[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

LSR Working Group                                               Yao. Liu
Internet-Draft                                              Zheng. Zhang
Intended status: Standards Track                         ZTE Corporation
Expires: January 11, 2021                                  July 10, 2020


           IGP Extensions for Segment Routing Service Segment
                draft-lz-lsr-igp-sr-service-segments-02

Abstract

   This document defines extensions to the link-state routing protocols
   (IS-IS and OSPF) in order to carry service segment information via
   IGP.

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 January 11, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   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.





Liu & Zhang             Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           IGP for Service Segment               July 2020


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  IGP Extensions for Service Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  IS-IS Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   Segments are introduced in the SR architecture [RFC8402].  Segment
   Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by
   encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called
   "segments".

   Service Function Chaining (SFC) [RFC7665] provides support for the
   creation of composite services that consist of an ordered set of
   Service Functions (SF) that are to be applied to packets and/or
   frames selected as a result of classification.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming] describes how a service can
   be associated with a SID and how to achieve service funtion chaining
   in SR-enabled MPLS and IPv6 networks.  It also defines SR-aware and
   SR-unaware services.  For a SR-unaware service ,there has to be a SR
   proxy handling the SR processing on behalf of the service .

   [I-D.dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments] propose extensions to BGP-
   LS for Service Chaining to distribute the service segment information
   to SR Controller.

   The network topology is shown in figure 1.

                  SR-C
                    |
                    |
               A----1----2----3----4----5----B
                         |         |
                         |         |
                         S1        S2 proxy----S2



                      Figure 1: Network with Services



Liu & Zhang             Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           IGP for Service Segment               July 2020


   Node 1-5 are nodes capital of segment routing.  A and B are two end
   hosts.  S1 is an SR-aware Service.  S2 is an SR-unaware Service.

   SR Controller (SR-C) is connected to node 1, but may be attached to
   any node 1-5 in the network.

   SR-C is capable of receiving BGP-LS updates to discover topology, and
   calculating constrained paths between 1 and 5.

   Node 1 can use the BGP-LS extensions
   [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming] to advertise the service
   segment information to the SR-C, but it must get the information from
   other nodes at first.

   This document proposes extensions for IGP to advertise service
   segment information so that there is only one SR node needed per
   Autonomous System to be connected with the SR-C through BGP-LS to
   advertise the information to it.

   This extension works for both SR-MPLS and SRv6.

2.  IGP Extensions for Service Segments

   After an SFF like node 2 or node 4 get the service segment
   information, it needs to advertise the information to other SR nodes
   in the domain through IGP.

   How can SFFs like node 2 and node 4 get the service segment
   information from S1 and S2 proxy will be discussed further.

   There may be other alternate mechanisms and are outside of scope of
   this document.

2.1.  IS-IS Extensions

   This document introduces new sub-sub-TLVs for SRv6 End SID sub-TLV
   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] and Prefix Segment Identifier
   (Prefix-SID) Sub-TLV [RFC8667] for SR-MPLS to associate the Service
   SID Value with Service-related Information.

   One of the new TLVs is Service Chaining (SC) TLV, the TLV is defined
   as follows :









Liu & Zhang             Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           IGP for Service Segment               July 2020


        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     |        Service Info           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Flags       | Traffic Type  |          RESERVED             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





                    Figure 2:Service Chaining (SC) TLV

   where:

   Type: 8 bit field.  TBD

   Length: 8 bit field indicating the length of the remainder of the TLV

   The Flags, Traffic Type and RESERVED fields are the same as in the SC
   TLV defined in [I-D.dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments] chapter 2.

   Flags: 8 bit field.  Bits SHOULD be 0 on transmission and MUST be
   ignored on reception.

   Traffic Type: 8 Bit field.  A bit to identify if Service is IPv4 OR
   IPv6 OR L2 Ethernet Capable.

   Bit 0(LSB): Set to 1 if Service is IPv4 Capable

   Bit 1: Set to 1 if Service is IPv6 Capable

   Bit 2: Set to 1 if Service is Ethernet Capable

   RESERVED: 16bit field.  SHOULD be 0 on transmission and MUST be
   ignored on reception.

   Service Info: 16-bits field.  The right most 12 bits categorize the
   Service Type: (such as "Firewall", "Classifier" etc).

   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | P FLAG|    Service Type       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 3: Service Info Field




Liu & Zhang             Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           IGP for Service Segment               July 2020


   The first 4 bits are P FLAG which is used to indicate the SR proxy
   type with the following values:

   0000:SR-aware function.

   0001:Static proxy.

   0010:Dynamic proxy.

   0011:Masquerading proxy(for SRv6 only).

   0100:Shared memory proxy.

   Other values are reserved.

   The P FLAG is mainly defined for SR-MPLS.

   In SRv6, although the SR proxy type can be represented by the END
   functions[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming] which can be
   advertised in Endpoint Behavior field of End SID sub-TLV
   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions], there may be situations that the
   proxy with certain type cannot be associated with a network
   programming function(for example, Shared memory proxy),or an user
   want to define a new type of proxy for private use, or the SR proxy
   node does not support network programming, so the P flag is still
   useful.

   In the IS-IS notification message, when both SR proxy END function
   and P FLAG exist, the proxy type represented by P FLAG shall prevail.

   Another Optional Opaque Metadata(OM) TLV is defined in figure 4.  The
   definition and structure are the same as the OM TLV defined in
   [I-D.dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments] chapter 2.

              +---------------------------------------+
              |         Type (1 octet)                |
              +---------------------------------------+
              |        Length (1 octet)               |
              +---------------------------------------+
              |        Opaque  Type (2 octet)         |
              +---------------------------------------+
              |        Flags (1 octet)                |
              +---------------------------------------+
              |        Value (variable)               |
              +---------------------------------------+

                     Figure 4:Opaque Metadata(OM) TLV




Liu & Zhang             Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           IGP for Service Segment               July 2020


2.2.  OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 Extensions

   This document introduces new sub-sub-TLVs for SRv6 End SID sub-TLV
   [I-D.li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] and Prefix-SID Sub-TLV [RFC8665]
   [RFC8665] for SR-MPLS to associate the Service SID Value with
   Service-related Information.

   One of the new TLVs is Service Chaining (SC) TLV,

       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            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Service Info         |     Flags     |  Traffic Type |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          RESERVED             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 5:Service Chaining (SC) TLV

   where:

   Type: 16 bit field.  TBD

   Length: 16 bit field indicating the length of the remainder of the
   TLV

   Flags, Traffic Type and RESERVED are the same as that in SC TLV
   defined in [I-D.dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments] chapter 2.

   The definition and use principle of the Service Type field is the
   same as that defined in the IS-IS extension above.

   Another Optional Opaque Metadata(OM) TLV is defined in figure 6.  The
   definition and structure are the same as the OM TLV defined in
   [I-D.dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments] chapter 2.














Liu & Zhang             Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           IGP for Service Segment               July 2020


              +---------------------------------------+
              |         Type (2 octet)                |
              +---------------------------------------+
              |        Length (2 octet)               |
              +---------------------------------------+
              |        Opaque  Type (2 octet)         |
              +---------------------------------------+
              |        Flags (1 octet)                |
              +---------------------------------------+
              |        Value (variable)               |
              +---------------------------------------+

                     Figure 6:Opaque Metadata(OM) TLV

3.  Security Considerations

   Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
   affect the IS-IS and OSPF security model

4.  IANA Considerations

   TBD

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments]
              Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Clad, F.,
              daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Uttaro, J., Decraene, B.,
              Elmalky, H., Xu, X., Guichard, J., and C. Li, "BGP-LS
              Advertisement of Segment Routing Service Segments", draft-
              dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-03 (work in
              progress), January 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]
              Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
              Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over
              IPv6 Dataplane", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-08
              (work in progress), April 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming]
              Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., daniel.bernier@bell.ca,
              d., Li, C., Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C.,
              Henderickx, W., and S. Salsano, "Service Programming with
              Segment Routing", draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-
              programming-02 (work in progress), March 2020.




Liu & Zhang             Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           IGP for Service Segment               July 2020


   [I-D.li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]
              Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak,
              "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-li-ospf-
              ospfv3-srv6-extensions-07 (work in progress), November
              2019.

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

   [RFC8665]  Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
              H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
              Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.

   [RFC8666]  Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
              for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
              December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.

   [RFC8667]  Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
              Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
              Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.

5.2.  Informative References

   [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,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

Authors' Addresses

   Liu Yao
   ZTE Corporation
   No. 50 Software Ave, Yuhuatai Distinct
   Nanjing
   China

   Email: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn








Liu & Zhang             Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           IGP for Service Segment               July 2020


   Zhang Zheng
   ZTE Corporation
   No. 50 Software Ave, Yuhuatai Distinct
   Nanjing
   China

   Email: zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com












































Liu & Zhang             Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/