One document matched: draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-00.txt
Network working group X. Xu
Internet Draft Huawei
Category: Informational S.Sivabalan
Cisco
Expires: August 2014 February 8, 2014
Connecting SPRING Islands over IP Networks
draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-00
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) architecture [SR-ARCH] introduces a new MPLS
paradigm in which a sender of a packet is allowed to partially or
completely specify the route the packet takes through the network by
using stacked MPLS labels. The current SR architecture requires an
end-to-end MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) between any two SR-enabled
routers (e.g., two adjacent hops of a given explicit path). In order
to enable SR to be deployed even when there are non-MPLS routers
along the path between two SR-enabled routers, it is desirable to
have an alternative, which allows the use of IP-based tunnels (e.g.,
GRE tunnels) to connect two SR-enabled routers. This document
describes a mechanism for such usage.
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
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://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 August 8, 2014.
Xu, et al. Expires August 8, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Connecting SPRING Islands over IP February 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Terminology ................................................. 3
3. Packet Forwarding Process ................................... 3
4. Security Considerations ..................................... 4
5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 4
6. Acknowledgements ............................................ 4
7. References .................................................. 4
7.1. Normative References ................................... 4
7.2. Informative References ................................ 4
Authors' Addresses ............................................. 4
Xu, et al. Expires August 8, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Connecting SPRING Islands over IP February 2014
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) architecture [SR-ARCH] introduces a new MPLS
paradigm in which a sender of a packet is allowed to partially or
completely specify the route the packet takes through the network by
using stacked MPLS labels. In other words, this new paradigm could
support source routing by using the MPLS label stack where each MPLS
label represents a given hop that the packet must go through. Here
the MPLS label could be either locally significant or globally
significant.
The current SR architecture requires an end-to-end MPLS Label
Switched Path (LSP) between any two SR-enabled routers (e.g., any two
adjacent hops of a given explicit path). This means that SR cannot be
implemented if there is a part of the path between those two SR-
enabled routers that does not support MPLS.
In order to enable SR to be deployed even when there are non-MPLS
routers along the path between two SR-enabled routers, it is
desirable to have an alternative, which allows the use of IP-based
tunnels (e.g., GRE tunnels) to connect two SR-enabled routers which
are specified as adjacent hops of a given explicit path. The tunnel
destination address would be the address of next-hop SR-enabled
router along the explicit path, and this would cause the packet to be
delivered to the next explicit hop. In this procedure, the ingress
and egress of IP-based tunnel themselves must support SR features
including the MPLS forwarding capability, whereas the transit routers
along the path between them don't need to support MPLS and SR.
The above mechanism is beneficial for incrementally deployment of the
SR technology, especially in the case where only a few specific
routers (e.g., service function nodes) in addition to Provider Edge
(PE) routers are actually required to be specified as explicit hops
of the loose explicit path.
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC1195] and [SR-ARCH].
3. Packet Forwarding Process
Assume a SR-enabled router X prepares to forward a MPLS packet to the
next node segment Y which is identified by the top label of the MPLS
packet, if the next-hop router Z which is physically adjacent to X is
a non-SR router, X would pop the top label (if required) and then
encapsulate the remaining MPLS packet into an IP-based tunnel(e.g.,
Xu, et al. Expires August 8, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Connecting SPRING Islands over IP February 2014
GRE) where the tunnel destination is an IP address of Y and the
tunnel source is an IP address of X. The IP encapsulated packet would
be forwarded according to the IP forwarding table.
Upon receipt of that IP encapsulated packet, Y would decapsulate it
and then process the decapsulated MPLS packet accordingly.
As for which tunnel encapsulation type should be used by X, it can be
manually specified on X or dynamically learnt from Y's advertisement
of its tunnel encapsulation capability. How to advertise tunnel
encapsulation capability is outside of the scope of this document.
4. Security Considerations
TBD.
5. IANA Considerations
No action is required for IANA.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[SR-ARCH] Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-rtgwg-
segment-routing-00 (work in progress), June 2013.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating MPLS
in IP or GRE", RFC4023, March 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu
Huawei Technologies,
Beijing, China
Xu, et al. Expires August 8, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Connecting SPRING Islands over IP February 2014
Phone: +86-10-60610041
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems
Email: msiva@cisco.com
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 23:28:47 |