Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection
draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection
Network Working Group H. Chen
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Experimental Z. Hu
Expires: 12 August 2023 Huawei Technologies
H. Chen
Futurewei
X. Geng
Huawei Technologies
Y. Liu
China Mobile
G. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
8 February 2023
SRv6 Midpoint Protection
draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-11
Abstract
The current local repair mechanism, e.g., TI-LFA, allows local repair
actions on the direct neighbors of the failed node or link to
temporarily route traffic to the destination. This mechanism does
not work properly for SRv6 TE path after the failure happens in the
destination point and IGP converges on the failure. This document
defines midpoint protection for SRv6 TE path, which enables other
nodes on the network to perform endpoint behaviors for the faulty
node, update the IPv6 destination address to the next endpoint after
the faulty node, and choose the next hop based on the new destination
address.
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] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
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/.
Chen, et al. Expires 12 August 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Midpoint Protection February 2023
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 12 August 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Endpoint Node as Repair Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Endpoint x Node as Repair Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Determining whether the Endpoint could Be Bypassed . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
The current local repair mechanism, e.g., Topology-Independent Loop-
Free Alternate (TI-LFA) ([I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]),
allows local repair actions on the direct neighbors of the failed
node or link to temporarily route traffic to the destination. This
mechanism does not work properly after the failure happens in the
destination point and IGP converges on the failure.
Chen, et al. Expires 12 August 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Midpoint Protection February 2023
In SRv6 TE, the IPv6 destination address (DA) in the outer IPv6
header could be the segment endpoint of the TE path rather than the
destination of the TE path ([RFC8986]). After the endpoint fails and
IGP converges, the packet with the failed endpoint as DA will be
dropped since there is no route to this endpoint. The direct
neighbors of the failed endpoint will not receive the packet.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths] and
[I-D.hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding] propose midpoint
protection for SR-MPLS TE path after IGP converges on the failure of
a node along the path.
This document defines midpoint protection for SRv6 TE path after IGP
converges on the failure of an endpoint on the path, which enables
other nodes on the network to perform endpoint behaviors for the
faulty node, update the IPv6 destination address to the next endpoint
after the faulty node along the path, and choose the next hop based
on the new destination address.
2. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Mechanism
When an endpoint node fails, the packet needs to bypass the failed
endpoint node and be forwarded to the next endpoint node of the
failed endpoint. Only endpoint node can process SRH, Therefore, only
endpoint nodes can perform midpoint protection. There are two stages
or time periods after an endpoint node fails. The first is the time
period from the failure until the IGP converges on the failure. The
second is the time period after the IGP converges on the failure.
During the first time period, the packet will be sent to the direct
neighbor of the failed endpoint node. After detecting the failure of
its interface to the failed endpoint node, the neighbor forwards the
packets around the failed endpoint node. It changes the IPv6
destination address with the IPv6 address of the next endpoint node
(or the last or other reasonable endpoint node) which could avoid
going through the failed endpoint.
During the second time period. There is no route to the failed
endpoint node after the IGP converges. When a previous hop node of
the failed endpoint node finds out that there is no route to the IPv6
destination address (of the failed endpoint node), it changes the
IPv6 destination address with the IPv6 address of the next endpoint
node. Note that the previous hop node may not be the direct neighbor
of the failed endpoint node.
3. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Example
The topology in Figure 1 illustrates an example of network topology
with SRv6 enabled on each node.
Chen, et al. Expires 12 August 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Midpoint Protection February 2023
+-----+ +-----+
| N5 |-----------| N6 |--------------+
+-----+ +-----+ |
| | |
| | |
| | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| N1 |-----------| N2 |-----------| N3 |-----------| N4 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
Figure 1: An example of network for midpoint protection
In this document, an end SID at node n with locator block B is
represented as B:n. An end.x SID at node n towards node k with
locator block B is represented as B:n:k. A SID list is represented
as <S1, S2, S3> where S1 is the first SID to visit, S2 is the second
SID to visit and S3 is the last SID to visit along the SRv6 TE path.
In the reference topology, suppose that Node N1 is an ingress node of
SRv6 TE path going through N3 and N4. Node N1 steers a packet into a
segment list < B:2, B:3, B:4>.
When node N3 fails, the packet needs to bypass the failed endpoint
node and be forwarded to the next endpoint node after the failed
endpoint in the TE path. When outbound interface failure happens in
the Repair Node (which is not limited to the previous hop node of the
failed endpoint node), it performs the proxy forwarding as follows:
During the first time period (i.e., before the IGP converges), node
N2 (direct neighbor of N3) as a Repair Node forwards the packets
around the failed endpoint N3 after detecting the failure of the
outbound interface to the endpoint B:3. It changes the IPv6
destination address with the next sid B:4. N2 detects the failure of
outbound interface to B:4 in the current route, it could use the
normal Ti-LFA repair path to forward the packet, because it is not
directly connected to the node N4. N2 encapsulates the packet with
the segment list < B:5, B:6> as a repair path.
During the second time period (i.e., after the IGP converges), node
N2 does not have any route to the failed endpoint N3 in its FIB.
Node N2, as a Repair Node, forwards the packets around the failed
endpoint N3 to the next endpoint node (e.g., N4) directly. There is
no need to check whether the failed endpoint node is directly
connected to N2. N2 changes the IPv6 destination address with the
next sid B:4. Since IGP has completed convergence, it forwards
packets directly based on the IGP SPF path.
Chen, et al. Expires 12 August 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Midpoint Protection February 2023
4. SRv6 Midpoint Protection Behavior
A node N protecting the failure of an endpoint node on a SRv6 path
may be one of the following types:
* a transit node: The transit node cannot process SRH. Therefore,
only Ti-LFA can be executed on the transit node, but not midpoint
protection.
* an endpoint node: the destination address (DA) of the packet
received by N is a N's local END SID.
* an endpoint x node (i.e., an endpoint with cross-connect node):
the destination address (DA) of the packet received by N is a N's
local End.X SID with an array of layer 3 adjacencies.
This section describes the behavior of each of these nodes as a
repair node for the two time periods after the endpoint node fails.
4.1. Endpoint Node as Repair Node
When the Repair Node is an endpoint node, it provides fast
protections for the failure through executing the following procedure
after looking up the FIB for the updated DA.
IF the primary outbound interface used to forward the packet failed
IF NH = SRH && SL != 0 and
the failed endpoint is directly connected to Repair Node THEN
SL decreases; update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL];
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
forward the packet according to the matched entry;
ELSE
forward the packet according to the backup nexthop;
ELSE IF there is no FIB entry for forwarding the packet THEN
IF NH = SRH && SL != 0 THEN
SL decreases; update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL];
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
forward the packet according to the matched entry;
ELSE
drop the packet;
ELSE
forward accordingly to the matched entry;
Chen, et al. Expires 12 August 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Midpoint Protection February 2023
4.2. Endpoint x Node as Repair Node
When the Repair Node is an endpoint x node, it provides fast
protections for the failure through executing the following procedure
after updating DA.
IF the layer-3 adjacency interface is down THEN
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
IF the primary interface used to forward the packet failed THEN
IF NH = SRH && SL != 0 and
the failed endpoint directly connected to Repair Node THEN
SL decreases; update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL];
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
forward the packet according to the matched entry;
ELSE
forward the packet according to the backup nexthop;
ELSE IF there is no FIB entry for forwarding the packet THEN
IF NH = SRH && SL != 0 THEN
SL decreases; update the IPv6 DA with SRH[SL];
FIB lookup on the updated DA;
forward the packet according to the matched entry;
ELSE
drop the packet;
ELSE
forward accordingly to the matched entry;
5. Determining whether the Endpoint could Be Bypassed
SRv6 Midpoint Protection provides a mechanism to bypass a failed
endpoint. But in some scenarios, some important functions may be
implemented in the bypassed failed endpoints that should not be
bypassed, such as firewall functionality or In-situ Flow Information
Telemetry of a specified path. Therefore, a mechanism is needed to
indicate whether an endpoint can be bypassed or not.
[I-D.li-rtgwg-enhanced-ti-lfa] provides method to determine whether
enable SRv6 midpoint protection or not by defining a "no bypass" flag
for the SIDs in IGP.
6. Security Considerations
This section reviews security considerations related to SRv6 Midpoint
protection processing discussed in this document. To ensure that the
Repair node does not modify the SRH header Encapsulated by nodes
outside the SRv6 Domain. Only the segment within the SRH is same
domain as the repair node. So it is necessary to check the skipped
segment have same block as repair node.
Chen, et al. Expires 12 August 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Midpoint Protection February 2023
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]
Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over
IPv6 Dataplane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-19, 14 November 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-
extensions-19.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]
Li, Z., Hu, Z., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak, "OSPFv3
Extensions for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-09, 14 January 2023,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-
ospfv3-srv6-extensions-09.txt>.
[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>.
[RFC7356] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding
Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7356, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7356>.
[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>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
8.2. Informative References
Chen, et al. Expires 12 August 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Midpoint Protection February 2023
[I-D.hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding]
Hu, Z., Chen, H., Yao, J., Bowers, C., Zhu, Y., and Y.
Liu, "SR-TE Path Midpoint Restoration", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-
forwarding-22, 4 January 2023,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hu-spring-segment-
routing-proxy-forwarding-22.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-
09, 23 December 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-09.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths]
Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski, S., Xu, X., and F. Xu,
"Segment Protection for SR-TE Paths", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-
te-paths-03, 7 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
segment-protection-sr-te-paths-03.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
routing-policy-22, 22 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
segment-routing-policy-22.txt>.
[I-D.li-rtgwg-enhanced-ti-lfa]
Li, C., Hu, Z., Zhu, Y., and S. Hegde, "Enhanced Topology
Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast Re-route", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-li-rtgwg-enhanced-ti-lfa-
07, 23 October 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
draft-li-rtgwg-enhanced-ti-lfa-07.txt>.
[I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Hardwick, J.,
Previdi, S., and C. Li, "Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID
in PCE-based Networks.", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07, 8 July 2019,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-sivabalan-pce-
binding-label-sid-07.txt>.
Chen, et al. Expires 12 August 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Midpoint Protection February 2023
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Bruno Decraene, Jeff Tantsura, Ketan
Talaulikar and Parag Kaneriya for their comments to this work.
Authors' Addresses
Huanan Chen
China Telecom
109, West Zhongshan Road, Tianhe District
Guangzhou
510000
China
Email: chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn
Zhibo Hu
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: huzhibo@huawei.com
Huaimo Chen
Futurewei
Boston, MA,
United States of America
Email: Huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
Xuesong Geng
Huawei Technologies
Email: gengxuesong@huawei.com
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Chen, et al. Expires 12 August 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Midpoint Protection February 2023
Gyan S. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904
United States of America
Phone: 301 502-1347
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Chen, et al. Expires 12 August 2023 [Page 10]
