draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-21.txt   draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-22.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 13 skipping to change at page 1, line 13
IDR Working Group K. Patel IDR Working Group K. Patel
Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc
Obsoletes: 5512, 5566 (if approved) G. Van de Velde Obsoletes: 5512, 5566 (if approved) G. Van de Velde
Updates: 5640 (if approved) Nokia Updates: 5640 (if approved) Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sangli Intended status: Standards Track S. Sangli
Expires: July 11, 2021 J. Scudder Expires: July 11, 2021 J. Scudder
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
January 7, 2021 January 7, 2021
The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-21 draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-22
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a BGP Path Attribute known as the "Tunnel This document defines a BGP Path Attribute known as the "Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", which can be used with BGP UPDATEs of Encapsulation Attribute", which can be used with BGP UPDATEs of
various SAFIs to provide information needed to create tunnels and various SAFIs to provide information needed to create tunnels and
their corresponding encapsulation headers. It provides encodings for their corresponding encapsulation headers. It provides encodings for
a number of Tunnel Types along with procedures for choosing between a number of Tunnel Types along with procedures for choosing between
alternate tunnels and routing packets into tunnels. alternate tunnels and routing packets into tunnels.
skipping to change at page 3, line 35 skipping to change at page 3, line 35
14.4. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types . . . . 37 14.4. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types . . . . 37
14.5. Subsequent Address Family Identifiers . . . . . . . . . 37 14.5. Subsequent Address Family Identifiers . . . . . . . . . 37
14.6. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . . . . 37 14.6. BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . . . . 37
14.7. Flags Field of VXLAN Encapsulation sub-TLV . . . . . . . 38 14.7. Flags Field of VXLAN Encapsulation sub-TLV . . . . . . . 38
14.8. Flags Field of NVGRE Encapsulation sub-TLV . . . . . . . 39 14.8. Flags Field of NVGRE Encapsulation sub-TLV . . . . . . . 39
14.9. Embedded Label Handling sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 14.9. Embedded Label Handling sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
14.10. Color Extended Community Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 14.10. Color Extended Community Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
17. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 17. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Appendix A. Impact on RFC 8365 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Appendix A. Impact on RFC 8365 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document obsoletes RFC 5512. The deficiencies of RFC 5512, and This document obsoletes RFC 5512. The deficiencies of RFC 5512, and
a summary of the changes made, are discussed in Sections 1.1-1.3. a summary of the changes made, are discussed in Sections 1.1-1.3.
The material from RFC 5512 that is retained has been incorporated The material from RFC 5512 that is retained has been incorporated
into this document. Since [RFC5566] relies on RFC 5512, it is into this document. Since [RFC5566] relies on RFC 5512, it is
likewise obsoleted. likewise obsoleted.
skipping to change at page 24, line 14 skipping to change at page 24, line 14
embedded in UPDATE's NLRI, or a label determined by the procedures of embedded in UPDATE's NLRI, or a label determined by the procedures of
Section 9), are pushed on the stack. Section 9), are pushed on the stack.
The Prefix-SID sub-TLV has slightly different semantics than the The Prefix-SID sub-TLV has slightly different semantics than the
Prefix-SID attribute. When the Prefix-SID attribute is attached to a Prefix-SID attribute. When the Prefix-SID attribute is attached to a
given route, the BGP speaker that originally attached the attribute given route, the BGP speaker that originally attached the attribute
is expected to be in the same Segment Routing domain as the BGP is expected to be in the same Segment Routing domain as the BGP
speakers who receive the route with the attached attribute. The speakers who receive the route with the attached attribute. The
Label-Index tells the receiving BGP speakers what the prefix-SID is Label-Index tells the receiving BGP speakers what the prefix-SID is
for the advertised prefix in that Segment Routing domain. When the for the advertised prefix in that Segment Routing domain. When the
Prefix-SID sub-TLV is used, the receiving BGP speaker need not even Prefix-SID sub-TLV is used, there is no implication that the prefix-
be in the same Segment Routing Domain as the tunnel's egress SID for the advertised prefix is the same in the Segment Routing
endpoint, and there is no implication that the prefix-SID for the domains of the BGP speaker that originated the sub-TLV and the BGP
advertised prefix is the same in the Segment Routing domains of the speaker that received it.
BGP speaker that originated the sub-TLV and the BGP speaker that
received it.
4. Extended Communities Related to the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute 4. Extended Communities Related to the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
4.1. Encapsulation Extended Community 4.1. Encapsulation Extended Community
The Encapsulation Extended Community is a Transitive Opaque Extended The Encapsulation Extended Community is a Transitive Opaque Extended
Community. Community.
The Encapsulation Extended Community encoding is as shown below The Encapsulation Extended Community encoding is as shown below
skipping to change at page 41, line 7 skipping to change at page 41, line 7
tunnel crosses from one namespace to another, without the necessary tunnel crosses from one namespace to another, without the necessary
translation being performed for the embedded address(es), there translation being performed for the embedded address(es), there
exists a risk of misdelivery of traffic. If the traffic contains exists a risk of misdelivery of traffic. If the traffic contains
confidential data that's not otherwise protected (for example, by confidential data that's not otherwise protected (for example, by
end-to-end encryption) then confidential information could be end-to-end encryption) then confidential information could be
revealed. The restriction of applicability of the Tunnel revealed. The restriction of applicability of the Tunnel
Encapsulation attribute to a well-defined scope limits the likelihood Encapsulation attribute to a well-defined scope limits the likelihood
of this occurring. See the discussion of "option b" in Section 10 of this occurring. See the discussion of "option b" in Section 10
for further discussion of one such scenario. for further discussion of one such scenario.
RFC 8402 specifies that "SR domain boundary routers MUST filter any
external traffic" ([RFC8402] Section 8.1). For these purposes,
traffic introduced into a SR domain using the Prefix-SID sub-TLV lies
within the SR domain, even though the prefix-SIDs used by the routers
at the two ends of the tunnel may be different, as discussed in
Section 3.7. This implies that the duty to filter external traffic
extends to all routers participating in such tunnels.
16. Acknowledgments 16. Acknowledgments
This document contains text from RFC 5512, authored by Pradosh This document contains text from RFC 5512, authored by Pradosh
Mohapatra and Eric Rosen. The authors of the current document wish Mohapatra and Eric Rosen. The authors of the current document wish
to thank them for their contribution. RFC 5512 itself built upon to thank them for their contribution. RFC 5512 itself built upon
prior work by Gargi Nalawade, Ruchi Kapoor, Dan Tappan, David Ward, prior work by Gargi Nalawade, Ruchi Kapoor, Dan Tappan, David Ward,
Scott Wainner, Simon Barber, Lili Wang, and Chris Metz, whom the Scott Wainner, Simon Barber, Lili Wang, and Chris Metz, whom the
authors also thank for their contributions. Eric Rosen was the authors also thank for their contributions. Eric Rosen was the
principal author of earlier versions of this document. principal author of earlier versions of this document.
skipping to change at page 45, line 34 skipping to change at page 46, line 5
[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
[RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R., [RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365, Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Appendix A. Impact on RFC 8365 Appendix A. Impact on RFC 8365
[RFC8365] references RFC 5512 for its definition of the BGP [RFC8365] references RFC 5512 for its definition of the BGP
Encapsulation Extended Community. That extended community is now Encapsulation Extended Community. That extended community is now
defined in this document, in a way consistent with its previous defined in this document, in a way consistent with its previous
definition. definition.
RFC 8365 talks in Section 6 about the use of the Encapsulation RFC 8365 talks in Section 6 about the use of the Encapsulation
Extended Community to allow Network Virtualization Edge devices Extended Community to allow Network Virtualization Edge devices
(NVEs) to signal their supported encapsulations. We note that with (NVEs) to signal their supported encapsulations. We note that with
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
9 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/