Internet DRAFT - draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2

draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2



  
IDR Working Group                                                           Louis Chan 
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                          
Intended status: Experimental                                         Juniper Networks 
Expires: Mar 31, 2021                                                      Sep 1, 2020 
                                    
    
                                        
                        Color Operation with BGP Label Unicast 
                           draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-02.txt 


   Abstract 

      This document specifies how to carry colored path advertisement via an enhancement 
      to the existing protocol BGP Label Unicast. It would allow backward compatibility 
      with RFC8277. 

      The targeted solution is to use stack of labels advertised via BGP Label Unicast 
      2.0 for end to end traffic steering across multiple IGP domains. The operation is 
      similar to Segment Routing.  

      This proposed protocol will convey the necessary reachability information to the 
      ingress PE node to construct an end to end path. 

      There is a major change of protocol format starting from this updated draft. 

   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 
      http://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 Oct 15, 2020. 

   Copyright Notice 

      Copyright (c) 2017 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 (http://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 
    
    
   Chan                     Expires Mar 31, 2021                    [Page 1] 


                                             





   Internet-Draft          draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-02.txt                      Sep 2020 
    
      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. 

    

   Table of Contents 

       
      1. Introduction ...............................................................2 
      2. Conventions used in this document ..........................................3 
      3. Carrying Label Mapping Information with Color and Label Stack ..............4 
         3.1. Use of Add-path to advertise multiple color paths .....................4 
         3.2. Color extended community for BGP Labeled Unicast ......................4 
         3.3. Color extended community for service prefixes .........................5 
         3.4. Color Slicing Capability ..............................................6 
      4. Uniqueness of path entries .................................................7 
      5. AIGP consideration .........................................................7 
      6. Explicit Withdraw of a <path-id, color(s), prefix> .........................7 
      7. Error Handling Procedure ...................................................8 
      8. Controller Compatibility ...................................................8 
      9. Security Considerations ....................................................8 
      10. IANA Considerations .......................................................8 
      11. References ................................................................8 
         11.1. Normative References .................................................8 
         11.2. Informative References ...............................................8 
      12. Acknowledgments ...........................................................9 
       
   1. Introduction 

      The proposed protocol is aimed to solve interdomain traffic steering, with 
      different transport services in mind. One application is low latency service across 
      multiple IGP domains, which could scale up to 100k or more routers network. 

      BGP is a flexible protocol. With additional of color attribute to BGP Label 
      Unicast, a path with specific color would be given a meaning in application - a low 
      latency path, a fully protected path, or a path for diversity.  

      The stack of labels would mean an end to end path across domains through each ABR 
      or ASBR. Each ABR or ASBR will take one label from the stack, and hence pick the 
      forwarding path to next ABR, ASBR, or the final destination. 

      And the label in the stack may be derived from any of the below 

      - Prefix SID 
      - Binding SID for RSVP LSP  
      - Binding SID for SR-TE LSP 
      - Local assigned label 

      The enhancement to the original RFC8277 is to add color extended community, with 
      multiple advertisement allowed. The result is similar to multi-topology BGP-LU with 
      different colors.  


   Chan                     Expires Mar 31, 2021                    [Page 2] 
       



                                             





   Internet-Draft          draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-02.txt                      Sep 2020 
    
      With Add-path [RFC7911] feature, non color RIB and colored RIB could be advertised 
      to the BGP neighbors without new additional attributes. Add-path capability is 
      required advertise multiple paths with same prefix but different colors. 

      A new [BGP-CAP] should be required to enforce such slicing operation during 
      negotiation.  

      On the other hand, to enable the service prefixes to be mapped accordingly, the 
      L3VPN, L2VPN, EVPN and IP prefix with BGP signaling, the color extended community 
      is also added there. In the PE node, the service prefixes with color will be 
      matched to a transport tunnel with the same color. 

      The following is an example. Between PE1 and PE2, there is a VPN service running 
      with label 16, which is associated with color 100. 

      PE1----ABR1-----ABR2-----PE2 

      PE1 will send the following labels with a color 100 path plus VPN label 

      [2001 13001 801 16], where 

      2001 - SR label to reach ABR1 

      13001 - a Binding-SID label for ABR1-ABR2 tunnel. Underlying tunnel type is RSVP-TE 

      801 - a Binding-SID label for ABR2-PE2 tunnel. Underlying tunnel type is SR-TE 

      16 - a VPN label, which is signaled via other means 

      [2001 13001 801] - denotes the label stack for this color 100 path to reach PE2 

      The document here is going to describe how PE1 gains enough information to build 
      this label stack across routing domains. 

      If PE1 wants to reach PE2 with another colored path, say color 200, the label stack 
      could be different.  

      At the same time, this architecture is also controller friendly, since all the 
      notation is Segment Routing compatible, like use of Binding-SID. 

       

   2. Conventions used in this document 

      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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].  

      In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation only when in ALL 
      CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be interpreted as carrying 
      significance described in RFC 2119. 

       

   Chan                     Expires Mar 31, 2021                    [Page 3] 
       



                                             





   Internet-Draft          draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-02.txt                      Sep 2020 
    
       

       

       

   3. Carrying Label Mapping Information with Color and Label Stack 

    

   3.1. Use of Add-path to advertise multiple color paths 

      The use of Path Identifier is to allow multiple advertisement of the same prefix 
      but with different colors or null color. 
      The extended NLRI format would be like this 
       
                        +--------------------------------+ 
                        | Path Identifier (4 octets)     | 
                        +--------------------------------+ 
                        | Length (1 octet)               | 
                        +--------------------------------+ 
                        | Label (3 octets)               ~ 
                        +--------------------------------+ 
                        ~ Label (3 octets)               | 
                        +--------------------------------+ 
                        | Prefix (variable)              | 
                        +--------------------------------+ 
       

   3.2. Color extended community for BGP Labeled Unicast 

      The addition of Color Extended Community is an opaque extended community from 
      RFC4360 and RFC5512. The draft allows multiple color values advertisement.  

                   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 
                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
                  |       0x03    |     0x0b      |C|O|        Reserved     |X|X|X| 
                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
                  |                          Color Value                          ~ 
                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
                  ~       0x03    |     0x0b      |C|O|        Reserved     |X|X|X| 
                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
                  |                          Color Value                          | 
                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
         
                            Figure 1: Color value advertisement format 
      Both in BGP update and MP_UNREACH_NLRI message, multiple color extended communities 
      could be included. It means that multiple colors, indicating different kind of 
      services, could share the same label stack. With the use of Path-ID, the multiple 
      colors are considered as one bundled update. Any subsequent update is based on 
      Path-ID.  
       
   Chan                     Expires Mar 31, 2021                    [Page 4] 
       



                                             





   Internet-Draft          draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-02.txt                      Sep 2020 
    
      If color extended community is not present in a BGP update message, it would be 
      treated as normal BGP-LU without any color. 

      3 bits of XXX is reserved here for the draft.  

      The meaning for XXX is interpreted as sub-slice of color, with 0 to 7 in decimal, 
      or 000b and 111b in binary. These sub-slice could be used in either of the 
      following case. 

      a) Primary path and fallback paths in order of preference 
        0 - primary path 
        1 - first and most preferred backup path  
        ... 
        7 - least preferred backup path 
         
      b) ECMP paths up to 8, since all paths should be active in forwarding plane. 

      Color value 0 is reserved for future interoperability purpose.  

      Color value 1 - 31 are not recommended to use, and this range is reserved for 
      future use. 

       

   3.3. Color extended community for service prefixes 

      The same format of color extended community is advertised with service prefixes, 
      which could be VPN prefixes or IP prefixes. The order of the color extended 
      community could be interpreted as  

      - Order of primary and fallback colors 
      - Or, ECMP of equal split between color paths 

      The above would be interpreted by the receiving PE upon its local configuration.  

      It is optional to enable sub-slice notation.  

      But if sub-slice bits are used, it will be used to map directly to each of the sub-
      slice path. If sub-slice path is not available for mapping, it should just fallback 
      to resolving by color. 

       

       

       

       

       

       


   Chan                     Expires Mar 31, 2021                    [Page 5] 
       



                                             





   Internet-Draft          draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-02.txt                      Sep 2020 
    
   3.4. Color Slicing Capability 
       
       The Color Slicing Capability is a BGP capability [RFC5492], with Capability Code 
      xx.  The Capability Length field of this capability is variable.  The Capability 
      Value field consists of one or more of the following tuples: 
       
                      +------------------------------------------------+ 
                      | Address Family Identifier (2 octets)           | 
                      +------------------------------------------------+ 
                      | Subsequent Address Family Identifier (1 octet) | 
                      +------------------------------------------------+ 
                      | version (1 octet)                              | 
                      +------------------------------------------------+ 
                      | Reserved (3 octet)                             | 
                      +------------------------------------------------+ 
       
         The meaning and use of the fields are as follows: 
       
            Address Family Identifier (AFI): 
       
               This field is the same as the one used in [RFC4760]. 
       
            Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI): 
       
               This field is the same as the one used in [RFC4760]. 
       
          Version: 
         
            This field is for capability negotiation. 
       
                   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  
                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
                  |v v v v|     |s| 
                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

             Each of 4 bits of v represents a flag of version from 0 to 4, where LSB 
      denotes support of version 1, and MSB denotes version 4. Version 0 is the default 
      mode of operation, which is described in this document. To determine the common 
      capability between the two BGP PEER, logical AND function to use determine the 
      highest denominator of protocol version. 
       
      For example, if BGP receive 0b0110 from its peer and perform AND function with its 
      own capability 0b0010, the result is 0b0010. Version 2 is selected.  
       
      The other examples are 
      - 0b0110 AND 0b0110, version 3 is selected 
      - 0b0100 AND 0b0010, version 0 is selected 
    
       
      Version 1 (0b0001) is reserved. 
       
        S-flag is the indication of use of sub-slice. Set to 1 if sub-slice notation is 
      enforced. If either side is set to 0 for S-flag, sub-slice is not in use. 
           

   Chan                     Expires Mar 31, 2021                    [Page 6] 
    
                                             





   Internet-Draft          draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-02.txt                      Sep 2020 
    
            Reserved: 
       
               This field is reserved for future use. 
    

   4. Uniqueness of path entries 

      a) Use of color can be considered to slice into multiple BGP Label Unicast RIB. 
      Therefore, it should be treated as unique entries for the <path-id, color(s), 
      prefix>.  

      e.g. <path-id, color(s), prefix>, [labels] 

      <123, 100, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1000 2000] 

      <124, 200, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1000 2000] 

      <222, {300,400}, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1000 2000] 

      <223, null, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1000 2000] 

      All these 4 NLRI are considered different but valid entries for different color 
      instances. 

      b) With sub-slice notation 
        <path-id, color-sub, prefix>, [labels] 
         
        <901, 100-0, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1000 2000] 
         
        <902, 100-1, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1001 3000] 
         
        <903, 100-7, 10.1.1.1/32>, [1002 4000] 
         
        These 3 NLRI are distinct, and the second and third NLRI could be used for 
        backup or ECMP purpose. 
         

   5. AIGP consideration 

      AIGP (RFC7311) would be also used in here to embed certain metric across. 

   6. Explicit Withdraw of a <path-id, color(s), prefix> 
      According to RFC8277, MP_UNREACH_NLRI can be used to remove binding of a <path-id, 
      color(s), prefix>. 
       
      If a path-id is associated with a prefix with multiple colors, the withdrawal would 
      be applied to all associated colors.  

      To withdraw color(s) partially from the same path-id advertisement, BGP update 
      should be used instead. 

       

   Chan                     Expires Mar 31, 2021                    [Page 7] 
       



                                             





   Internet-Draft          draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-02.txt                      Sep 2020 
    
   7. Error Handling Procedure 

      If BGP receiver could not handle the NLRI, it should silently discard with error 
      logging.  

       

   8. Controller Compatibility 

      The proposed architecture is compatible with controller for end to end 
      provisioning. Persistent label, like Binding-SID is recommended to be used. Hence, 
      controller could learn these labels from the network, and program specific end to 
      end path. 

      In this case, BGP-LU2 will provide a second best path to an ingress PE node, while 
      a controller, with more external information, could provide a best path from 
      overall perspective.  

      Controller could also be deployed based on domain by domain perspective. e.g. 
      Optimizing latency of a RSVP LSP, or maintain the bandwidth and loading between SR-
      TE LSPs. 

       

   9. Security Considerations 

   10. IANA Considerations 

      TBD. It will require a new BGP capability code to enable such color operation.  

      New SAFI might be required as well. 

   11. References 

   11.1. Normative References 

      [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", 
              BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 

   11.2. Informative References 

      [RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in BGP-4", RFC 
              3107, DOI 10.17487/RFC3107, May 2001,  

              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3107>. 

      [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended              
              Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006 

            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>. 

      [RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address 
              Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 
              5512, April 2009. 
   Chan                     Expires Mar 31, 2021                    [Page 8] 
       



                                             





   Internet-Draft          draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-02.txt                      Sep 2020 
    
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5512>. 

      [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, 

                <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>. 
      [RFC7311] Mohapatra, P., Fernando, R., Rosen, E., and J. Uttaro, 
                "The Accumulated IGP Metric Attribute for BGP", RFC 7311, 
                DOI 10.17487/RFC7311, August 2014, 
       
                <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7311>. 
       

      [RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, "Advertisement of 
              Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911, DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016, 

               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>. 

      [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes", RFC 8277, 
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,              

              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>. 

      [BGP-CAP] Chandra, R. and J. Scudder, "Capabilities Advertisement 

                with BGP-4", RFC 2842, May 2000. 

       

   12. Acknowledgments 

         
           The following people have contributed to this document: 
         
           Jeff Haas, Juniper Networks 
         
           Shraddha Hedge, Juniper Networks 
         
           Santosh Kolenchery, Juniper Networks 
         
           Shihari Sangli, Juniper Networks 
         
           Krzysztof Szarkowicz, Juniper Networks 
         
           Yimin Shen, Juniper Networks 
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
   Chan                     Expires Mar 31, 2021                    [Page 9] 
       



                                             





   Internet-Draft          draft-chan-idr-bgp-lu2-02.txt                      Sep 2020 
    
        Author Addresses 
         
        Louis Chan (editor) 
           Juniper Networks 
           2604, Cityplaza One, 1111 King's Road 
           Taikoo Shing 
           Hong Kong 
         
           Phone: +85225876659 
           Email: louisc@juniper.net 

       

       
       




































   Chan                     Expires Mar 31, 2021                   [Page 10]