Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 8402

Segment Routing Architecture

Pages: 32
Proposed Standard
Part 2 of 2 – Pages 19 to 32
First   Prev   None

Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 19   prevText

4. BGP Segments

BGP segments may be allocated and distributed by BGP.

4.1. BGP-Prefix Segment

A BGP-Prefix segment is a BGP segment attached to a BGP prefix. A BGP-Prefix segment is global (unless explicitly advertised otherwise) within the SR domain. The BGP-Prefix segment is the BGP equivalent to the IGP-Prefix segment. A likely use case for the BGP-Prefix segment is an IGP-free hyper- scale spine-leaf topology where connectivity is learned solely via BGP [RFC7938]
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 20

4.2. BGP Peering Segments

In the context of BGP Egress Peer Engineering (EPE), as described in [SR-CENTRAL-EPE], an EPE-enabled egress node MAY advertise segments corresponding to its attached peers. These segments are called BGP peering segments or BGP peering SIDs. They enable the expression of source-routed inter-domain paths. An ingress border router of an Autonomous System (AS) may compose a list of segments to steer a flow along a selected path within the AS towards a selected egress border router C of the AS and through a specific peer. At a minimum, a BGP peering engineering policy applied at an ingress node involves two segments: the Node-SID of the chosen egress node and the BGP peering segment for the chosen egress node peer or peering interface. Three types of BGP peering segments/SIDs are defined: PeerNode SID, PeerAdj SID, and PeerSet SID. o PeerNode SID: a BGP PeerNode segment/SID is a local segment. At the BGP node advertising it, its semantics are: * SR operation: NEXT. * Next-Hop: the connected peering node to which the segment is related. o PeerAdj SID: a BGP PeerAdj segment/SID is a local segment. At the BGP node advertising it, the semantics are: * SR operation: NEXT. * Next-Hop: the peer connected through the interface to which the segment is related. o PeerSet SID: a BGP PeerSet segment/SID is a local segment. At the BGP node advertising it, the semantics are: * SR operation: NEXT. * Next-Hop: load-balance across any connected interface to any peer in the related group. A peer set could be all the connected peers from the same AS or a subset of these. A group could also span across AS. The group definition is a policy set by the operator.
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 21
   The BGP extensions necessary in order to signal these BGP peering
   segments are defined in [BGPLS-SR-EPE].

5. Binding Segment

In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service independence, SR utilizes a Binding SID (BSID). The BSID is bound to an SR Policy, instantiation of which may involve a list of SIDs. Any packets received with an active segment equal to BSID are steered onto the bound SR Policy. A BSID may be either a local or a global SID. If local, a BSID SHOULD be allocated from the SRLB. If global, a BSID MUST be allocated from the SRGB. Use of a BSID allows the instantiation of the policy (the SID list) to be stored only on the node or nodes that need to impose the policy. Direction of traffic to a node supporting the policy then only requires imposition of the BSID. If the policy changes, this also means that only the nodes imposing the policy need to be updated. Users of the policy are not impacted.

5.1. IGP Mirroring Context Segment

One use case for a Binding segment is to provide support for an IGP node to advertise its ability to process traffic originally destined to another IGP node, called the "mirrored node" and identified by an IP address or a Node-SID, provided that a Mirroring Context segment is inserted in the segment list prior to any service segment local to the mirrored node. When a given node B wants to provide egress node A protection, it advertises a segment identifying node's A context. Such a segment is called "Mirroring Context segment" and is identified by the Mirror SID. The Mirror SID is advertised using the Binding segment defined in SR IGP protocol extensions [ISIS-SR-EXT]. In the event of a failure, a Point of Local Repair (PLR) diverting traffic from A to B does a PUSH of the Mirror SID on the protected traffic. When receiving the traffic with the Mirror SID as the active segment, B uses that segment and processes underlying segments in the context of A.
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 22

6. Multicast

Segment Routing is defined for unicast. The application of the source-route concept to Multicast is not in the scope of this document.

7. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

8. Security Considerations

Segment Routing is applicable to both MPLS and IPv6 data planes. SR adds some metadata (instructions) to the packet, with the list of forwarding path elements (e.g., nodes, links, services, etc.) that the packet must traverse. It has to be noted that the complete source-routed path may be represented by a single segment. This is the case of the Binding SID. By default, SR operates within a trusted domain. Traffic MUST be filtered at the domain boundaries. The use of best practices to reduce the risk of tampering within the trusted domain is important. Such practices are discussed in [RFC4381] and are applicable to both SR-MPLS and SRv6.

8.1. SR-MPLS

When applied to the MPLS data plane, SR does not introduce any new behavior or any change in the way the MPLS data plane works. Therefore, from a security standpoint, this document does not define any additional mechanism in the MPLS data plane. SR allows the expression of a source-routed path using a single segment (the Binding SID). Compared to RSVP-TE, which also provides explicit routing capability, there are no fundamental differences in terms of information provided. Both RSVP-TE and Segment Routing may express a source-routed path using a single segment. When a path is expressed using a single label, the syntax of the metadata is equivalent between RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and SR. When a source-routed path is expressed with a list of segments, additional metadata is added to the packet consisting of the source- routed path the packet must follow expressed as a segment list.
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 23
   When a path is expressed using a label stack, if one has access to
   the meaning (i.e., the Forwarding Equivalence Class) of the labels,
   one has the knowledge of the explicit path.  For the MPLS data plane,
   as no data-plane modification is required, there is no fundamental
   change of capability.  Yet, the occurrence of label stacking will
   increase.

   SR domain boundary routers MUST filter any external traffic destined
   to a label associated with a segment within the trusted domain.  This
   includes labels within the SRGB of the trusted domain, labels within
   the SRLB of the specific boundary router, and labels outside either
   of these blocks.  External traffic is any traffic received from an
   interface connected to a node outside the domain of trust.

   From a network protection standpoint, there is an assumed trust model
   such that any node imposing a label stack on a packet is assumed to
   be allowed to do so.  This is a significant change compared to plain
   IP offering shortest path routing, but it is not fundamentally
   different compared to existing techniques providing explicit routing
   capability such as RSVP-TE.  By default, the explicit routing
   information MUST NOT be leaked through the boundaries of the
   administered domain.  Segment Routing extensions that have been
   defined in various protocols, leverage the security mechanisms of
   these protocols such as encryption, authentication, filtering, etc.

   In the general case, a segment-routing-capable router accepts and
   installs labels only if the labels have been previously advertised by
   a trusted source.  The received information is validated using
   existing control-plane protocols providing authentication and
   security mechanisms.  Segment Routing does not define any additional
   security mechanism in existing control-plane protocols.

   SR does not introduce signaling between the source and the midpoints
   of a source-routed path.  With SR, the source-routed path is computed
   using SIDs previously advertised in the IP control plane.  Therefore,
   in addition to filtering and controlled advertisement of SIDs at the
   boundaries of the SR domain, filtering in the data plane is also
   required.  Filtering MUST be performed on the forwarding plane at the
   boundaries of the SR domain and may require looking at multiple
   labels/instructions.

   For the MPLS data plane, there are no new requirements as the
   existing MPLS architecture already allows such source routing by
   stacking multiple labels.  And, for security protection, [RFC4381]
   and [RFC5920] already call for the filtering of MPLS packets on trust
   boundaries.
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 24

8.2. SRv6

When applied to the IPv6 data plane, Segment Routing does introduce the Segment Routing Header (SRH, [IPv6-SRH]) which is a type of Routing Extension header as defined in [RFC8200]. The SRH adds some metadata to the IPv6 packet, with the list of forwarding path elements (e.g., nodes, links, services, etc.) that the packet must traverse and that are represented by IPv6 addresses. A complete source-routed path may be encoded in the packet using a single segment (single IPv6 address). SR domain boundary routers MUST filter any external traffic destined to an address within the SRGB of the trusted domain or the SRLB of the specific boundary router. External traffic is any traffic received from an interface connected to a node outside the domain of trust. From a network-protection standpoint, there is an assumed trust model such that any node adding an SRH to the packet is assumed to be allowed to do so. Therefore, by default, the explicit routing information MUST NOT be leaked through the boundaries of the administered domain. Segment Routing extensions that have been defined in various protocols, leverage the security mechanisms of these protocols such as encryption, authentication, filtering, etc. In the general case, an SRv6 router accepts and install segments identifiers (in the form of IPv6 addresses), only if these SIDs are advertised by a trusted source. The received information is validated using existing control-plane protocols providing authentication and security mechanisms. Segment Routing does not define any additional security mechanism in existing control-plane protocols. Problems that may arise when the above behaviors are not implemented or when the assumed trust model is violated (e.g., through a security breach) include: o Malicious looping o Evasion of access controls o Hiding the source of DoS attacks Security concerns with SR at the IPv6 data plane are more completely discussed in [RFC5095]. The new IPv6-based Segment Routing Header is defined in [IPv6-SRH]. This document also discusses the above security concerns.
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 25

8.3. Congestion Control

SR does not introduce new requirements for congestion control. By default, traffic delivery is assumed to be best effort. Congestion control may be implemented at endpoints. Where SR policies are in use, bandwidth allocation may be managed by monitoring incoming traffic associated with the binding SID identifying the SR Policy. Other solutions such as presented in [RFC8084] may be applicable.

9. Manageability Considerations

In SR-enabled networks, the path the packet takes is encoded in the header. As the path is not signaled through a protocol, OAM mechanisms are necessary in order for the network operator to validate the effectiveness of a path as well as to check and monitor its liveness and performance. However, it has to be noted that SR allows to reduce substantially the number of states in transit nodes; hence, the number of elements that a transit node has to manage is smaller. SR OAM use cases for the MPLS data plane are defined in [RFC8403]. SR OAM procedures for the MPLS data plane are defined in [RFC8287]. SR routers receive advertisements of SIDs (index, label, or IPv6 address) from the different routing protocols being extended for SR. Each of these protocols have monitoring and troubleshooting mechanisms to provide operation and management functions for IP addresses that must be extended in order to include troubleshooting and monitoring functions of the SID. SR architecture introduces the usage of global segments. Each global segment MUST be bound to a unique index or address within an SR domain. The management of the allocation of such an index or address by the operator is critical for the network behavior to avoid situations like misrouting. In addition to the allocation policy/ tooling that the operator will have in place, an implementation SHOULD protect the network in case of conflict detection by providing a deterministic resolution approach. When a path is expressed using a label stack, the occurrence of label stacking will increase. A node may want to signal, in the control plane, its ability in terms of size of the label stack it can support. A YANG data model [RFC6020] for SR configuration and operations has been defined in [SR-YANG].
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 26
   When SR is applied to the IPv6 data plane, segments are identified
   through IPv6 addresses.  The allocation, management, and
   troubleshooting of segment identifiers is no different than the
   existing mechanisms applied to the allocation and management of IPv6
   addresses.

   The DA of the packet gives the active segment address.  The segment
   list in the SRH gives the entire path of the packet.  The validation
   of the source-routed path is done through inspection of DA and SRH
   present in the packet header matched to the equivalent routing table
   entries.

   In the context of the SRv6 data plane, the source-routed path is
   encoded in the SRH as described in [IPv6-SRH].  The SRv6 source-
   routed path is instantiated into the SRH as a list of IPv6 addresses
   where the active segment is in the DA field of the IPv6 packet
   header.  Typically, by inspecting, in any node, the packet header, it
   is possible to derive the source-routed path to which it belongs.
   Similar to the context of the SR-MPLS data plane, an implementation
   may originate path control and monitoring packets where the source-
   routed path is inserted in the SRH and where each segment of the path
   inserts in the packet the relevant data in order to measure the end-
   to-end path and performance.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 27

10.2. Informative References

[BGPLS-SR-EPE] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- segment-routing-epe-15, March 2018. [IPv6-SRH] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, Ed., "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing- header-14, June 2018. [ISIS-SR-EXT] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-19, July 2018. [OSPF-SR-EXT] Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-25, April 2018. [OSPFv3-SR-EXT] Psenak, P., Ed., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ed., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-13, May 2018. [PCEP-SR-EXT] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-12, June 2018. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 28
   [RFC4206]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
              Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.

   [RFC4381]  Behringer, M., "Analysis of the Security of BGP/MPLS IP
              Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4381,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4381, February 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4381>.

   [RFC4915]  Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
              Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
              RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.

   [RFC5095]  Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
              of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.

   [RFC5120]  Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
              Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
              Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

   [RFC5714]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
              RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 29
   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC6549]  Lindem, A., Roy, A., and S. Mirtorabi, "OSPFv2 Multi-
              Instance Extensions", RFC 6549, DOI 10.17487/RFC6549,
              March 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6549>.

   [RFC7938]  Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
              BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.

   [RFC8084]  Fairhurst, G., "Network Transport Circuit Breakers",
              BCP 208, RFC 8084, DOI 10.17487/RFC8084, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8084>.

   [RFC8202]  Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and W. Henderickx, "IS-IS
              Multi-Instance", RFC 8202, DOI 10.17487/RFC8202, June
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8202>.

   [RFC8287]  Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
              N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
              Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
              IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
              Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.

   [RFC8355]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Decraene, B., and R.
              Shakir, "Resiliency Use Cases in Source Packet Routing in
              Networking (SPRING) Networks", RFC 8355,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8355, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8355>.

   [RFC8403]  Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N.
              Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane
              Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July
              2018, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>.

   [SR-CENTRAL-EPE]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D.
              Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer
              Engineering", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
              routing-central-epe-10, December 2017.
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 30
   [SR-MPLS]  Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing with MPLS data plane", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14, June 2018.

   [SR-YANG]  Litkowski, S., Qu, Y., Sarkar, P., and J. Tantsura, "YANG
              Data Model for Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-09, June 2018.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dave Ward, Peter Psenak, Dan Frost, Stewart Bryant, Pierre Francois, Thomas Telkamp, Ruediger Geib, Hannes Gredler, Pushpasis Sarkar, Eric Rosen, Chris Bowers, and Alvaro Retana for their comments and review of this document.
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 31

Contributors

The following people have substantially contributed to the definition of the Segment Routing architecture and to the editing of this document: Ahmed Bashandy Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: bashandy@cisco.com Martin Horneffer Deutsche Telekom Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de Wim Henderickx Nokia Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com Jeff Tantsura Email: jefftant@gmail.com Edward Crabbe Email: edward.crabbe@gmail.com Igor Milojevic Email: milojevicigor@gmail.com Saku Ytti TDC Email: saku@ytti.fi
Top   ToC   RFC8402 - Page 32

Authors' Addresses

Clarence Filsfils (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. Brussels Belgium Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Stefano Previdi (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. Italy Email: stefano@previdi.net Les Ginsberg Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Bruno Decraene Orange FR Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com Stephane Litkowski Orange France Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Rob Shakir Google, Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 United States of America Email: robjs@google.com