wdiff rfc8669.original rfc8669.txt

IDR

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Previdi
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status:
Request for Comments: 8669 Huawei Technologies
Category: Standards Track C. Filsfils
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Lindem, Ed.
Expires: December 28, 2018
Cisco Systems
A. Sreekantiah

H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
June 26, 2018
December 2019

Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions Segment Identifier Extensions for BGP
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27

Abstract

Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing source-routing paradigm. A node
steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, instructions called
segments.
"segments". A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
service-based.
service based. The ingress node prepends an SR header to a packet
containing a set of segment identifiers (SID). (SIDs). Each SID represents
a topological or a service-based instruction. Per-flow state is
maintained only on the ingress node of the SR domain. An SR domain "SR domain"
is defined as a single administrative domain for global SID
assignment.

This document defines an optional, transitive BGP attribute for
announcing information about BGP Prefix Segment Identifiers (BGP Prefix-SID)
information
Prefix-SIDs) and the specification for SR-MPLS SIDs.

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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

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 an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 December 28, 2018.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)
(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. MPLS BGP Prefix SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Prefix-SID
3. BGP Prefix-SID Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Label-Index TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Originator SRGB TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Receiving BGP Prefix-SID Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. MPLS Dataplane: Data Plane: Labeled Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Advertising BGP Prefix-SID Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. MPLS Dataplane: Data Plane: Labeled Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Error Handling of BGP Prefix-SID Attribute . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.1.
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.2.
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Introduction

The Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the source routing source-routing
paradigm. A segment represents either a topological instruction instruction,
such as "go to prefix P following shortest path" path", or a service
instruction. Other types of segments may be defined in the future.

A segment is identified through a Segment Identifier (SID). An SR
domain "SR
domain" is defined as a single administrative domain for global SID
assignment. It may be comprised of a single Autonomous System (AS)
or multiple ASes under consolidated global SID administration.
Typically, the ingress node of the SR domain prepends an SR header
containing segments identifiers (SIDs) SIDs to an incoming packet.

As described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], [RFC8402], when SR is applied to the MPLS dataplane ([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]), data plane
([RFC8660]), the SID consists of a label.

[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]

[RFC8402] also describes how segment routing Segment Routing can be applied to an
IPv6 dataplane data plane (SRv6) using an IPv6 routing header containing a
stack of SR SIDs encoded as IPv6 addresses
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. [IPv6-SRH]. The
applicability and support for Segment Routing over IPv6 is beyond the
scope of this document.

A BGP-Prefix BGP Prefix Segment is a BGP prefix with a Prefix-SID attached. A
BGP Prefix-SID is always a global SID
([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]) ([RFC8402]) within the SR
domain and identifies an instruction to forward the packet over the
Equal-Cost
Multi-Path Multipath (ECMP) best-path best path computed by BGP to the related
prefix. The BGP Prefix-SID is the identifier of the BGP prefix segment. Prefix
Segment. In this document, we always refer to the BGP-Prefix segment BGP Prefix Segment
by the BGP Prefix-SID.

This document describes the BGP extension extensions to signal the BGP Prefix-
SID. Specifically, this document defines a BGP attribute known as
the BGP "BGP Prefix-SID attribute attribute" and specifies the rules to originate,
receive, and handle error conditions for the attribute.

The BGP Prefix-SID attribute defined in this document can be attached
to prefixes from Multiprotocol BGP IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast
([RFC4760],
([RFC4760] [RFC8277]). Usage of the BGP Prefix-SID attribute for
other Address Family Identifier (AFI)/ (AFI) / Subsequent Address Family
Identifier (SAFI) combinations is not defined herein but may be
specified in future specifications.

[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc]

[RFC8670] describes example use cases where the BGP Prefix-SID is
used for the above AFI/SAFI combinations.

It should be noted that:

* A BGP Prefix-SID will be global across ASes when the
interconnected ASes are part of the same SR domain.
Alternatively, when interconnecting ASes, the ASBRs of each domain
will have to handle the advertisement of unique SIDs. The
mechanisms for such interconnection are outside the scope of the
protocol extensions defined in this document.

* A BGP Prefix-SID MAY be attached to a BGP prefix. This implies
that each prefix is advertised individually, reducing the ability
to pack BGP advertisements (when sharing common attributes).

2. MPLS BGP Prefix SID

The BGP Prefix-SID is realized on the MPLS dataplane
([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]) key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in the following way:

The operator assigns a globally unique label this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

2. MPLS BGP Prefix-SID

The BGP Prefix-SID is realized on the MPLS data plane ([RFC8660]) in
the following way:

The operator assigns a globally unique label index, L_I, to a
locally originated prefix of a BGP speaker N N, which is advertised
to all other BGP speakers in the SR domain.

According to [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], [RFC8402], each BGP speaker is configured with a
label block called the Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB). While [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
[RFC8402] recommends using the same SRGB across all the nodes
within the SR domain, the SRGB of a node is a local property and
could be different on different speakers. The drawbacks of the
use case where BGP speakers have different SRGBs are documented in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
[RFC8402] and
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc]. [RFC8670].

If traffic-engineering traffic engineering within the SR domain is required, each node
may also be required to advertise topological information and
Peering Peer
SIDs for each of its links and peers. This information is
required to perform the explicit path computation and to express
an explicit path as a list of SIDs. The advertisement of
topological information and peer segments (Peer SIDs) is done
through [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. [BGPLS-SR-EPE].

If a prefix segment is to be included in an MPLS label stack,
e.g., for traffic engineering traffic-engineering purposes, the knowledge of the SRGB
of the originator of the prefix
originator's SRGB is required in order to compute the local label
used by the originator.

This document assumes that BGP-LS Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
(BGP-LS) is the preferred method for a collecting both peer
segments (Peer SIDs) and SRGB information through [RFC7752], [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe],
[BGPLS-SR-EPE], and
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]. [BGPLS-SR-EXT]. However, as an optional
alternative for the advertisement of the local SRGB without the
topology nor or the peer SIDs, hence SIDs and, therefore, without applicability
for TE, the Originator SRGB TLV of the BGP Prefix-
SID Prefix-SID attribute is
specified in Section 3.2 of this document.

A BGP speaker will derive its local MPLS label L from the label
index L_I and its local SRGB as described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]. [RFC8660]. The BGP
speaker then programs the MPLS label L in its MPLS dataplane data plane as
its incoming/
local incoming/local label for the prefix. See Section 4.1 for more
details.

The outgoing label for the prefix is found in the Network Layer
Reachability Information (NLRI) of the Multiprotocol BGP IPv4/IPv6
Labeled Unicast prefix advertisement as defined in [RFC8277]. The
label index L_I is only used as a hint to derive the local/
incoming label.

Section 3.1 of this document specifies the Label-Index TLV of the
BGP Prefix-SID attribute; this TLV can be used to advertise the
label index for a given prefix.

3. BGP Prefix-SID Attribute

The BGP Prefix-SID attribute is an optional, transitive BGP path
attribute. The attribute type code 40 has been assigned by IANA (see
Section 7).

The BGP Prefix-SID attribute is defined here to be a set of elements
encoded as "Type/Length/Value" tuples (i.e., a set of TLVs). All BGP
Prefix-SID attribute TLVs will start with a 1-octet type and a
2-octet length. The following TLVs are defined in this document:

* Label-Index TLV

* Originator SRGB TLV

The Label-Index and Originator SRGB TLVs are used only when SR is
applied to the MPLS dataplane. data plane.

For future extensibility, unknown TLVs MUST be ignored and propagated
unmodified.

3.1. Label-Index TLV

The Label-Index TLV MUST be present in the BGP Prefix-SID attribute
attached to IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast prefixes ([RFC8277]). It MUST
be ignored when received for other BGP AFI/SAFI combinations. The
Label-Index TLV has the following format:

where:

o Type is 1.

Type: 1

Length: is 7, the total length in octets of the value portion of the
TLV.

RESERVED: 8-bit field. It MUST be clear on transmission and MUST
be ignored on reception.

Flags: 16 bits of flags. None are defined by this document. The
flag
Flags field MUST be clear on transmission and MUST be ignored
on reception.

Label Index: 32-bit value representing the index value in the
SRGB space.

3.2. Originator SRGB TLV

The Originator SRGB TLV is an optional TLV and has the following
format:

0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRGB 1 (6 octets) |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRGB n (6 octets) |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

where:

o Type is 3.

o Length is the

Type: 3

Length: The total length in octets of the value portion of the
TLV: 2 + (non-zero multiple of 6).

Flags: 16 bits of flags. None are defined in this document. The
Flags field MUST be clear on transmission and MUST be ignored
on reception.

SRGB: 3 octets specifying the first label in the range followed
by 3 octets specifying the number of labels in the range. Note
that the SRGB field MAY appear multiple times. If the SRGB
field appears multiple times, the SRGB consists of multiple
ranges that are concatenated.

The Originator SRGB TLV contains the SRGB of the node originating the
prefix to which the BGP Prefix-SID is attached. The Originator SRGB
TLV MUST NOT be changed during the propagation of the BGP update. It
is used to build segment routing SR policies when different SRGBs are used in the
fabric, for example
([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc]). example, [RFC8670].

Examples of how the receiving routers concatenate the ranges and
build their neighbor's Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB) are
included in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]). [RFC8660].

The Originator SRGB TLV may only appear in a BGP Prefix-SID attribute
attached to IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast prefixes ([RFC8277]). It MUST
be ignored when received for other BGP AFI/SAFI combinations. Since
the Label-Index TLV is required for IPv4/IPv6 prefix applicability,
the Originator SRGB TLV will be ignored if it is not specified in a
manner consistent with Section 6.

If a BGP speaker receives a node's SRGB as an attribute of the BGP-LS
Node NLRI and the BGP speaker also receives the same node's SRGB in a
BGP Prefix-SID attribute, then the received values should be the
same. If the values are different, the values advertised in the BGP-
LS NLRI SHOULD be preferred preferred, and an error should be logged.

4. Receiving BGP Prefix-SID Attribute

A BGP speaker receiving a BGP Prefix-SID attribute from an External
BGP (EBGP) neighbor residing outside the boundaries of the SR domain
MUST discard the attribute unless it is configured to accept the
attribute from the EBGP neighbor. A BGP speaker SHOULD log an error
for further analysis when discarding an attribute.

4.1. MPLS Dataplane: Data Plane: Labeled Unicast

A BGP session supporting the Multiprotocol BGP labeled Labeled IPv4 or IPv6
Unicast ([RFC8277]) AFI/SAFI is required.

When the BGP Prefix-SID attribute is attached to a BGP labeled Labeled IPv4
or IPv6 Unicast [RFC8277] AFI/SAFI, it MUST contain the Label-Index
TLV and MAY contain the Originator SRGB TLV. A BGP Prefix-SID
attribute received without a Label-Index TLV MUST be considered as to be
"invalid" by the receiving speaker.

The label index provides guidance to the receiving BGP speaker as to
the incoming label that SHOULD be allocated to the prefix.

A BGP speaker may be locally configured with an SRGB=[SRGB_Start,
SRGB_End]. The preferred method for deriving the SRGB is a matter of
local node configuration.

The mechanisms through which a given label index label-index value is assigned to
a given prefix are outside the scope of this document.

Given a label index L_I, we refer to (L = L_I + SRGB_Start) as the
derived label. A BGP Prefix-SID attribute is designated
"conflicting" for a speaker M if the derived label value L lies
outside the SRGB configured on M. Otherwise Otherwise, the Label-Index TLV is
designated "acceptable" to speaker M.

If multiple different prefixes are received with the same label
index, all of the different prefixes MUST have their BGP Prefix-SID
attribute considered as to be "conflicting".

If multiple valid paths for the same prefix are received from
multiple BGP speakers or, in the case of [RFC7911], from the same BGP
speaker, and the BGP Prefix-SID attributes do not contain the same
label index, then the label index from the best path BGP Prefix-SID
attribute SHOULD be chosen with a notable exception being when
[RFC5004] is being used to dampen route changes.

When a BGP speaker receives a path from a neighbor with an
"acceptable" BGP Prefix-SID attribute and that path is selected as
the best path, it SHOULD program the derived label as the label for
the prefix in its local MPLS dataplane. data plane.

When a BGP speaker receives a path from a neighbor with an "invalid"
or "conflicting" BGP Prefix-SID attribute attribute, or when a BGP speaker
receives a path from a neighbor with a BGP Prefix-SID attribute but
is unable to process it (e.g., local policy disables the
functionality), it MUST ignore the BGP Prefix-SID attribute. For the
purposes of label allocation, a BGP speaker MUST assign a local (also
called dynamic) label (non-SRGB) for such a prefix as per classic
Multiprotocol BGP IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast ([RFC8277]) operation.

In the case of an "invalid" BGP Prefix-SID attribute, a BGP speaker
MUST follow the error handling error-handling rules specified in Section 6. A BGP
speaker SHOULD log an error for further analysis. In the case of a
"conflicting" BGP Prefix-SID attribute, a BGP speaker SHOULD NOT
treat it as an error and SHOULD propagate the attribute unchanged. A
BGP Speaker speaker SHOULD log a warning for further analysis, i.e., in the
case the conflict is not due to a label index label-index transition.

When a BGP Prefix-SID attribute changes and transitions from
"conflicting" to "acceptable", the BGP Prefix-SID attributes for
other prefixes may also transition to "acceptable" as well.
Implementations SHOULD assure ensure all impacted prefixes revert to using
the label indices corresponding to these newly "acceptable" BGP
Prefix-SID attributes.

The outgoing label is always programmed as per classic Multiprotocol
BGP IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast ([RFC8277]) operation. Specifically, a
BGP speaker receiving a prefix with a BGP Prefix-SID attribute and a
label NLRI field of Implicit NULL [RFC3032] from a neighbor MUST
adhere to standard behavior and program its MPLS dataplane data plane to pop
the top label when forwarding traffic to the prefix. The label NLRI
defines the outbound label that MUST be used by the receiving node.

5. Advertising BGP Prefix-SID Attribute

The BGP Prefix-SID attribute MAY be attached to BGP IPv4/IPv6 Label Labeled
Unicast prefixes [RFC8277]. In order to prevent distribution of the
BGP Prefix-SID attribute beyond its intended scope of applicability,
attribute filtering SHOULD be deployed to remove the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute at the administrative boundary of the segment routing SR domain.

A BGP speaker that advertises a path received from one of its
neighbors SHOULD advertise the BGP Prefix-SID received with the path
without modification, modification as long as the BGP Prefix-SID was acceptable.
If the path did not come with a BGP Prefix-SID attribute, the speaker
MAY attach a BGP Prefix-SID to the path if configured to do so. The
content of the TLVs present in the BGP Prefix-SID is determined by
the configuration.

5.1. MPLS Dataplane: Data Plane: Labeled Unicast

A BGP speaker that originates a prefix attaches the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute when it advertises the prefix to its neighbors via
Multiprotocol BGP IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast ([RFC8277]). The value
of the label index in the Label-Index TLV is determined by
configuration.

A BGP speaker that originates a BGP Prefix-SID attribute MAY
optionally announce the Originator SRGB TLV along with the mandatory
Label-Index TLV. The content of the Originator SRGB TLV is
determined by configuration.

Since the label index label-index value must be unique within an SR domain, by
default an implementation SHOULD NOT advertise the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute outside an Autonomous System AS unless it is explicitly configured to do so.

In all cases, the label Label field of the advertised NLRI ([RFC8277], ([RFC8277]
[RFC4364]) MUST be set to the local/incoming label programmed in the
MPLS dataplane data plane for the given advertised prefix. If the prefix is
associated with one of the BGP speaker's interfaces, this is the
usual MPLS label (such as the Implicit or Explicit NULL label
[RFC3032]).

6. Error Handling of BGP Prefix-SID Attribute

When a BGP Speaker speaker receives a BGP Update UPDATE message containing a
malformed or invalid BGP Prefix-SID attribute attached to a IPv4/IPv6 an IPv4/
IPv6 Labeled Unicast prefix [RFC8277], ([RFC8277]), it MUST ignore the received
BGP Prefix-SID attributes attribute and not advertise it to other BGP peers. In
this context, a malformed BGP Prefix-SID attribute is one that cannot
be parsed due to not meeting the minimum attribute length
requirement, contains containing a TLV length that doesn't conform to the
length constraints for the TLV, or containing a contains TLV length that would
extend beyond the end of the attribute (as defined by the attribute
length). This is equivalent to the "Attribute discard" action
specified in [RFC7606]. When discarding an attribute, a BGP speaker
SHOULD log an error for further analysis.

As per with [RFC7606], if the BGP Prefix-SID attribute appears more than
once in an UPDATE message, then all the occurrences of the attribute other
than the first one SHALL be discarded and the UPDATE message will
continue to be processed. Similarly, if a recognized TLV appears
more than once in an a BGP Prefix-SID attribute while the specification
only allows for a single occurrence, then all the occurrences of the
TLV other than the first one SHALL be discarded and the Prefix-SID
attribute will continue to be processed.

For future extensibility, unknown TLVs MUST be ignored and propagated
unmodified.

7. IANA Considerations

This document defines a BGP path attribute known as the BGP Prefix-
SID attribute. This document requests IANA to assign an has assigned attribute code type (suggested value: 40) 40 to the BGP
Prefix-SID attribute from the BGP "BGP Path Attributes Attributes" registry.

IANA temporarily assigned the following:

40 BGP Prefix-SID (TEMPORARY - registered 2015-09-30, expires
2018-09-30) [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]

This document defines two TLVs for the BGP Prefix-SID attribute.
These TLVs need to be have been registered with IANA. We request IANA to
create has created a
registry for BGP Prefix-SID Attribute TLVs as follows:

Under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry, the
new registry titled "BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types" Reference: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid has been created and
points to this document as the reference.

Registration Procedure(s):

Values 1-254 - 1-254, Expert Review as defined in
[RFC8126], Value [RFC8126]
Values 0 and 255 reserved 255, Reserved

+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| Value | Type | Reference |
+=======+=================+===============+
| 0 | Reserved this | This document |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| 1 | Label-Index this | This document |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| 2 | Deprecated this | This document |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| 3 | Originator SRGB this | This document |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| 4-254 | Unassigned | |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| 255 | Reserved this | This document |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+

Table 1: BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types

The value 2 previously corresponded to the IPv6 SID TLV TLV, which was
specified in previous versions of this document. It was removed removed, and
usage
use of the BGP Prefix-SID for Segment Routing over the IPv6
dataplane [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] data
plane [RFC8402] has been deferred to future specifications.

This document

IANA has also requests creation of created the "BGP Prefix-SID Label-
Index Label-Index TLV Flags"
registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters"
registry, Reference: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid. with a reference to this document. Initially, this 16-bit
flags registry will be is empty. The registration policy for flag bits will is
Expert Review [RFC8126] [RFC8126], consistent with the BGP "BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types
Types" registry.

Finally, this document requests creation of IANA has created the "BGP Prefix-SID Originator SRGB TLV
Flags" registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters"
registry, Reference: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
prefix-sid. with a reference to this document. Initially, this 16-bit
flags registry will be is empty. The registration policy for flag bits will is
Expert Review [RFC8126] consistent with the BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types
registry.

The designated experts must be good and faithful stewards of the
above registries, assuring ensuring that each request is legitimate and
corresponds to a viable use case. Given the limited number of bits
in the flags registries and the applicability to a single TLV,
additional scrutiny should be afforded to flag bit allocation
requests. requests for flag-bit
allocation. In general, no single use case should require more than
one flag bit and, should the use case require more, alternate
encodings using new TLVs should be considered.

8. Manageability Considerations

This document defines a BGP attribute to address use cases such as
the one described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc]. [RFC8670]. It is assumed that advertisement of
the BGP Prefix-SID attribute is controlled by the operator in order
to:

* Prevent undesired origination/advertisement of the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute. By default, a BGP Prefix-SID attribute SHOULD NOT be
attached to a prefix and advertised. Hence, BGP Prefix-SID
advertisement
Advertisement SHOULD require explicit enablement.

* Prevent any undesired propagation of the BGP Prefix-SID attribute.
By default, the BGP Prefix-SID is not advertised outside the
boundary of a single SR/administrative domain which that may include one
or more ASes. The propagation to other ASes MUST be explicitly
configured.

The deployment model described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc] [RFC8670] assumes multiple Autonomous
Systems (ASes) ASes
under a common administrative domain. For this use case, the BGP
Prefix-SID advertisement Advertisement is applicable to the inter-AS context, i.e.,
EBGP, while it is confined to a single administrative domain.

9. Security Considerations

This document introduces a BGP attribute (BGP Prefix-SID) Prefix-SID), which
inherits the security considerations expressed in: [RFC4271],
[RFC8277], and [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. [RFC8402].

When advertised using BGPsec as described in [RFC8205], the BGP
Prefix-SID attribute doesn't impose any unique security
considerations. It should be noted that the BGP Prefix-SID attribute
is not protected by the BGPsec signatures.

It should be noted that, as described in Section 8, this document
refers to a deployment model where all nodes are under the single
administrative domain. In this context, we assume that the operator
doesn't want to leak any information related to internal prefixes and
topology outside of the administrative domain. The internal
information includes the BGP Prefix-SID. In order to prevent such
leaking, the common BGP mechanisms (filters) are applied at the
boundary of the SR/administrative domain. Local BGP attribute BGP-attribute-
filtering policies and mechanisms are not standardized and,
consequently, are beyond the scope of this document.

To prevent a Denial-of-Service (DoS) or Distributed-Denial-of-Service
(DDoS) attack due to excessive BGP updates with an invalid or
conflicting BGP Prefix-SID attribute, error log message rate-limiting rate limiting
as well as suppression of duplicate error log messages SHOULD be
deployed.

Since BGP-LS is the preferred method for advertising SRGB
information, the BGP speaker SHOULD log an error if a BGP Prefix-SID
attribute is received with SRGB information different from that
received as an attribute of the same node's BGP-LS Node NLRI.

10. Contributors

Keyur Patel
Arrcus, Inc.
US

Email: Keyur@arrcus.com

Saikat Ray
Unaffiliated
US

Email: raysaikat@gmail.com

11. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Satya Mohanty for his contribution to
this document.

The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana for substantive
comments as part of the Routing AD review.

The authors would like to thank Bruno Decraene for substantive
comments and suggested text as part of the Routing Directorate
review.

The authors would like to thank Shyam Sethuram for comments and
discussion of TLV processing and validation.

The authors would like to thank Robert Raszuk for comments and
suggestions regarding the MPLS data plane behavior.

The authors would like to thank Krishna Deevi, Juan Alcaide, Howard
Yang, and Jakob Heitz for discussions on conflicting BGP Prefix-SID
label indices and BGP add paths.

The authors would like to thank Peter Yee, Tony Przygienda, Mirja
Kuehlewind, Alexey Melnikov, Eric Rescorla, Suresh Krishnan, Warren
Kumari, Ben Campbell Sue Hares, and Martin Vigoureux for IDR Working
Group last call, IETF Last Call, directorate, and IESG reviews.

12. References

12.1.

10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), 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-14
(work in progress), 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>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

[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>.

[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.

[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.

[RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7911>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.

[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

[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>.

[RFC8205] Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol
Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, September
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8205>.

[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.

12.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]

[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., Leddy, J., Matsushima, Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and
d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Header
(SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-13 (work in
progress), May 2018.

[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.

10.2. Informative References

[BGPLS-SR-EPE]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-08
(work in progress), May 2018.

[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray,
S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing
BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-
epe-15 (work Work in progress), March 2018.

[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc] Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-19, 16 May
2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
segment-routing-epe-19>.

[BGPLS-SR-EXT]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16, 27 June 2019,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-
segment-routing-ext-16>.

[IPv6-SRH] Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and P.
Lapukhov, "BGP-Prefix D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", Work in large-scale data
centers", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-09 (work
in progress), May 2018. Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-
segment-routing-header-26, 22 October 2019,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-
routing-header-26>.

[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.

[RFC5004] Chen, E. and S. Sangli, "Avoid BGP Best Path Transitions
from One External to Another", RFC 5004,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5004, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5004>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5004>.

[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

[RFC8670] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and
P. Lapukhov, "BGP Prefix Segment in Large-Scale Data
Centers", RFC 8670, DOI 10.17487/RFC8670, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8670>.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Satya Mohanty for his contribution to
this document.

The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana for substantive
comments as part of the Routing AD review.

The authors would like to thank Bruno Decraene for substantive
comments and suggested text as part of the Routing Directorate
review.

The authors would like to thank Shyam Sethuram for comments and
discussion of TLV processing and validation.

The authors would like to thank Robert Raszuk for comments and
suggestions regarding the MPLS data-plane behavior.

The authors would like to thank Krishna Deevi, Juan Alcaide, Howard
Yang, and Jakob Heitz for discussions on conflicting BGP Prefix-SID
label indices and BGP add paths.

The authors would like to thank Peter Yee, Tony Przygienda, Mirja
Kuhlewind, Alexey Melnikov, Eric Rescorla, Suresh Krishnan, Warren
Kumari, Ben Campbell Sue Hares, and Martin Vigoureux for IDR Working
Group last call, IETF Last Call, directorate, and IESG reviews.

Contributors

Keyur Patel
Arrcus, Inc.
United States of America

Email: Keyur@arrcus.com

Saikat Ray
Unaffiliated
United States of America

Email: raysaikat@gmail.com

Authors' Addresses

Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems
IT
Huawei Technologies
Italy

Email: stefano@previdi.net

Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
Brussels
Belgium

Email: cfilsfils@cisco.com cfilsfil@cisco.com

Acee Lindem (editor)
Cisco Systems
301 Midenhall Way
Cary, NC NC, 27513
USA
United States of America

Email: acee@cisco.com

Arjun Sreekantiah

Email: arjunhrs@gmail.com

Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.

Email: hannes@rtbrick.com