary extensions.
SR extensions to Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP), IS-IS [RFC8667], OSPF [RFC8665], and OSPFv3 [RFC8666], defined how 20-bits and 32-bits SIDs advertised and bound to SR objects and/or instructions. Extensions to BGP Link-state address family [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] enabled propagation of segment information of variable length via BGP.
U-SID can support SRv6 programming defined by [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]. The details will be described in another document.
The Unified SID solution has been already implemented and tested by two companies:
IANA is requested to allocate from the Segment Routing Header Flags registry the two-bits long field referred to as Size.
This specification inherits all security considerations of [RFC8402] and [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
TBD
| [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] | Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S. and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26, October 2019. |
| [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] | Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H. and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16, June 2019. |
| [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] | Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D., Matsushima, S. and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-09, February 2020. |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
| [RFC8174] | Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017. |
| [RFC8200] | Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017. |
| [RFC8402] | Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S. and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018. |
| [RFC8660] | Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S. and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019. |
| [RFC8663] | Xu, X., Bryant, S., Farrel, A., Hassan, S., Henderickx, W. and Z. Li, "MPLS Segment Routing over IP", RFC 8663, DOI 10.17487/RFC8663, December 2019. |
| [RFC8665] | Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W. and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019. |
| [RFC8666] | Psenak, P. and S. Previdi, "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, December 2019. |
| [RFC8667] | Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H. and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019. |