SPRING Working Group                                            W. Cheng
Internet-Draft                                                     H. Li
Intended status: Standards Track                            China Mobile
Expires: March 27, 2021                                          M. Chen
                                                                  Huawei
                                                               R. Gandhi
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                               R. Zigler
                                                                Broadcom
                                                      September 23, 2020
           Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network
                 draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-03
Abstract
   A Segment Routing (SR) path is identified by an SR segment list.
   Only the complete segment list can identify the end-to-end SR path,
   and a sub-set of segments from the segment list cannot distinguish
   one SR path from another as they may be partially congruent.  SR path
   identification is a pre-requisite for various use-cases such as
   Performance Measurement (PM), bidirectional paths correlation, and
   end-to-end 1+1 path protection.
   In SR for MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS), the segment identifiers are
   stripped from the packet through label popping as the packet transits
   the network.  This means that when a packet reaches the egress of the
   SR path, it is not possible to determine on which SR path it
   traversed the network.
   This document defines a new type of segment that is referred to as
   Path Segment, which is used to identify an SR path in an SR-MPLS
   network.  When used, it is inserted by the ingress node of the SR
   path and immediately follows the last segment identifier in the
   segment list of the SR path.  The Path Segment will not be popped off
   until it reaches the egress node of the SR path.  The Path Segment
   then can be used by the egress node to implement SR path
   identification and correlation.
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
Cheng, et al.            Expires March 27, 2021                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 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 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 March 27, 2021. 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 1.1 . Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 . Path Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 . Path Segment Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 . Nesting of Path Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 . Path Segment for Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 . Path Segment for Bidirectional SR Path . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 . Path Segment for End-to-end Path Protection . . . . . . . . . 8 8 . Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 . IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1 . Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2 . Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Cheng, et al. Expires March 27, 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 1 . Introduction Segment Routing (SR) [ RFC8402 ] is a source routed forwarding method that allows to directly encode forwarding instructions (called segments) in each packet, hence it enables steering traffic through a network without the per-flow states maintained on the transit nodes. Segment Routing can be instantiated on an MPLS data plane or an IPv6 data plane. The former is called SR-MPLS [ RFC8660 ], the latter is called SRv6 [ RFC8402 ]. SR-MPLS leverages the MPLS label stack to construct an SR path. In an SR-MPLS network, when a packet is transmitted along an SR path, the labels in the MPLS label stack will be swapped or popped. So that no label or only the last label (e.g. Explicit-Null label) may be left in the MPLS label stack when the packet reaches the egress node. Thus, the egress node cannot determine along which SR path the packet came. However, to support various use-cases in SR-MPLS networks, like end- to-end 1+1 path protection (Live-Live case) [ RFC4426 ], bidirectional path [ RFC5654 ], or Performance Measurement (PM) [ RFC7799 ], the ability to implement path identification on the egress node is a pre- requisite. Therefore, this document introduces a new segment type that is referred to as the Path Segment. A Path Segment is defined to uniquely identify an SR path in an SR-MPLS network in the context of the egress node. It is normally used by the egress nodes for path identification hence to support various use-cases including SR path PM, end-to-end 1+1 SR path protection, and bidirectional SR paths correlation. 1.1 . Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "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. 1.2 . Abbreviations DM: Delay Measurement. LM: Loss Measurement. MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching. Cheng, et al. Expires March 27, 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 MSD: Maximum SID Depth. PM: Performance Measurement. PSID: Path Segment ID. SID: Segment ID. SL: Segment List. SR: Segment Routing. SR-MPLS: Segment Routing instantiated on MPLS data plane. 2 . Path Segment A Path Segment is a single label that is assigned from the Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB) or Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB) or dynamic MPLS label pool of the egress node of an SR path. It means that the Path Segment is unique in the context of the egress node of the SR path. When a Path Segment is used, the Path Segment MUST be inserted at the ingress node and MUST immediately follow the last label of the SR path, in other words, inserted after the routing segment (adjacency/node/prefix segment) pointing to the egress node. The Path Segment may be used to identify an SR-MPLS Policy, its Candidate-Path (CP), or a SID List (SL) [ I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy ] terminating on an egress node depending on the use-case. The value of the TTL field in the MPLS label stack entry containing the Path Segment MUST be set to the same value as the TTL of the last label stack entry for the last segment in the SR path. If the Path Segment is the bottom label, the S bit MUST be set. Normally, the intermediate nodes will not see the Path Segment label and do not know how to process it. A Path Segment presenting to an intermediate node is an error condition. A Path Segment can be used in the case of Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP), where some labels are be popped off at the penultimate hop of an SR path, but the Path Segment MUST NOT be popped off until it reaches at the egress node. The egress node MUST pop the Path Segment. The egress node MAY use the Path Segment for further processing. For example, when performance measurement is enabled on the SR path, it can trigger packet counting or timestamping. Cheng, et al. Expires March 27, 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 In some deployments, service labels may be added after the Path Segment label in the MPLS label stack. In this case, the egress node MUST be capable of processing more than one label. The additional processing required, may have an impact on forwarding performance. Generic Associated Label (GAL) is used for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS networks [ RFC5586 ]. When GAL is used, it MUST be added at the bottom of the label stack after the Path Segment label. Entropy label and Entropy Label Indicator (ELI) as described in [ RFC8662 ] for SR-MPLS path, can be placed before or after the Path Segment label in the MPLS label stack. The SR path computation needs to know the Maximum SID Depth (MSD) that can be imposed at each node/link of a given SR path [ RFC8664 ]. This ensures that the SID stack depth of a computed path does not exceed the number of SIDs the node is capable of imposing. The MSD used for path computation MUST include the Path Segment label. The label stack with Path Segment is shown in Figure 1: +--------------------+ | ... | +--------------------+ | Label 1 | +--------------------+ | Label 2 | +--------------------+ | ... | +--------------------+ | Label n | +--------------------+ | Path Segment | +--------------------+ | ... | +--------------------+ ~ Payload ~ +--------------------+ Figure 1: Label Stack with Path Segment Where: o The Labels 1 to n are the segment label stack used to direct how to steer the packets along the SR path. Cheng, et al. Expires March 27, 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 o The Path Segment identifies the SR path in the context of the egress node of the SR path. 3 . Path Segment Allocation Several ways can be used to allocate the Path Segment. One way is to set up a communication channel (e.g., MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh)) [ RFC5586 ] between the ingress node and the egress node, and the ingress node of the SR path can directly send a request to the egress node to allocate a Path Segment. The detail of G-ACh based solution is left for future study and out of the scope of this document. Another way is to leverage a centralized controller (e.g., SDN controller) to assign the Path Segment. In this case, the controller will deliver the Path Segment and corresponding path information (e.g., SR policy) to the ingress node. Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) based Path Segment allocation for SR Policy is defined in [ I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment ], BGP based Path Segment allocation for SR Policy is defined in [ I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment ]. At the same time, the controller MUST make sure (e.g., by some capability discovery mechanisms outside the scope of this document) that the egress node knows the Path Segment and it can process it, as well as the label does not collide with any label allocation done by the egress node. 4 . Nesting of Path Segments Binding SID (BSID) [ RFC8402 ] can be used for SID list compression. With BSID, an end-to-end SR path can be split into several sub-paths, each sub-path is identified by a BSID. Then an end-to-end SR path can be identified by a list of BSIDs, therefore, it can provide better scalability. BSID and Path SID (PSID) can be combined to achieve both sub-path and end-to-end path monitoring. A reference model for such a combination in (Figure 2) shows an end-to-end path (A->D) that spans three domains (Access, Aggregation and Core domain) and consists of three sub-paths, one in each sub-domain (sub-path (A->B), sub-path (B->C) and sub-path (C->D)). Each sub-path is allocated a BSID. For nesting the sub-paths, each sub-path is allocated a PSID. Then, the SID list of the end-to-end path can be expressed as <BSID1, BSID2, ..., BSIDn, e-PSID>, where the e-PSID is the PSID of the end-to-end path. The SID list of a sub-path can be expressed as <SID1, SID2, ...SIDn, s-PSID>, where the s-PSID is the PSID of the sub-path. Cheng, et al. Expires March 27, 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 Figure 2 shows the details of the label stacks when PSID and BSID are used to support both sub-path and end-to-end path monitoring in a multi-domain scenario. /--------\ /--------\ /--------\ / \ / \ / \ A{ Access }B{ Aggregation }C{ Core }D \ / \ / \ / \--------/ \--------/ \--------/ Sub-path(A->B) Sub-path(B->C) Sub-path(C->D) |<--------------->|<-------------->|<-------------->| E2E Path(A->D) |<------------------------------------------------->| +------------+ ~A->B SubPath~ +------------+ +------------+ |s-PSID(A->B)| ~B->C SubPath~ +------------+ +------------+ | BSID(B->C) | |s-PSID(B->C)| +------------+ +------------+ +------------+ | BSID(C->D) | | BSID(C->D) | ~C->D SubPath~ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+ |e-PSID(A->D)| |e-PSID(A->D)| |e-PSID(A->D)| |e-PSID(A->D)| +------------+ +------------+ +------------+ +------------+ Figure 2: Nesting of Path Segments 5 . Path Segment for Performance Measurement As defined in [ RFC7799 ], performance measurement can be classified into Passive, Active, and Hybrid measurement. For Passive performance measurement, path identification at the measuring points is the pre-requisite. Path Segment can be used by the measuring points (e.g., the ingress and egress nodes of the SR path or a centralized controller) to correlate the packet counts and timestamps from the ingress and egress nodes for a specific SR path, then packet loss and delay can be calculated for the end-to-end path, respectively. Path Segment can also be used for Active performance measurement for an SR path in SR-MPLS networks for collecting packet counters and timestamps from the egress node using probe messages [ I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr ] and [ I-D.gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm ]. Cheng, et al. Expires March 27, 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 Path Segment can also be used for In-situ OAM for SR-MPLS to identify the SR Path associated with the in-situ data fields in the data packets on the egress node [ I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr ]. Path Segment can also be used for In-band PM for SR-MPLS to identify the SR Path associated with the collected performance metrics [ I-D.cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation ]. 6 . Path Segment for Bidirectional SR Path In some scenarios, for example, mobile backhaul transport networks, there are requirements to support bidirectional paths, and the path is normally treated as a single entity. The both directions of the path have the same fate, for example, failure in one direction will result in switching traffic at both directions. MPLS supports this by introducing the concepts of co-routed bidirectional LSP and associated bidirectional LSP [ RFC5654 ]. In the current SR architecture, an SR path is a unidirectional path [ RFC8402 ]. In order to support bidirectional SR paths, a straightforward way is to bind two unidirectional SR paths to a single bidirectional SR path. Path Segments can then be used to identify and correlate the traffic for the two unidirectional SR paths at both ends of the bidirectional path. [ I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path ] defines procedures on how to use PCEP for SR Policy to initiate a bidirectional SR path. Also, [ I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment ] defines procedures on how to use BGP for SR Policy to initiate a bidirectional SR path. 7 . Path Segment for End-to-end Path Protection For end-to-end 1+1 path protection (i.e., Live-Live case), the egress node of the path needs to know the set of paths that constitute the primary and the secondaries, in order to select the primary path packets for onward transmission, and to discard the packets from the secondaries [ RFC4426 ]. To do this in Segment Routing, each SR path needs a path identifier that is unique at the egress node. For SR-MPLS, this can be the Path Segment label allocated by the egress node. There then needs to be a method of binding this SR path identifiers into equivalence groups such that the egress node can determine for example, the set of packets that represent a single primary path. It is obvious that this equivalence group can be instantiated in the network by an SDN controller using the Path Segments of the SR paths. Cheng, et al. Expires March 27, 2021 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 8 . Security Considerations This document does not introduce additional security requirements and mechanisms other than the ones described in [ RFC8402 ]. 9 . IANA Considerations This document does not require any IANA actions. 10 . References 10.1 . Normative References [ 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 >. [ 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 >. [ 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 >. [ RFC8660 ] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660 , DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660 >. 10.2 . Informative References [ I-D.cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation ] Cheng, W., Min, X., Zhou, T., Dong, X., and Y. Peleg, "Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method", draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm- encapsulation-04 (work in progress), September 2020. [ I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr ] Gandhi, R., Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Brockners, F., Wen, B., and V. Kozak, "MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-03 (work in progress), September 2020. Cheng, et al. Expires March 27, 2021 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 [ I-D.gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm ] Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Chen, M., and B. Janssens, "Performance Measurement Using Simple TWAMP (STAMP) for Segment Routing Networks", draft-gandhi- spring-stamp-srpm-02 (work in progress), August 2020. [ I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment ] Li, C., Li, Z., Telecom, C., Cheng, W., and K. Talaulikar, "SR Policy Extensions for Path Segment and Bidirectional Path", draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-01 (work in progress), August 2020. [ I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr ] Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Salsano, S., and M. Chen, "Performance Measurement Using RFC 6374 for Segment Routing Networks with MPLS Data Plane", draft-ietf-mpls- rfc6374-sr-00 (work in progress), July 2020. [ I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path ] Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong, "PCEP Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Segment Routing (SR) Paths", draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-03 (work in progress), September 2020. [ I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment ] Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Path Segment in Segment Routing (SR)", draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-01 (work in progress), May 2020. [ I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy ] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08 (work in progress), July 2020. [ RFC4426 ] Lang, J., Ed., Rajagopalan, B., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery Functional Specification", RFC 4426 , DOI 10.17487/RFC4426, March 2006, < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4426 >. [ RFC5586 ] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586 , DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586 >. Cheng, et al. Expires March 27, 2021 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 [ RFC5654 ] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed., Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654 , DOI 10.17487/RFC5654, September 2009, < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654 >. [ RFC7799 ] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799 , DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, May 2016, < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799 >. [ RFC8662 ] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S., Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662 , DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019, < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662 >. [ RFC8664 ] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664 , DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, < https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664 >. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Stewart Bryant, Shuangping Zhan, Alexander Vainshtein, Andrew G. Malis, Ketan Talaulikar, Shraddha Hegde, and Loa Andersson for their review, suggestions and comments to this document. The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution from Alexander Vainshtein on "Nesting of Path Segments". Contributors The following people have substantially contributed to this document: Cheng, et al. Expires March 27, 2021 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 Cheng Li Huawei Technologies EMail: [email protected] Lei Wang China Mobile Email: [email protected] Aihua Liu ZTE Corp Email: [email protected] Greg Mirsky ZTE Corp Email: [email protected] Authors' Addresses Weiqiang Cheng China Mobile Email: [email protected] Han Li China Mobile Email: [email protected] Mach(Guoyi) Chen Huawei Email: [email protected] Rakesh Gandhi Cisco Systems, Inc. Canada Email: [email protected] Cheng, et al. Expires March 27, 2021 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Path Segment in SR-MPLS September 2020 Royi Zigler Broadcom Email: [email protected]