draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-04.txt   draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05.txt 
Network Working Group S. Previdi, Ed. Network Working Group S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Individual Internet-Draft Individual
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: January 3, 2019 D. Jain, Ed. Expires: May 24, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc. D. Jain, Ed.
Google
P. Mattes P. Mattes
Microsoft Microsoft
E. Rosen E. Rosen
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
S. Lin S. Lin
Google Google
July 2, 2018 November 20, 2018
Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-04 draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a new BGP SAFI with a new NLRI in order to This document defines a new BGP SAFI with a new NLRI in order to
advertise a candidate path of a Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). advertise a candidate path of a Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy).
An SR Policy is a set of candidate paths, each consisting of one or An SR Policy is a set of candidate paths, each consisting of one or
more segment lists. The headend of an SR Policy may learn multiple more segment lists. The headend of an SR Policy may learn multiple
candidate paths for an SR Policy. Candidate paths may be learned via candidate paths for an SR Policy. Candidate paths may be learned via
a number of different mechanisms, e.g., CLI, NetConf, PCEP, or BGP. a number of different mechanisms, e.g., CLI, NetConf, PCEP, or BGP.
This document specifies the way in which BGP may be used to This document specifies the way in which BGP may be used to
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
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 January 3, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
skipping to change at page 26, line 49 skipping to change at page 26, line 49
"Flags" field (codes to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR "Flags" field (codes to be assigned by IANA from the registry "SR
Policy Segment Flags" defined in this document Section 8.6): Policy Segment Flags" defined in this document Section 8.6):
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V|A| | |V|A| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
V-Flag: This flag encodes the "Segment Verification" behavior. It V-Flag: This flag is used by SRPM for the purpose of "SID
is used by SRPM as described in section 5 in verification" as described in Section 5.1 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
A-Flag: This flag indicates the presence of SR Algorithm id in the A-Flag: This flag indicates the presence of SR Algorithm id in the
"SR Algorithm" field applicable to various Segment Types. SR "SR Algorithm" field applicable to various Segment Types. SR
Algorithm is used by SRPM as described in section 4 in Algorithm is used by SRPM as described in section 4 in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
Unused bits in the Flag octet SHOULD be set to zero upon Unused bits in the Flag octet SHOULD be set to zero upon
transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt. transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.
skipping to change at page 36, line 50 skipping to change at page 36, line 50
8.5. New Registry: SR Policy Binding SID Flags 8.5. New Registry: SR Policy Binding SID Flags
This document defines a new registry called "SR Policy Binding SID This document defines a new registry called "SR Policy Binding SID
Flags". The allocation policy of this registry is "First Come First Flags". The allocation policy of this registry is "First Come First
Served (FCFS)" according to [RFC8126]. Served (FCFS)" according to [RFC8126].
Following Flags are defined: Following Flags are defined:
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Drop Upon Invalid Flag (I-Flag) This document 0 Specified-BSID-Only Flag (S-Flag) This document
1 Specified-BSID-Only Flag (S-Flag) This document 1 Drop Upon Invalid Flag (I-Flag) This document
2-7 Unassigned 2-7 Unassigned
8.6. New Registry: SR Policy Segment Flags 8.6. New Registry: SR Policy Segment Flags
This document defines a new registry called "SR Policy Segment This document defines a new registry called "SR Policy Segment
Flags". The allocation policy of this registry is "First Come First Flags". The allocation policy of this registry is "First Come First
Served (FCFS)" according to [RFC8126]. Served (FCFS)" according to [RFC8126].
Following Flags are defined: Following Flags are defined:
skipping to change at page 37, line 29 skipping to change at page 37, line 29
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
TBD. TBD.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-09 Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-10
(work in progress), February 2018. (work in progress), August 2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-12 (work in progress), June draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14 (work in progress),
2018. October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), January 2018. in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing
Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
policy-01 (work in progress), June 2018. policy-02 (work in progress), October 2018.
[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>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001, Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
skipping to change at page 38, line 50 skipping to change at page 38, line 50
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
10.2. Informational References 10.2. Informational References
[I-D.filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations] [I-D.filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Krol, P., Horneffer, M., and Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Krol, P., Horneffer, M., and
P. Mattes, "SR Policy Implementation and Deployment P. Mattes, "SR Policy Implementation and Deployment
Considerations", draft-filsfils-spring-sr-policy- Considerations", draft-filsfils-spring-sr-policy-
considerations-01 (work in progress), June 2018. considerations-02 (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and
d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-14 (work in (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-15 (work in
progress), June 2018. progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip] [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip]
Uttaro, J., Haas, J., Texier, M., Andy, A., Ray, S., Uttaro, J., Haas, J., Texier, M., Andy, A., Ray, S.,
Simpson, A., and W. Henderickx, "BGP Flow-Spec Redirect to Simpson, A., and W. Henderickx, "BGP Flow-Spec Redirect to
IP Action", draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 (work IP Action", draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02 (work
in progress), February 2015. in progress), February 2015.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006, (IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
skipping to change at page 39, line 43 skipping to change at page 39, line 43
Email: stefano@previdi.net Email: stefano@previdi.net
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels Brussels
BE BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Dhanendra Jain (editor) Dhanendra Jain (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Google
San Jose
USA
Email: dhjain@cisco.com Email: dhanendra.ietf@gmail.com
Paul Mattes Paul Mattes
Microsoft Microsoft
One Microsoft Way One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052 Redmond, WA 98052
USA USA
Email: pamattes@microsoft.com Email: pamattes@microsoft.com
Eric Rosen Eric Rosen
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
21 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/