draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04.txt   draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-05.txt 
BESS Working Group A. Farrel BESS Working Group A. Farrel
Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting
Intended status: Standards Track J. Drake Intended status: Standards Track J. Drake
Expires: February 22, 2020 E. Rosen Expires: September 12, 2020 E. Rosen
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
K. Patel K. Patel
Arrcus, Inc. Arrcus, Inc.
L. Jalil L. Jalil
Verizon Verizon
August 21, 2019 March 11, 2020
Gateway Auto-Discovery and Route Advertisement for Segment Routing Gateway Auto-Discovery and Route Advertisement for Segment Routing
Enabled Domain Interconnection Enabled Domain Interconnection
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-04 draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-05
Abstract Abstract
Data centers are critical components of the infrastructure used by Data centers are critical components of the infrastructure used by
network operators to provide services to their customers. Data network operators to provide services to their customers. Data
centers are attached to the Internet or a backbone network by gateway centers are attached to the Internet or a backbone network by gateway
routers. One data center typically has more than one gateway for routers. One data center typically has more than one gateway for
commercial, load balancing, and resiliency reasons. commercial, load balancing, and resiliency reasons.
Segment Routing is a popular protocol mechanism for use within a data Segment Routing is a popular protocol mechanism for use within a data
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 22, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 41 skipping to change at page 2, line 41
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. SR Domain Gateway Auto-Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. SR Domain Gateway Auto-Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Relationship to BGP Link State and Egress Peer Engineering . 7 4. Relationship to BGP Link State and Egress Peer Engineering . 7
5. Advertising an SR Domain Route Externally . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Advertising an SR Domain Route Externally . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Tunnel Encapsulation Tunnel Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Tunnel Encapsulation Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 5, line 4 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
AS. AS.
This document defines a solution that overcomes this limitation and This document defines a solution that overcomes this limitation and
works equally well with a backbone constructed from one or more ASes. works equally well with a backbone constructed from one or more ASes.
The solution uses the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute The solution uses the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] as follows: [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] as follows:
We define a new tunnel type, "SR Tunnel". When the GWs to a given We define a new tunnel type, "SR Tunnel". When the GWs to a given
SR domain advertise a route to a prefix X within the SR domain, SR domain advertise a route to a prefix X within the SR domain,
they will each include a Tunnel Encapsulation attribute with they will each include a Tunnel Encapsulation attribute with
multiple tunnel instances each of type "SR Tunnel" (value TBD1 multiple tunnel instances each of type "SR Tunnel" (value 17), one
assigned by IANA), one for each GW, and each containing a Remote for each GW, and each containing a Remote Endpoint sub-TLV with
Endpoint sub-TLV with that GW's address. that GW's address.
In other words, each route advertised by a GW identifies all of the In other words, each route advertised by a GW identifies all of the
GWs to the same SR domain (see Section 3 for a discussion of how GWs GWs to the same SR domain (see Section 3 for a discussion of how GWs
discover each other). Therefore, even if only one of the routes is discover each other). Therefore, even if only one of the routes is
distributed to other ASes, it will not matter how many times the next distributed to other ASes, it will not matter how many times the next
hop changes, as the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute (and its remote hop changes, as the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute (and its remote
endpoint sub-TLVs) will remain unchanged. endpoint sub-TLVs) will remain unchanged.
To put this in the context of Figure 1, GW1 and GW2 discover each To put this in the context of Figure 1, GW1 and GW2 discover each
other as gateways for the egress SR domain. Both GW1 and GW2 other as gateways for the egress SR domain. Both GW1 and GW2
skipping to change at page 6, line 24 skipping to change at page 6, line 24
The auto-discovery route that each GW advertises consists of the The auto-discovery route that each GW advertises consists of the
following: following:
o An IPv4 or IPv6 NLRI containing one of the GW's loopback addresses o An IPv4 or IPv6 NLRI containing one of the GW's loopback addresses
(that is, with an AFI/SAFI pair that is one of 1/1, 2/1, 1/4, or (that is, with an AFI/SAFI pair that is one of 1/1, 2/1, 1/4, or
2/4). 2/4).
o A Tunnel Encapsulation attribute containing the GW's encapsulation o A Tunnel Encapsulation attribute containing the GW's encapsulation
information, which at a minimum consists of an SR Tunnel TLV (type information, which at a minimum consists of an SR Tunnel TLV (type
TBD2 to be allocated by IANA) with a Remote Endpoint sub-TLV as TBD1 to be allocated by IANA) with a Remote Endpoint sub-TLV as
specified in [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. specified in [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps].
To avoid the side effect of applying the Tunnel Encapsulation To avoid the side effect of applying the Tunnel Encapsulation
attribute to any packet that is addressed to the GW itself, the GW attribute to any packet that is addressed to the GW itself, the GW
SHOULD use a different loopback address for the two cases. SHOULD use a different loopback address for the two cases.
As described in Section 1, each GW will include a Tunnel As described in Section 1, each GW will include a Tunnel
Encapsulation attribute for each GW that is active for the SR domain Encapsulation attribute for each GW that is active for the SR domain
(including itself), and will include these in every route advertised (including itself), and will include these in every route advertised
externally to the SR domain by each GW. As the current set of active externally to the SR domain by each GW. As the current set of active
skipping to change at page 7, line 47 skipping to change at page 7, line 47
to send them a packet in that SR domain's native encapsulation, then to send them a packet in that SR domain's native encapsulation, then
each GW will also include multiple instances of a tunnel TLV for that each GW will also include multiple instances of a tunnel TLV for that
native encapsulation in externally advertised routes: one for each GW native encapsulation in externally advertised routes: one for each GW
and each containing a remote endpoint sub-TLV with that GW's address. and each containing a remote endpoint sub-TLV with that GW's address.
A remote GW may then encapsulate a packet according to the rules A remote GW may then encapsulate a packet according to the rules
defined via the sub-TLVs included in each of the tunnel TLV defined via the sub-TLVs included in each of the tunnel TLV
instances. instances.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Tunnel Encapsulation Tunnel Type
IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Parameters" with a sub-registry called "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Parameters" with a sub-registry called "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute Tunnel Types." The registration policy for this registry Attribute Tunnel Types." The registration policy for this registry
is First-Come First-Served [RFC8126]. is First-Come First-Served [RFC8126].
IANA is requested to assign a codepoint from this sub-registry for IANA has assigned the value 17 from this sub-registry for "SR
"SR Tunnel" (TBD1). The next available value may be used and Tunnel".
reference should be made to this document.
[[Note: This text is likely to be replaced with a specific code point 7.2. Tunnel Encapsulation Sub-TLVs
value once the FCFS allocation has been made.]]
IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Parameters" with a sub-registry called "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Parameters" with a sub-registry called "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute Sub-TLVs." The registration policy for this registry is Attribute Sub-TLVs." The registration policy for this registry is
Standards Action.[RFC8126]. Standards Action.[RFC8126].
IANA is requested to assign a codepoint from this sub-registry for IANA is requested to assign a codepoint from this sub-registry for
"SR Tunnel TLV" (TBD2). The next available value may be used and "SR Tunnel TLV" (TBD1). The next available value may be used and
reference should be made to this document. reference should be made to this document.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
From a protocol point of view, the mechanisms described in this From a protocol point of view, the mechanisms described in this
document can leverage the security mechanisms already defined for document can leverage the security mechanisms already defined for
BGP. Further discussion of security considerations for BGP may be BGP. Further discussion of security considerations for BGP may be
found in the BGP specification itself [RFC4271] and in the security found in the BGP specification itself [RFC4271] and in the security
analysis for BGP [RFC4272]. The original discussion of the use of analysis for BGP [RFC4272]. The original discussion of the use of
the TCP MD5 signature option to protect BGP sessions is found in the TCP MD5 signature option to protect BGP sessions is found in
skipping to change at page 10, line 16 skipping to change at page 10, line 16
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray,
S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing
BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
segment-routing-epe-19 (work in progress), May 2019. segment-routing-epe-19 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Patel, K., Velde, G., Ramachandra, S., and E. Rosen, "The Patel, K., Velde, G., and S. Ramachandra, "The BGP Tunnel
BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr- Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-15
tunnel-encaps-13 (work in progress), July 2019. (work in progress), December 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
18 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/