ISIS extensions for SRv6 draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-03

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 © 2000, Cisco Systems, Inc. Integrated-ISIS Route Leaking.
Advertisements

IETF 88 ISIS WG1draft-li-isis-mrt-00 Zhenbin Li, Nan Wu, Quintin Zhao (Huawei) Alia Atlas, Chris Bowers(Juniper) Jeff Tantsura(Ericsson) IETF 88, Vancouver,
OSPF Two-part Metrics Jeffrey Zhang Juniper Networks 90 th IETF, Toronto.
Prepared By: Eng.Ola M. Abd El-Latif
Draft-psenak-ospf-bier-extensions-02.txt IETF 88, November 3-8, 2013 P. Psenak, N. Kumar, IJ. Wijnands – Cisco Systems J. Zhang – Juniper Networks A. Dolganow.
PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-01
OSPF Operator Defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment (previous name self-defined TLVs) draft-chunduri-ospf-operator-defined-tlvs-00 (previously: draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-03)
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.ICND1 v1.0—4-1 LAN Connections Constructing a Network Addressing Scheme.
OSPF Two-part Metrics Jeffrey Zhang Juniper Networks 89 th IETF, Landon.
1 © 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2003, Cisco Systems, Inc. OSPF and ISIS v6 Khalid Raza
Segment Routing with IPv6 Eric Vyncke Distinguished Engineer – Cisco Systems September, 2014 Leveraging IPv6 extension header for traffic.
Draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-01 draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-ospfv3-extension- 02 IETF 88, November 3-8, 2013 P. Psenak, S.Previdi,
Interior Gateway Protocol. Introduction An IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) is a protocol for exchanging routing information between gateways (hosts with.
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public ITE PC v4.0 Chapter 1 1 VLSM and CIDR Routing Protocols and Concepts – Chapter 6 05/07/2009.
Draft-francois-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00 Pierre Francois, IMDEA Networks Institute Clarence Filsfils, Ahmed Bashandy, Cisco Systems Bruno Decraene, Stephane.
1 Multi Topology Routing for OSPFv3 (draft-mirtorabi-mt-ospfv3-00.txt) Sina Mirtorabi
BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing
Simplified Extension of LSP Space for IS-IS draft-ietf-isis-wg-extlsp-00.txt Les Ginsberg Stefano Previdi Mike Shand.
OSPF WG – IETF 63 OSPFv3 Graceful Restart Padma Pillay-Esnault Cisco Systems
OSPFv3 Auto-Config IETF 83, Paris Jari Arkko, Ericsson Acee Lindem, Ericsson.
Advertising Global Labels or SIDs Using IS-IS draft-xu-isis-global-label-sid-advdraft-xu-isis-global-label-sid-adv-00 Xiaohu Xu (Huawei)
Extended procedures and Considerations for Loop Free Alternatives draft-chunduri-rtgwg-lfa-extended-procedures-01 Uma Chunduri Ericsson Inc. Jeff Tantsura.
1 Variable Length Subnet Masks ( VLSM ) “ Classful Route” Means if a route to a network starting with is received, it is a class A => mask length.
Draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-ospf-extension-03 draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-ospfv3-extension-00 IETF 88, November 3-8, 2013 P. Psenak, S.Previdi,
86th IETF, Orlando, March 2013 Flooding Scope PDUs draft-ginsberg-isis-fs-lsp-00.txt Les Ginsberg Stefano Previdi.
Connecting MPLS-SPRING Islands over IP Networks
Advertising Generic Information in IS-IS
draft-patel-raszuk-bgp-vector-routing-01
IPv6 Addressing Overview IPv6 increases the number of address bits by a factor of 4, from 32 to 128, providing a very large number of addressable.
Update on Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-05
Multi-Instances ISIS Extension draft-ietf-isis-mi-08.txt
Segment Routing (SR) Introduction and Tutorial
OSPF (Open Shortest Path First)
Multi Topology Routing (MTR) for OSPF
Advertising Encapsulation Capability Using OSPF
Les Ginsberg Stefano Previdi Peter Psenak Martin Pilka
ISIS Route Tag sub-TLV draft-ietf-isis-admin-tags-02.txt
Explicitly advertising the TE protocols enabled on links in OSPF
draft-lw-spring-sid-allocation-02
IS-IS Reverse Metric IETF 97, Seoul
SRv6 for Mobile User-Plane
P. Psenak, S.Previdi, C. Filsfils – Cisco W. Henderickx – Nokia
OSPF & ISIS Flooding Reduction
draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-01
ISIS extensions for SRv6 draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-02
Authors : Francois Clad, Cisco (presenter) Xiaoahu Xu, Alibaba
Separating Routing Planes using Segment Routing draft-gulkohegde-spring-separating-routing-planes-using-sr-00 IETF 98 – Chicago, USA Shraddha Hegde
ISIS extensions for SRv6 draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-00
IETF South Korea PCEP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing draft-li-pce-pcep-ls-sr-extension-01 Zhenbin Li (Huawei) Xia Chen (Huawei) Nan.
Update on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-12
draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id-00
draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-00
SRv6 BGP based overlay services draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-00
draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-00
Peter Psenak, C. Filsfils(Cisco)
draft-ali-spring-srv6-oam-02.txt SRv6 OAM
IETF 103 – Bangkok November 2018
draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa-00
Clarence Filsfils Pablo Camarillo John Leddy Daniel Voyer
draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-04
BGP VPN service for SRv6 Plus IETF 105, Montreal
draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo-02
Unified Source Routing Instructions using MPLS Label Stack draft-xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction-04 Xiaohu Xu (Huawei) Ahmed Bashandy (Cisco)
IETF105 IS-IS V6/MT Deployment Considerations draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-mt-deployment-cons-02 Uma Chunduri [Futurewei] Jeff Tantsura [Apstra] Shraddha Hegde.
Link State(LS) Flooding Reduction
draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm-03
draft-ali-spring-srv6-oam-01.txt SRv6 OAM
draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-04
Inter-AS OAM for SR Networks IETF 105, Montreal
Presentation transcript:

ISIS extensions for SRv6 draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-03 Clarence Filsfils, Cisco Systems Les Ginsberg, Cisco Systems Peter Psenak, Cisco Systems Ahmed Bashandy, Individual Bruno Decraene, Orange Zhibo Hu, Huawei 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

Contributors Stefano Previdi, Huawei Daniel Voyer, Bell Canada Satoru Matsushima, Softbank Bart peirens, Proximus Hani Elmalky, Ericsson Prem Jonnalagadda,barefootnetworks Milad Sharif, Barefoot Robert Hanzl, Cisco Ketan Talaulikar, Cisco Paul Wells, Cisco 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

draft-li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-01 OSPFv3 Equivalent   draft-li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-01 Zhenbin Li, Huawei Technologies Zhibo Hu, Huawei Technologies Dean Cheng, Huawei Technologies Ketan Talaulikar, Cisco Systems Peter Psenak, Cisco Systems 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

Changes since V2 Node SID TLV has been replaced with an SRv6 Locator TLV. End SIDs are now advertised as a sub-TLV of the SRv6 Locator TLV. SRv6 related SID depth advertisements are now done using the MSD sub-TLV defined in draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd Full support for topologies and algorithms is now defined.   102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

Locators and SIDs SRv6 SID is a 128 bit value LOC:FUNCT LOC (the locator portion) is the L most significant bits FUNCT is the 128-L least significant bits. Locators/SIDs are topology/algorithm specific Each locator is a covering prefix for all SIDs provisioned on that node which have the matching topology/algorithm. This allows only Locators to be installed in the forwarding plane similar to “summary addresses”. SIDs are not installed in forwarding on transit nodes. 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

Locators and SIDs: Example ! MTID 0/Algorithm 0 locator 2001:DB8:0:0::0/64 !End SID 2001:DB8:0:0:81::0/128 !End.X SID 2001:DB8:0:0:82::0/128 … !MTID 0/Algorithm 128 locator 2001:DB8:0:1::0/64 2001:DB8:0:1:20::0/128 2001:DB8:0:1:21::0/128 NOTES: SIDs are “covered” by the corresponding topology/algorithm locator Function/arguments are in the (128-L) LSBs 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

SRv6 Locator TLV Advertises SRv6 Topology/Algorithm specific locators Ignored by legacy nodes Forwarding entries are created for the advertised locators when SRv6 and topology/algorithm is supported by the receiving node Locators are routable and MAY also be advertised in Prefix Reachability for use by legacy nodes Allows SRv6 to work in the presence of legacy nodes Prefix Reachability entries preferred over locator advertisements in case of dual advertisements Shares sub-TLV space with prefix reachability TLV (135/235/236/237) Can be leaked between levels * E.g. Different leaking/propagating policy Different tagging (e.g admit tags) ** For End and End.DT, not for End.X and End.DX 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

SRv6 Locator 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 |R|R|R|R| MTID | | Metric | | Flags | Algorithm | | LOC size | Locator (variable) . . . | sub-tlv-len | Sub-TLVs (variable) . . . | Flags: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |D| Reserved | D bit: When the Locator is leaked from level-2 to level-1, the D bit MUST be set. Algorithm: From IGP Algorithm Registry (0 – 255) * E.g. Different leaking/propagating policy Different tagging (e.g admit tags) ** For End and End.DT, not for End.X and End.DX 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

SRv6 End SID sub-TLV Sub-TLV of SRv6 Locator TLV Inherits Topology/Algorithm from the parent Locator NOT associated with a neighbor MUST be a subnet of the parent locator NOT to be installed in RIB/FIB Included when topo level TLV is leaked Following Endpoint Functions are supported: End (all PSP/USP variants) End.T (all PSP/USP variants) End.OTP End.DT6 * E.g. Different leaking/propagating policy Different tagging (e.g admit tags) ** For End and End.DT, not for End.X and End.DX 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

SRv6 End SID sub-TLV 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 | Srv6 Endpoint Function | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SID (128 bits). . . | | SID (cont . . . ) | |Sub-sub-tlv-len| sub-sub-TLVs (variable) . . . | Flags: 1 octet. No flags are currently defined. SRv6 Endpoint Function: 2 octets. As defined in [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] SID: 16 octets. This field encodes the advertised SRv6 SID. Sub-sub-TLV-length: 1 octet. Number of octets used by sub-sub-TLVs Optional sub-sub-TLVs * E.g. Different leaking/propagating policy Different tagging (e.g admit tags) ** For End and End.DT, not for End.X and End.DX 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

Advertising SRv6 End.X SIDs Associated with one (possibly multiple) neighbors Sub-TLVs of IS-Neighbor TLVs (22, etc.) Inherits Topology from the neighbor Algorithm MUST be specified MUST be a subnet of a locator with matching topology/algorithm NOT to be installed in RIB/FIB Following Endpoint Functions are supported: End.X (all PSP/USP variants) End.DX6 Two sub-TLVs: P2P and LAN * E.g. Different leaking/propagating policy Different tagging (e.g admit tags) ** For End and End.DT, not for End.X and End.DX 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV 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 | Algorithm | Weight | | SRv6 Endpoint Function | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SID (128 bits) . . . | | SID (cont . . . ) | | sub-tlv-len | Sub-TLVs (variable) . . . | 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

SRv6 LAN End.X SID sub-TLV 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 | System-ID (6 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Flags | Algorithm | Weight | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SRv6 Endpoint Function | | SID (128 bits) . . . | | SID (cont . . . ) | | sub-tlv-len | Sub-TLVs (variable) . . . | 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

SRv6 End.X SID Fields Flags: 1 octet. 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |B|S|P|Reserved | where: B-Flag: Backup flag. If set, the End.X SID is eligible for protection (e.g., using IPFRR) as described in [RFC8355]. S-Flag. Set flag. When set, the S-Flag indicates that the End.X SID refers to a set of adjacencies (and therefore MAY be assigned to other adjacencies as well). P-Flag. Persistent flag. When set, the P-Flag indicates that the End.X SID is persistently allocated, i.e., the End.X SID value remains consistent across router restart and/or interface flap. Other bits: MUST be zero when originated and ignored when received. Algorithm: From IGP Algorithm Registry (0 – 255) Weight: Load balancing 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

SRv6 Capabilities Sub-TLV 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 | | Optional sub-sub-TLVs … Flags +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |O| Reserved | O-flag: Indicates the router supports use of the O-bit in SRH (OAM) [I-D.ali-spring-srv6-oam]. Used to advertise the support for SRv6 and the limitation on such support 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

Advertising Maximum SRv6 Depths Based on [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] This allows both per link and per node support. Max-Segments Left: Maximum Received SL in the SRH Max-End-Pop: Maximum number of SIDs when applying PSP or USP flavors (0 => not supported) Max-T.Insert: Maximum number of SIDs when applying T.insert (0 => not supported) Max-T.Encap: Maximum number of SIDs when applying T.Encap (0=>only IPinIP support) Max-End-D: Maximum number of SIDs when applying End.DX6 or End.DT6 Used to advertise the support for SRv6 and the limitation on such support 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018

Comments welcome 102nd IETF, Montreal, July 2018