[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

Network Working Group                                   A. Bashandy, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                Individual
Intended status: Standards Track                        C. Filsfils, Ed.
Expires: December 13, 2018                                    S. Previdi
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                             B. Decraene
                                                            S. Litkowski
                                                                  Orange
                                                           June 11, 2018


                 Segment Routing interworking with LDP
            draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13

Abstract

   A Segment Routing (SR) node steers a packet through a controlled set
   of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR
   header.  A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
   service-based.  SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological
   path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node to the
   SR domain.

   The Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to the MPLS
   data plane with no change in the forwarding plane.  This document
   describes how Segment Routing operates in a network where LDP is
   deployed and in the case where SR-capable and non-SR-capable nodes
   coexist.

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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




Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   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 December 13, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  SR/LDP Ships-in-the-night coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  MPLS2MPLS, MPLS2IP and IP2MPLS co-existence . . . . . . .   5
   3.  SR and LDP Interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  LDP to SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.1.1.  LDP to SR Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  SR to LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.1.  Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.2.  SR to LDP Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.3.  Interoperability of Multiple SRMSes and Prefix-SID
               advertisements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  SR/LDP Interworking Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  SR Protection of LDP-based Traffic  . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  Eliminating Targeted LDP Session  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.3.  Guaranteed FRR coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.4.  Inter-AS Option C, Carrier's Carrier  . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.1.  SR and LDP co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.2.  Dataplane Verification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20



Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   Appendix A.  Migration from LDP to SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22

1.  Introduction

   Segment Routing, as described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing],
   can be used on top of the MPLS data plane without any modification as
   described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls].

   Segment Routing control plane can co-exist with current label
   distribution protocols such as LDP ([RFC5036]).

   This document outlines the mechanisms through which SR interworks
   with LDP in cases where a mix of SR-capable and non-SR-capable
   routers co-exist within the same network and more precisely in the
   same routing domain.

   Section 2 describes the co-existence of SR with other MPLS Control
   Plane.  Section 3 documents the interworking between SR and LDP in
   the case of non-homogeneous deployment.  Section 4 describes how a
   partial SR deployment can be used to provide SR benefits to LDP-based
   traffic including a possible application of SR in the context of
   inter-domain MPLS use-cases.  Appendix A documents a method to
   migrate from LDP to SR-based MPLS tunneling.

   Typically, an implementation will allow an operator to select
   (through configuration) which of the described modes of SR and LDP
   co-existence to use.

2.  SR/LDP Ships-in-the-night coexistence

   "MPLS Control Plane Client (MCC)" refers to any control plane
   protocol installing forwarding entries in the MPLS data plane.  SR,
   LDP [RFC5036], RSVP-TE [RFC3209], BGP [RFC8277], etc are examples of
   MCCs.

   An MCC, operating at node N, must ensure that the incoming label it
   installs in the MPLS data plane of Node N has been uniquely allocated
   to himself.

   Segment Routing makes use of the Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB,
   as defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]) for the label
   allocation.  The use of the SRGB allows SR to co-exist with any other
   MCC.

   This is clearly the case for the adjacency segment: it is a local
   label allocated by the label manager, as for any MCC.




Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   This is clearly the case for the prefix segment: the label manager
   allocates the SRGB set of labels to the SR MCC client and the
   operator ensures the unique allocation of each global prefix segment/
   label within the allocated SRGB set.

   Note that this static label allocation capability of the label
   manager exists for many years across several vendors and hence is not
   new.  Furthermore, note that the label-manager ability to statically
   allocate a range of labels to a specific application is not new
   either.  This is required for MPLS-TP operation.  In this case, the
   range is reserved by the label manager and it is the MPLS-TP
   ([RFC5960]) NMS (acting as an MCC) that ensures the unique allocation
   of any label within the allocated range and the creation of the
   related MPLS forwarding entry.

   Let us illustrate an example of ship-in-the-night (SIN) coexistence.


                              PE2          PE4
                                \          /
                          PE1----A----B---C---PE3

                         Figure 1: SIN coexistence

   The EVEN VPN service is supported by PE2 and PE4 while the ODD VPN
   service is supported by PE1 and PE3.  The operator wants to tunnel
   the ODD service via LDP and the EVEN service via SR.

   This can be achieved in the following manner:

      The operator configures PE1, PE2, PE3, PE4 with respective
      loopbacks 192.0.2.201/32, 192.0.2.202/32, 192.0.2.203/32,
      192.0.2.204/32.  These PE's advertised their VPN routes with next-
      hop set on their respective loopback address.

      The operator configures A, B, C with respective loopbacks
      192.0.2.1/32, 192.0.2.2/32, 192.0.2.3/32.

      The operator configures PE2, A, B, C and PE4 with SRGB [100, 300].

      The operator attaches the respective Node Segment Identifiers
      (Node-SID's, as defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]):
      202, 101, 102, 103 and 204 to the loopbacks of nodes PE2, A, B, C
      and PE4.  The Node-SID's are configured to request penultimate-
      hop-popping.

      PE1, A, B, C and PE3 are LDP capable.




Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


      PE1 and PE3 are not SR capable.

   PE3 sends an ODD VPN route to PE1 with next-hop 192.0.2.203 and VPN
   label 10001.

   From an LDP viewpoint: PE1 received an LDP label binding (1037) for
   FEC 192.0.2.203/32 from its next-hop A.  A received an LDP label
   binding (2048) for that FEC from its next-hop B.  B received an LDP
   label binding (3059) for that FEC from its next-hop C.  C received
   implicit-null LDP binding from its next-hop PE3.

   As a result, PE1 sends its traffic to the ODD service route
   advertised by PE3 to next-hop A with two labels: the top label is
   1037 and the bottom label is 10001.  Node A swaps 1037 with 2048 and
   forwards to B.  B swaps 2048 with 3059 and forwards to C.  C pops
   3059 and forwards to PE3.

   PE4 sends an EVEN VPN route to PE2 with next-hop 192.0.2.204 and VPN
   label 10002.

   From an SR viewpoint: PE2 maps the IGP route 192.0.2.204/32 onto
   Node-SID 204; node A swaps 204 with 204 and forwards to B; B swaps
   204 with 204 and forwards to C; C pops 204 and forwards to PE4.

   As a result, PE2 sends its traffic to the VPN service route
   advertised by PE4 to next-hop A with two labels: the top label is 204
   and the bottom label is 10002.  Node A swaps 204 with 204 and
   forwards to B.  B swaps 204 with 204 and forwards to C.  C pops 204
   and forwards to PE4.

   The two modes of MPLS tunneling co-exist.

      The ODD service is tunneled from PE1 to PE3 through a continuous
      LDP LSP traversing A, B and C.

      The EVEN service is tunneled from PE2 to PE4 through a continuous
      SR node segment traversing A, B and C.

2.1.  MPLS2MPLS, MPLS2IP and IP2MPLS co-existence

   MPLS2MPLS refers the forwarding behavior where a router receives an
   labeled packet and switches it out as a labeled packet.  Several
   MPLS2MPLS entries may be installed in the data plane for the same
   prefix.

   Let us examine A's MPLS forwarding table as an example:

      Incoming label: 1037



Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


          - outgoing label: 2048
          - outgoing next-hop: B
          Note: this entry is programmed by LDP for 192.0.2.203/32

      Incoming label: 203

          - outgoing label: 203
          - outgoing next-hop: B
          Note: this entry is programmed by SR for 192.0.2.203/32

   These two entries can co-exist because their incoming label is
   unique.  The uniqueness is guaranteed by the label manager allocation
   rules.

   The same applies for the MPLS2IP forwarding entries.  MPLS2IP is the
   forwarding behavior where a router receives a label IPv4/IPv6 packet
   with one label only, pops the label, and switches the packet out as
   IPv4/IPv6.  For IP2MPLS coexistence, refer to Section 6.1.

3.  SR and LDP Interworking

   This section analyzes the case where SR is available in one part of
   the network and LDP is available in another part.  It describes how a
   continuous MPLS tunnel can be built throughout the network.

                             PE2            PE4
                               \            /
                        PE1----P5--P6--P7--P8---PE3

                     Figure 2: SR and LDP Interworking

   Let us analyze the following example:

      P6, P7, P8, PE4 and PE3 are LDP capable.

      PE1, PE2, P5 and P6 are SR capable.  PE1, PE2, P5 and P6 are
      configured with SRGB (100, 200) and respectively with node
      segments 101, 102, 105 and 106.

      A service flow must be tunneled from PE1 to PE3 over a continuous
      MPLS tunnel encapsulation and hence SR and LDP need to interwork.

3.1.  LDP to SR

   In this section, a right-to-left traffic flow is analyzed.






Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   PE3 has learned a service route whose next-hop is PE1.  PE3 has an
   LDP label binding from the next-hop P8 for the FEC "PE1".  Hence PE3
   sends its service packet to P8 as per classic LDP behavior.

   P8 has an LDP label binding from its next-hop P7 for the FEC "PE1"
   and hence P8 forwards to P7 as per classic LDP behavior.

   P7 has an LDP label binding from its next-hop P6 for the FEC "PE1"
   and hence P7 forwards to P6 as per classic LDP behavior.

   P6 does not have an LDP binding from its next-hop P5 for the FEC
   "PE1".  However P6 has an SR node segment to the IGP route "PE1".
   Hence, P6 forwards the packet to P5 and swaps its local LDP-label for
   FEC "PE1" by the equivalent node segment (i.e. 101).

   P5 pops 101 (assuming PE1 advertised its node segment 101 with the
   penultimate-pop flag set) and forwards to PE1.

   PE1 receives the tunneled packet and processes the service label.

   The end-to-end MPLS tunnel is built from an LDP LSP from PE3 to P6
   and the related node segment from P6 to PE1.

3.1.1.  LDP to SR Behavior

   It has to be noted that no additional signaling or state is required
   in order to provide interworking in the direction LDP to SR.

   A SR node having LDP neighbors MUST create LDP bindings for each
   Prefix-SID learned in the SR domain by treating SR learned labels as
   if they were learned through an LDP neighbot.  In addition for each
   FEC, the SR node stitches the incoming LDP label to the outgoing SR
   label.  This has to be done in both LDP independent and ordered label
   distribution control modes as defined in [RFC5036].

3.2.  SR to LDP

   In this section, the left-to-right traffic flow is analyzed.

   This section defines the Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS).  The
   SRMS is a IGP node advertising mapping between Segment Identifiers
   (SID) and prefixes advertised by other IGP nodes.  The SRMS uses a
   dedicated IGP extension (IS-IS, OSPF and OSPFv3) which is protocol
   specific and defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], and
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].





Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   The SRMS function of a SR capable router allows distribution of
   mappings for prefixes not locally attached to the advertising router
   and therefore allows advertisement of mappings on behalf of non-SR
   capable routers.

   The SRMS is a control plane only function which may be located
   anywhere in the IGP flooding scope.  At least one SRMS server MUST
   exist in a routing domain to advertise prefix-SIDs on behalf non-SR
   nodes, thereby allowing non-LDP routers to send and receive labeled
   traffic from LDP-only routers.  Multiple SRMSs may be present in the
   same network (for redundancy).  This implies that there are multiple
   ways a prefix-to-SID mapping can be advertised.  Conflicts resulting
   from inconsistent advertisements are addressed by
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls].

   The example diagram depicted in Figure 3 assumes that the operator
   configures P5 to act as a Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) and
   advertises the following mappings: (P7, 107), (P8, 108), (PE3, 103)
   and (PE4, 104).

   The mappings advertised by one or more SRMSs result from local policy
   information configured by the operator.

   If PE3 had been SR capable, the operator would have configured PE3
   with node segment 103.  Instead, as PE3 is not SR capable, the
   operator configures that policy at the SRMS and it is the latter
   which advertises the mapping.

   The mapping server advertisements are only understood by SR capable
   routers.  The SR capable routers install the related node segments in
   the MPLS data plane exactly like the node segments had been
   advertised by the nodes themselves.

   For example, PE1 installs the node segment 103 with next-hop P5
   exactly as if PE3 had advertised node segment 103.

   PE1 has a service route whose next-hop is PE3.  PE1 has a node
   segment for that IGP route: 103 with next-hop P5.  Hence PE1 sends
   its service packet to P5 with two labels: the bottom label is the
   service label and the top label is 103.

   P5 swaps 103 for 103 and forwards to P6.

   P6's next-hop for the IGP route "PE3" is not SR capable (P7 does not
   advertise the SR capability).  However, P6 has an LDP label binding
   from that next-hop for the same FEC (e.g.  LDP label 1037).  Hence,
   P6 swaps 103 for 1037 and forwards to P7.




Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   P7 swaps this label with the LDP-label received from P8 and forwards
   to P8.

   P8 pops the LDP label and forwards to PE3.

   PE3 receives the tunneled packet and processes the service label.

   The end-to-end MPLS tunnel is built from an SR node segment from PE1
   to P6 and an LDP LSP from P6 to PE3.

   SR mapping advertisement for a given prefix provides no information
   about the Penultimate Hop Popping.  Other mechanisms, such as IGP
   specific mechanisms ([I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]), MAY be used to
   determine the Penultimate Hop Popping in such case.

   Note: In the previous example, Penultimate Hop Popping is not
   performed at the SR/LDP border for segment 103 (PE3), because none of
   the routers in the SR domain is Penultimate Hop for segment 103.  In
   this case P6 requires the presence of the segment 103 such as to map
   it to the LDP label 1037.

3.2.1.  Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS)

   This section specifies the concept and externally visible
   functionality of a segment routing mapping server (SRMS).

   The purpose of a SRMS functionality is to support the advertisement
   of prefix-SIDs to a prefix without the need to explicitly advertise
   such assignment within a prefix reachability advertisment.  Examples
   of explicit prefix-SID advertisment are the prefix-SID sub-TLVs
   defined in ([I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], and
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]).

   The SRMS functionality allows assigning of prefix-SIDs to prefixes
   owned by non-SR-capable routers as well as to prefixes owned by SR
   capable nodes.  It is the former capability which is essential to the
   SR-LDP interworking described later in this section

   The SRMS functionality consists of two functional blocks: the Mapping
   Server (MS) and Mapping Client (MC).

   A MS is a node that advertises an SR mappings.  Advertisements sent
   by an MS define the assignment of a prefix-SID to a prefix
   independent of the advertisment of reachability to the prefix itself.
   An MS MAY advertise SR mappings for any prefix whether or not it



Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   advertises reachability for the prefix and irrespective of whether
   that prefix is advertised by or even reachable through any router in
   the network.

   An MC is a node that receives and uses the MS mapping advertisments.
   Note that a node may be both an MS and an MC.  An MC interprets the
   SR mapping advertisment as an assignment of a prefix-SID to a prefix.
   For a given prefix, if an MC receives an SR mapping advertisement
   from a mapping server and also has received a prefix-SID
   advertisement for that same prefix in a prefix reachability
   advertisement, then the MC MUST prefer the SID advertised in the
   prefix reachability advertisement over the mapping server
   advertisement i.e., the mapping server advertisment MUST be ignored
   for that prefix.  Hence assigning a prefix-SID to a prefix using the
   SRMS functionality does not preclude assigning the same or different
   prefix-SID(s) to the same prefix using explict prefix-SID
   advertisement such as the aforementioned prefix-SID sub-TLV.

   For example consider an IPv4 prefix advertisement received by an IS-
   IS router in TLV 135.  Suppose TLV 135 contained the prefix-SID sub-
   TLV.  If the router that receives TLV 135 with the prefix-SID sub-TLV
   also received an SR mapping advertisement for the same prefix through
   the SID/label binding TLV, then the receiving router must prefer the
   prefix-SID sub-TLV over the SID/label binding TLV for that prefix.
   Refer to ([I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], for details
   about the prefix-SID sub-TLV and SID/label binding TLV.

3.2.2.  SR to LDP Behavior

   SR to LDP interworking requires a SRMS as defined above.

   Each SR capable router installs in the MPLS data plane Node-SIDs
   learned from the SRMS exactly like if these SIDs had been advertised
   by the nodes themselves.

   A SR node having LDP neighbors MUST stitch the incoming SR label
   (whose SID is advertised by the SRMS) to the outgoing LDP label.

   It has to be noted that the SR to LDP behavior does not propagate the
   status of the LDP FEC which was signaled if LDP was configured to use
   the ordered mode.

   It has to be noted that in the case of SR to LDP, the label binding
   is equivalent to the independent LDP Label Distribution Control Mode
   ([RFC5036]) where a label in bound to a FEC independently from the
   received binding for the same FEC.





Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


3.2.3.  Interoperability of Multiple SRMSes and Prefix-SID
        advertisements

   In the case of SR/LDP interoperability through the use of a SRMS,
   mappings are advertised by one or more SRMS.

   SRMS function is implemented in the link-state protocol (such as IS-
   IS and OSPF).  Link-state protocols allow propagation of updates
   across area boundaries and therefore SRMS advertisements are
   propagated through the usual inter-area advertisement procedures in
   link-state protocols.

   Multiple SRMSs can be provisioned in a network for redundancy.
   Moreover, a preference mechanism may also be used among SRMSs so to
   deploy a primary/secondary SRMS scheme allowing controlled
   modification or migration of SIDs.

   The content of SRMS advertisement (i.e.: mappings) are a matter of
   local policy determined by the operator.  When multiple SRMSs are
   active, it is necessary that the information (mappings) advertised by
   the different SRMSs is aligned and consistent.  The following
   mechanism is applied to determine the preference of SRMS
   advertisements:

   If a node acts as an SRMS, it MAY advertise a preference to be
   associated with all SRMS SID advertisements sent by that node.  The
   means of advertising the preference is defined in the protocol
   specific drafts e.g.,[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] ,
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], and
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].  The preference
   value is an unsigned 8 bit integer with the following properties:

      0 - Reserved value indicating advertisements from that node MUST
      NOT be used.

      1 - 255 Preference value

   Advertisement of a preference value is optional.  Nodes which do not
   advertise a preference value are assigned a preference value of 128.

   A MCC on a node receiving one or more SRMS mapping advertisements
   applies them as follows

   -  For any prefix for which it did not receive a prefix-SID
      advertisement, the MCC applies the SRMS mapping advertisments with
      the highest preference.  The mechanism by which a prefix-SID is
      advertised for a given prefix is defined in the protocol
      specification , [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],



Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


      [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
      [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]

   -  If there is an incoming label collision as specified in
      [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] , apply the steps specified
      in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] to resolve the
      collision.

   When the SRMS advertise mappings, an implementation should provide a
   mechanism through which the operator determines which of the IP2MPLS
   mappings are preferred among the one advertised by the SRMS and the
   ones advertised by LDP.

4.  SR/LDP Interworking Use Cases

   SR can be deployed such as to enhance LDP transport.  The SR
   deployment can be limited to the network region where the SR benefits
   are most desired.

4.1.  SR Protection of LDP-based Traffic

   In Figure 4, let us assume:

      All link costs are 10 except FG which is 30.

      All routers are LDP capable.

      X, Y and Z are PE's participating to an important service S.

      The operator requires 50msec link-based Fast Reroute (FRR) for
      service S.

      A, B, C, D, E, F and G are SR capable.

      X, Y, Z are not SR capable, e.g. as part of a staged migration
      from LDP to SR, the operator deploys SR first in a sub-part of the
      network and then everywhere.

                                     X
                                     |
                              Y--A---B---E--Z
                                 |   |    \
                                 D---C--F--G
                                         30

                   Figure 3: SR/LDP interworking example

   The operator would like to resolve the following issues:



Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


      To protect the link BA along the shortest-path of the important
      flow XY, B requires a Remote LFA (RLFA, [RFC7490]) repair tunnel
      to D and hence a targeted LDP session from B to D.  Typically,
      network operators prefer avoiding these dynamically established
      multi-hop LDP sessions in order to reduce the number of protocols
      running in the network and hence simplify network operations.

      There is no LFA/RLFA solution to protect the link BE along the
      shortest path of the important flow XZ.  The operator wants a
      guaranteed link-based FRR solution.

   The operator can meet these objectives by deploying SR only on A, B,
   C, D, E, F and G:

      The operator configures A, B, C, D, E, F and G with SRGB (100,
      200) and respective node segments 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and
      107.

      The operator configures D as an SR Mapping Server with the
      following policy mapping: (X, 201), (Y, 202), (Z, 203).

      Each SR node automatically advertises local adjacency segment for
      its IGP adjacencies.  Specifically, F advertises adjacency segment
      9001 for its adjacency FG.

   A, B, C, D, E, F and G keep their LDP capability and hence the flows
   XY and XZ are transported over end-to-end LDP LSP's.

   For example, LDP at B installs the following MPLS data plane entries:

   Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Y
      Outgoing label: LDP label bound by A for FEC Y
      Outgoing next-hop: A

   Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Z
      Outgoing label: LDP label bound by E for FEC Z
      Outgoing next-hop: E

   The novelty comes from how the backup chains are computed for these
   LDP-based entries.  While LDP labels are used for the primary next-
   hop and outgoing labels, SR information is used for the FRR
   construction.  In steady state, the traffic is transported over LDP
   LSP.  In transient FRR state, the traffic is backup thanks to the SR
   enhanced capabilities.

   The RLFA paths are dynamically pre-computed as defined in [RFC7490].
   Typically, implementations allow to enable RLFA mechanism through a
   simple configuration command that triggers both the pre-computation



Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   and installation of the repair path.  The details on how RLFA
   mechanisms are implemented and configured is outside the scope of
   this document and not relevant to the aspects of SR/LDP interwork
   explained in this document.

   This helps meet the requirements of the operator:

      Eliminate targeted LDP session.

      Guaranteed FRR coverage.

      Keep the traffic over LDP LSP in steady state.

      Partial SR deployment only where needed.

4.2.  Eliminating Targeted LDP Session

   B's MPLS entry to Y becomes:

   - Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Y
       Outgoing label: LDP label bound by A for FEC Y
       Backup outgoing label: SR node segment for Y {202}
       Outgoing next-hop: A
       Backup next-hop: repair tunnel: node segment to D {104}
        with outgoing next-hop: C

   It has to be noted that D is selected as Remote Loop-Free Alternate
   (RLFA) as defined in [RFC7490].

   In steady-state, X sends its Y-destined traffic to B with a top label
   which is the LDP label bound by B for FEC Y.  B swaps that top label
   for the LDP label bound by A for FEC Y and forwards to A.  A pops the
   LDP label and forwards to Y.

   Upon failure of the link BA, B swaps the incoming top-label with the
   node segment for Y (202) and sends the packet onto a repair tunnel to
   D (node segment 104).  Thus, B sends the packet to C with the label
   stack {104, 202}. C pops the node segment 104 and forwards to D.  D
   swaps 202 for 202 and forwards to A.  A's next-hop to Y is not SR
   capable and hence node A swaps the incoming node segment 202 to the
   LDP label announced by its next-hop (in this case, implicit null).

   After IGP convergence, B's MPLS entry to Y will become:

   - Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Y
       Outgoing label: LDP label bound by C for FEC Y
       Outgoing next-hop: C




Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   And the traffic XY travels again over the LDP LSP.

   Conclusion: the operator has eliminated the need for targeted LDP
   sessions (no longer required) and the steady-state traffic is still
   transported over LDP.  The SR deployment is confined to the area
   where these benefits are required.

   Despite that in general, an implementation would not require a manual
   configuration of LDP Targeted sessions however, it is always a gain
   if the operator is able to reduce the set of protocol sessions
   running on the network infrastructure.

4.3.  Guaranteed FRR coverage

   As mentioned in Section 4.1 above, in the example topology described
   in Figure 4, there is no RLFA-based solution for protecting the
   traffic flow YZ against the failure of link BE because there is no
   intersection between the extended P-space and Q-space (see [RFC7490]
   for details).  However:

   -  G belongs to the Q space of Z.

   -  G can be reached from B via a "repair SR path" {106, 9001} that is
      not affected by failure of link BE (The method by which G and the
      repair tunnel to it from B are identified are out of scope of this
      document.)

   B's MPLS entry to Z becomes:

   - Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Z
       Outgoing label: LDP label bound by E for FEC Z
       Backup outgoing label: SR node segment for Z {203}
       Outgoing next-hop: E
       Backup next-hop: repair tunnel to G: {106, 9001}

           G is reachable from B via the combination of a
           node segment to F {106} and an adjacency segment
           FG {9001}

           Note that {106, 107} would have equally work.
           Indeed, in many case, P's shortest path to Q is
           over the link PQ. The adjacency segment from P to
           Q is required only in very rare topologies where
           the shortest-path from P to Q is not via the link
           PQ.

   In steady-state, X sends its Z-destined traffic to B with a top label
   which is the LDP label bound by B for FEC Z.  B swaps that top label



Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   for the LDP label bound by E for FEC Z and forwards to E.  E pops the
   LDP label and forwards to Z.

   Upon failure of the link BE, B swaps the incoming top-label with the
   node segment for Z (203) and sends the packet onto a repair tunnel to
   G (node segment 106 followed by adjacency segment 9001).  Thus, B
   sends the packet to C with the label stack {106, 9001, 203}. C pops
   the node segment 106 and forwards to F.  F pops the adjacency segment
   9001 and forwards to G.  G swaps 203 for 203 and forwards to E.  E's
   next-hop to Z is not SR capable and hence E swaps the incoming node
   segment 203 for the LDP label announced by its next-hop (in this
   case, implicit null).

   After IGP convergence, B's MPLS entry to Z will become:

   - Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Z
       Outgoing label: LDP label bound by C for FEC Z
       Outgoing next-hop: C

   And the traffic XZ travels again over the LDP LSP.

   Conclusions:

   -  the operator has eliminated its second problem: guaranteed FRR
      coverage is provided.  The steady-state traffic is still
      transported over LDP.  The SR deployment is confined to the area
      where these benefits are required.

   -  FRR coverage has been achieved without any signaling for setting
      up the repair LSP and without setting up a targeted LDP session
      between B and G.

4.4.  Inter-AS Option C, Carrier's Carrier

   In inter-AS Option C [RFC4364], two interconnected ASes sets up
   inter-AS MPLS connectivity.  SR may be independently deployed in each
   AS.

                       PE1---R1---B1---B2---R2---PE2
                       <----------->   <----------->
                            AS1            AS2

                        Figure 4: Inter-AS Option C

   In Inter-AS Option C, B2 advertises to B1 a labeled BGP route
   [RFC8277] for PE2 and B1 reflects it to its internal peers, such as
   PE1.  PE1 learns from a service route reflector a service route whose
   next-hop is PE2.  PE1 resolves that service route on the labeled BGP



Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   route to PE2.  That labeled BGP route to PE2 is itself resolved on
   the AS1 IGP route to B1.

   If AS1 operates SR, then the tunnel from PE1 to B1 is provided by the
   node segment from PE1 to B1.

   PE1 sends a service packet with three labels: the top one is the node
   segment to B1, the next-one is the label in the labeled BGP route
   provided by B1 for the route "PE2" and the bottom one is the service
   label allocated by PE2.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new codepoint.

6.  Manageability Considerations

6.1.  SR and LDP co-existence

   When both SR and LDP co-exist, the following applies:

   -  If both SR and LDP propose an IP2MPLS entry for the same IP
      prefix, then by default the LDP route SHOULD be selected.  This is
      because it is expected that SR is introduced into network that
      contain routers that do not support SR.  Hence by having a
      behavior that prefers LDP over SR, traffic flow is unlikely to be
      disrupted

   -  A local policy on a router MUST allow to prefer the SR-provided
      IP2MPLS entry.

   -  Note that this policy MAY be locally defined.  There is no
      requirement that all routers use the same policy.

6.2.  Dataplane Verification

   When Label switch paths (LSPs) are defined by stitching LDP LSPs with
   SR LSPs, it is necessary to have mechanisms allowing the verification
   of the LSP connectivity as well as validation of the path.  These
   mechanisms are described in [RFC8287].

7.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any change to the MPLS dataplane
   [RFC3031] and therefore no additional security of the MPLS dataplane
   is required.





Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   This document introduces another form of label binding
   advertisements.  The security associated with these advertisement is
   part of the security applied to routing protocols such as IS-IS
   [RFC5304] and OSPF [RFC5709] which both make use of cryptographic
   authentication mechanisms.  This document also specifies a mechanism
   by which the ill effects of advertising conflicting label bindings
   can be mitigated.  Because this document recognizes that
   miscofiguration and/or programming may result in false or conflicting
   label binding advertisements, thereby compromising traffic
   forwarding, the document recommends strict configuration/
   programmability control as well as montoring the SID advertised and
   log/error messages by the operator to avoid or at least significantly
   minimize the possibility of such risk.

8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Pierre Francois, Ruediger Geib and
   Alexander Vainshtein for their contribution to the content of this
   document.

9.  Contributors' Addresses






























Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   Edward Crabbe
   Individual
   Email: edward.crabbe@gmail.com

   Igor Milojevic
   Email: milojevicigor@gmail.com

   Saku Ytti
   TDC
   Email: saku@ytti.fi

   Rob Shakir
   Google
   Email: robjs@google.com

   Martin Horneffer
   Deutsche Telekom
   Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de

   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia
   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

   Jeff Tantsura
   Individual
   Email: jefftant@gmail.com


   Les Ginseberg
   Cisco Systems
   Email: ginsberg@cisco.com

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
              and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", January
              2018.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
              Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
              data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13
              (work in progress), April 2018.





Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   [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>.

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
              "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
              October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
              Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
              Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura,
              "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
              segment-routing-extensions-16 (work in progress), April
              2018.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
              Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Gredler, H.,
              Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
              Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
              segment-routing-extensions-11 (work in progress), January
              2018.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
              Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
              Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
              Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
              routing-extensions-24 (work in progress), December 2017.

   [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>.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, G., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Srinivasan, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", December 2001.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC5304]  Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
              Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.




Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   [RFC5709]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
              Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
              Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.

   [RFC5960]  Frost, D., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., and M. Bocci, Ed., "MPLS
              Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture", RFC 5960,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5960, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5960>.

   [RFC7490]  Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
              So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
              RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.

   [RFC8277]  Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
              Prefixes", October 2017.

   [RFC8287]  Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., 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", December 2017.

   [RFC8355]  Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir,
              "Resiliency Use Cases in Source Packet Routing in
              Networking (SPRING) Networks", March 2018.

Appendix A.  Migration from LDP to SR

                               PE2        PE4
                                 \        /
                          PE1----P5--P6--P7---PE3

                            Figure 5: Migration

   Several migration techniques are possible.  The technique described
   here is inspired by the commonly used method to migrate from one IGP
   to another.

   At time T0, all the routers run LDP.  Any service is tunneled from an
   ingress PE to an egress PE over a continuous LDP LSP.

   At time T1, all the routers are upgraded to SR.  They are configured
   with the SRGB range [100, 300].  PE1, PE2, PE3, PE4, P5, P6 and P7
   are respectively configured with the node segments 101, 102, 103,
   104, 105, 106 and 107 (attached to their service-recursing loopback).




Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


      At this time, the service traffic is still tunneled over LDP LSP.
      For example, PE1 has an SR node segment to PE3 and an LDP LSP to
      PE3 but by default, as seen earlier, the LDP IP2MPLS encapsulation
      is preferred.  However, it has to be noted that the SR
      infrastructure is usable, e.g. for Fast Reroute (FRR) or IGP Loop
      Free Convergence to protect existing IP and LDP traffic.  FRR
      mechanisms are described in and [RFC8355].

   At time T2, the operator enables the local policy at PE1 to prefer SR
   IP2MPLS encapsulation over LDP IP2MPLS.

      The service from PE1 to any other PE is now riding over SR.  All
      other service traffic is still transported over LDP LSP.

   At time T3, gradually, the operator enables the preference for SR
   IP2MPLS encapsulation across all the edge routers.

      All the service traffic is now transported over SR.  LDP is still
      operational and services could be reverted to LDP.



   At time T4, LDP is unconfigured from all routers.

Authors' Addresses

   Ahmed Bashandy (editor)
   Individual
   USA

   Email: abashandy.ietf@gmail.com


   Clarence Filsfils (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Brussels
   BE

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com


   Stefano Previdi
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   IT

   Email: stefano@previdi.net





Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           Segment Routing and LDP               June 2018


   Bruno Decraene
   Orange
   FR

   Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com


   Stephane Litkowski
   Orange
   FR

   Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com







































Bashandy, et al.        Expires December 13, 2018              [Page 23]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/