<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent"><?rfc toc="yes"?> <?rfc tocompact="yes"?> <?rfc tocdepth="3"?> <?rfc tocindent="yes"?> <?rfc symrefs="yes"?> <?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> <?rfc comments="yes"?> <?rfc inline="yes"?> <?rfc compact="yes"?> <?rfc subcompact="no"?><rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="info"docName="draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-11"ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" consensus="true" number="9999" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3"> <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 2.23.0 --> <front> <title abbrev="BGP-Prefix SID in large-scale DCs">BGP-Prefix Segment in large-scale data centers</title> <seriesInfoname="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-11"/>name="RFC" value="9999"/> <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils" initials="C." role="editor" surname="Filsfils"> <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization> <address> <postal> <street/> <city>Brussels</city> <region/> <code/> <country>BE</country> </postal> <email>cfilsfil@cisco.com</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Stefano Previdi" initials="S." surname="Previdi"> <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization> <address> <postal> <street/> <city/> <code/> <country>Italy</country> </postal> <email>stefano@previdi.net</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Gaurav Dawra" initials="G." surname="Dawra"> <organization>LinkedIn</organization> <address> <postal> <street/> <city/> <code/> <country>USA</country> </postal> <email>gdawra.ietf@gmail.com</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Ebben Aries" initials="E." surname="Aries"> <organization>Juniper Networks</organization> <address> <postal> <street>1133 Innovation Way</street> <city>Sunnyvale</city> <code>CA 94089</code> <country>US</country> </postal> <email>exa@juniper.net</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Petr Lapukhov" initials="P." surname="Lapukhov"> <organization>Facebook</organization> <address> <postal> <street/> <city/> <code/> <country>US</country> </postal> <email>petr@fb.com</email> </address> </author> <dateyear="2018"/>month="July" year="2019"/> <workgroup>Network Working Group</workgroup> <abstract> <t>This document describes the motivation and benefits for applying segment routing in BGP-based large-scale data-centers. It describes the design to deploy segment routing in those data-centers, for both the MPLS and IPv6 dataplanes.</t> </abstract> </front> <middle> <section anchor="INTRO" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Introduction</name> <t>Segment Routing (SR), as described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing" format="default"/> leverages the source routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called segments. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service-based. A segment can have a local semantic to an SR node or global within an SR domain. SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node to the SR domain. Segment Routing can be applied to the MPLS and IPv6 data-planes.</t> <t>The use-cases described in this document should be considered in the context of the BGP-based large-scale data-center (DC) design described in <xref target="RFC7938" format="default"/>. This document extends it by applying SR both with IPv6 and MPLS dataplane.</t> </section> <section anchor="LARGESCALEDC" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Large Scale Data Center Network Design Summary</name> <t>This section provides a brief summary of the informational document <xref target="RFC7938" format="default"/> that outlines a practical network design suitable for data-centers of various scales:</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>Data-center networks have highly symmetric topologies with multiple parallel paths between two server attachment points. The well-known Clos topology is most popular among the operators (as described in <xref target="RFC7938" format="default"/>). In a Clos topology, the minimum number of parallel paths between two elements is determined by the "width" of the "Tier-1" stage. See <xref target="FIGLARGE" format="default"/> below for an illustration of the concept.</li> <li>Large-scale data-centers commonly use a routing protocol, such as BGP-4 <xref target="RFC4271" format="default"/> in order to provide endpoint connectivity. Recovery after a network failure is therefore driven either by local knowledge of directly available backup paths or by distributed signaling between the network devices.</li> <li>Within data-center networks, traffic is load-shared using the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) mechanism. With ECMP, every network device implements a pseudo-random decision, mapping packets to one of the parallel paths by means of a hash function calculated over certain parts of the packet, typically a combination of various packet header fields.</li> </ul> <t>The following is a schematic of a five-stage Clos topology, with four devices in the "Tier-1" stage. Notice that number of paths between Node1 and Node12 equals to four: the paths have to cross all of Tier-1 devices. At the same time, the number of paths between Node1 and Node2 equals two, and the paths only cross Tier-2 devices. Other topologies are possible, but for simplicity only the topologies that have a single path from Tier-1 to Tier-3 are considered below. The rest could be treated similarly, with a few modifications to the logic.</t> <section anchor="REFDESIGN" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Reference design</name> <figure anchor="FIGLARGE"> <name>5-stage Clos topology</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ Tier-1 +-----+ |NODE | +->| 5 |--+ | +-----+ | Tier-2 | | Tier-2 +-----+ | +-----+ | +-----+ +------------>|NODE |--+->|NODE |--+--|NODE |-------------+ | +-----| 3 |--+ | 6 | +--| 9 |-----+ | | | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | | | | | | | | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | | | +-----+---->|NODE |--+ |NODE | +--|NODE |-----+-----+ | | | | +---| 4 |--+->| 7 |--+--| 10 |---+ | | | | | | | +-----+ | +-----+ | +-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ |NODE | |NODE | Tier-3 +->|NODE |--+ Tier-3 |NODE | |NODE | | 1 | | 2 | | 8 | | 11 | | 12 | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | | | | | | | | A O B O <- Servers -> Z O O O ]]></artwork> </figure> <t>In the reference topology illustrated in <xref target="FIGLARGE" format="default"/>, It is assumed:</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Each node is its own AS (Node X has AS X). 4-byte AS numbers are recommended (<xref target="RFC6793" format="default"/>).</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>For simple and efficient route propagation filtering, Node5, Node6, Node7 and Node8 use the same AS, Node3 and Node4 use the same AS, Node9 and Node10 use the same AS.</li> <li>In case of 2-byte autonomous system numbers are used and for efficient usage of the scarce 2-byte Private Use AS pool, different Tier-3 nodes might use the same AS.</li> <li>Without loss of generality, these details will be simplified in this document and assume that each node has its own AS.</li> </ul> </li> <li>Each node peers with its neighbors with a BGP session. If not specified, eBGP is assumed. In a specific use-case, iBGP will be used but this will be called out explicitly in that case.</li> <li> <t>Each node originates the IPv4 address of its loopback interface into BGP and announces it to its neighbors. </t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>The loopback of Node X is 192.0.2.x/32.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <t>In this document, the Tier-1, Tier-2 and Tier-3 nodes are referred to respectively as Spine, Leaf and ToR (top of rack) nodes. When a ToR node acts as a gateway to the "outside world", it is referred to as a border node.</t> </section> </section> <section anchor="OPENPROBS" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Some open problems in large data-center networks</name> <t>The data-center network design summarized above provides means for moving traffic between hosts with reasonable efficiency. There are few open performance and reliability problems that arise in such design: </t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>ECMP routing is most commonly realized per-flow. This means that large, long-lived "elephant" flows may affect performance of smaller, short-lived "mouse" flows and reduce efficiency of per-flow load-sharing. In other words, per-flow ECMP does not perform efficiently when flow lifetime distribution is heavy-tailed. Furthermore, due to hash-function inefficiencies it is possible to have frequent flow collisions, where more flows get placed on one path over the others.</li> <li>Shortest-path routing with ECMP implements an oblivious routing model, which is not aware of the network imbalances. If the network symmetry is broken, for example due to link failures, utilization hotspots may appear. For example, if a link fails between Tier-1 and Tier-2 devices (e.g. Node5 and Node9), Tier-3 devices Node1 and Node2 will not be aware of that, since there are other paths available from perspective of Node3. They will continue sending roughly equal traffic to Node3 and Node4 as if the failure didn't exist which may cause a traffic hotspot.</li> <li>Isolating faults in the network with multiple parallel paths and ECMP-based routing is non-trivial due to lack of determinism. Specifically, the connections from HostA to HostB may take a different path every time a new connection is formed, thus making consistent reproduction of a failure much more difficult. This complexity scales linearly with the number of parallel paths in the network, and stems from the random nature of path selection by the network devices.</li> </ul> <t>First, it will be explained how to apply SR in the DC, for MPLS and IPv6 data-planes.</t> </section> <section anchor="APPLYSR" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Applying Segment Routing in the DC with MPLS dataplane</name> <section anchor="BGPREFIXSEGMENT" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>BGP Prefix Segment (BGP-Prefix-SID)</name> <t>A BGP Prefix Segment is a segment associated with a BGP prefix. A BGP Prefix Segment is a network-wide instruction to forward the packet along the ECMP-aware best path to the related prefix.</t> <t>The BGP Prefix Segment is defined as the BGP-Prefix-SID Attribute in <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid" format="default"/> which contains an index. Throughout this document the BGP Prefix Segment Attribute is referred as the BGP-Prefix-SID and the encoded index as the label-index.</t> <t>In this document, the network design decision has been made to assume that all the nodes are allocated the same SRGB (Segment Routing Global Block), e.g. [16000, 23999]. This provides operational simplification as explained in <xref target="SINGLESRGB" format="default"/>, but this is not a requirement.</t> <t>For illustration purpose, when considering an MPLS data-plane, it is assumed that the label-index allocated to prefix 192.0.2.x/32 is X. As a result, a local label (16000+x) is allocated for prefix 192.0.2.x/32 by each node throughout the DC fabric.</t> <t>When IPv6 data-plane is considered, it is assumed that Node X is allocated IPv6 address (segment) 2001:DB8::X.</t> </section> <section anchor="eBGP8277" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>eBGP Labeled Unicast (RFC8277)</name> <t>Referring to <xref target="FIGLARGE" format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC7938" format="default"/>, the following design modifications are introduced:</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>Each node peers with its neighbors via a eBGP session with extensions defined in <xref target="RFC8277" format="default"/> (named "eBGP8277" throughout this document) and with the BGP-Prefix-SID attribute extension as defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid" format="default"/>.</li> <li>The forwarding plane at Tier-2 and Tier-1 is MPLS.</li> <li>The forwarding plane at Tier-3 is either IP2MPLS (if the host sends IP traffic) or MPLS2MPLS (if the host sends MPLS- encapsulated traffic).</li> </ul> <t><xref target="FIGSMALL" format="default"/> zooms into a path from server A to server Z within the topology of <xref target="FIGLARGE" format="default"/>.</t> <figure anchor="FIGSMALL"> <name>Path from A to Z via nodes 1, 4, 7, 10 and 11</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------->|NODE | |NODE | |NODE | | | 4 |--+->| 7 |--+--| 10 |---+ | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | | | +-----+ +-----+ |NODE | |NODE | | 1 | | 11 | +-----+ +-----+ | | A <- Servers -> Z ]]></artwork> </figure> <t>Referring to <xref target="FIGLARGE" format="default"/> and <xref target="FIGSMALL" format="default"/> and assuming the IP address with the AS and label-index allocation previously described, the following sections detail the control plane operation and the data plane states for the prefix 192.0.2.11/32 (loopback of Node11)</t> <section anchor="CONTROLPLANE" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Control Plane</name> <t>Node11 originates 192.0.2.11/32 in BGP and allocates to it a BGP-Prefix-SID with label-index: index11 <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid" format="default"/>.</t><t>Node11<ul empty="true"> <li><t>Node11 sends the following eBGP8277 update to Node10:</t><artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[. IP Prefix: 192.0.2.11/32 . Label: Implicit-Null . Next-hop: Node11’s<dl spacing="compact"> <dt>IP Prefix:</dt><dd>192.0.2.11/32</dd> <dt>Label:</dt><dd>Implicit-Null</dd> <dt>Next-hop:</dt><dd>Node11's interface address on the link toNode10 . AS Path: {11} . BGP-Prefix-SID: Label-Index 11 ]]></artwork>Node10</dd> <dt>AS Path:</dt><dd>{11}</dd> <dt>BGP-Prefix-SID:</dt><dd>Label-Index 11</dd> </dl> </li> </ul> <t>Node10 receives the above update. As it is SR capable, Node10 is able to interpret the BGP-Prefix-SID and hence understands that it should allocate the label from its own SRGB block, offset by the Label-Index received in the BGP-Prefix-SID (16000+11 hence 16011) to the NLRI instead of allocating a non-deterministic label out of a dynamically allocated portion of the local label space. The implicit-null label in the NLRI tells Node10 that it is the penultimate hop and must pop the top label on the stack before forwarding traffic for this prefix to Node11.</t><t>Then,<ul empty="true"> <li><t>Then, Node10 sends the following eBGP8277 update to Node7:</t><artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[. IP Prefix: 192.0.2.11/32 . Label: 16011 . Next-hop: Node10’s<dl spacing="compact"> <dt>IP Prefix:</dt><dd>192.0.2.11/32</dd> <dt>Label:</dt><dd>16011</dd> <dt>Next-hop:</dt><dd>Node10's interface address on the link toNode7 . AS Path: {10, 11} . BGP-Prefix-SID: Label-Index 11 ]]></artwork>Node7</dd> <dt>AS Path:</dt><dd>{10, 11}</dd> <dt>BGP-Prefix-SID:</dt><dd>Label-Index 11</dd> </dl> </li> </ul> <t>Node7 receives the above update. As it is SR capable, Node7 is able to interpret the BGP-Prefix-SID and hence allocates the local (incoming) label 16011 (16000 + 11) to the NLRI (instead of allocating a "dynamic" local label from its label manager). Node7 uses the label in the received eBGP8277 NLRI as the outgoing label (the index is only used to derive the local/incoming label).</t><t>Node7<ul empty="true"> <li><t>Node7 sends the following eBGP8277 update to Node4:</t><artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[. IP Prefix: 192.0.2.11/32 . Label: 16011 . Next-hop: Node7’s<dl spacing="compact"> <dt>Label:</dt><dd>16011</dd> <dt>Next-hop:</dt><dd>Node7's interface address on the link toNode4 . AS Path: {7,Node4</dd> <dt>AS Path:</dt><dd>{7, 10,11} . BGP-Prefix-SID: Label-Index 11 ]]></artwork>11}</dd> <dt>BGP-Prefix-SID:</dt><dd>Label-Index 11</dd> </dl> </li> </ul> <t>Node4 receives the above update. As it is SR capable, Node4 is able to interpret the BGP-Prefix-SID and hence allocates the local (incoming) label 16011 to the NLRI (instead of allocating a "dynamic" local label from its label manager). Node4 uses the label in the received eBGP8277 NLRI as outgoing label (the index is only used to derive the local/incoming label).</t><t>Node4<ul empty="true"> <li><t>Node4 sends the following eBGP8277 update to Node1:</t><artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[. IP Prefix: 192.0.2.11/32 . Label: 16011 . Next-hop: Node4’s<dl spacing="compact"> <dt>IP Prefix:</dt><dd>192.0.2.11/32</dd> <dt>Label:</dt><dd>16011</dd> <dt>Next-hop:</dt><dd>Node4's interface address on the link toNode1 . AS Path: {4,Node1</dd> <dt>AS Path:</dt><dd>{4, 7, 10,11} . BGP-Prefix-SID: Label-Index 11 ]]></artwork>11}</dd> <dt>BGP-Prefix-SID:</dt><dd>Label-Index 11</dd> </dl> </li> </ul> <t>Node1 receives the above update. As it is SR capable, Node1 is able to interpret the BGP-Prefix-SID and hence allocates the local (incoming) label 16011 to the NLRI (instead of allocating a "dynamic" local label from its label manager). Node1 uses the label in the received eBGP8277 NLRI as outgoing label (the index is only used to derive the local/incoming label).</t> </section> <section anchor="DATAPLANE" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Data Plane</name> <t>Referring to <xref target="FIGLARGE" format="default"/>, and assuming all nodes apply the same advertisement rules described above and all nodes have the same SRGB (16000-23999), here are the IP/MPLS forwarding tables for prefix 192.0.2.11/32 at Node1, Node4, Node7 and Node10.</t><figure anchor="NODE1FIB"><table anchor="NODE1FIB" align="center"> <name>Node1 Forwarding Table</name><artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[----------------------------------------------- Incoming<thead> <tr> <th align="center">Incoming label| outgoing label | Outgoingor IPdestination | | Interface ------------------+----------------+----------- 16011 | 16011 | ECMP{3, 4} 192.0.2.11/32 | 16011 | ECMP{3, 4} ------------------+----------------+-----------]]></artwork> </figure> <figure anchor="NODE4FIB">destination</th> <th align="center">Outgoing label</th> <th align="center">Outgoing Interface</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">ECMP{3, 4}</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">192.0.2.11/32</td> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">ECMP{3, 4}</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table anchor="NODE4FIB" align="center"> <name>Node4 Forwarding Table</name><artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ ----------------------------------------------- Incoming label | outgoing<thead> <tr> <th align="center">Incoming label| Outgoingor IPdestination | | Interface ------------------+----------------+----------- 16011 | 16011 | ECMP{7, 8} 192.0.2.11/32 | 16011 | ECMP{7, 8} ------------------+----------------+-----------]]></artwork> </figure> <figure anchor="NODE7FIB">destination</th> <th align="center">Outgoing label</th> <th align="center">Outgoing Interface</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">ECMP{7, 8}</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">192.0.2.11/32</td> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">ECMP{7, 8}</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table anchor="NODE7FIB" align="center"> <name>Node7 Forwarding Table</name><artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ ----------------------------------------------- Incoming<thead> <tr> <th align="center">Incoming label| outgoing label | Outgoingor IPdestination | | Interface ------------------+----------------+----------- 16011 | 16011 | 10 192.0.2.11/32 | 16011 | 10 ------------------+----------------+-----------]]></artwork> </figure> <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ ----------------------------------------------- Incoming label | outgoingdestination</th> <th align="center">Outgoing label</th> <th align="center">Outgoing Interface</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">10</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">192.0.2.11/32</td> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">10</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table align="center"> <name/> <thead> <tr> <th align="center">Incoming label| Outgoingor IPdestination | | Interface ------------------+----------------+----------- 16011 | POP | 11 192.0.2.11/32 | N/A | 11 ------------------+----------------+-----------]]></artwork>destination</th> <th align="center">Outgoing label</th> <th align="center">Outgoing Interface</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">POP</td> <td align="center">11</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">192.0.2.11/32</td> <td align="center">N/A</td> <td align="center">11</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> <section anchor="VARIATIONS" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Network Design Variation</name> <t>A network design choice could consist of switching all the traffic through Tier-1 and Tier-2 as MPLS traffic. In this case, one could filter away the IP entries at Node4, Node7 and Node10. This might be beneficial in order to optimize the forwarding table size.</t> <t>A network design choice could consist in allowing the hosts to send MPLS-encapsulated traffic based on the Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) use-case as defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe" format="default"/>. For example, applications at HostA would send their Z-destined traffic to Node1 with an MPLS label stack where the top label is 16011 and the next label is an EPE peer segment (<xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe" format="default"/>) at Node11 directing the traffic to Z.</t> </section> <section anchor="FABRIC" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Global BGP Prefix Segment through the fabric</name> <t>When the previous design is deployed, the operator enjoys global BGP-Prefix-SID and label allocation throughout the DC fabric.</t> <t>A few examples follow:</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>Normal forwarding to Node11: a packet with top label 16011 received by any node in the fabric will be forwarded along the ECMP-aware BGP best-path towards Node11 and the label 16011 is penultimate-popped at Node10 (or at Node 9).</li> <li>Traffic-engineered path to Node11: an application on a host behind Node1 might want to restrict its traffic to paths via the Spine node Node5. The application achieves this by sending its packets with a label stack of {16005, 16011}. BGP Prefix SID 16005 directs the packet up to Node5 along the path (Node1, Node3, Node5). BGP-Prefix-SID 16011 then directs the packet down to Node11 along the path (Node5, Node9, Node11).</li> </ul> </section> <section anchor="INCRDEP" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Incremental Deployments</name> <t>The design previously described can be deployed incrementally. Let us assume that Node7 does not support the BGP-Prefix-SID and let us show how the fabric connectivity is preserved.</t> <t>From a signaling viewpoint, nothing would change: even though Node7 does not support the BGP-Prefix-SID, it does propagate the attribute unmodified to its neighbors.</t> <t>From a label allocation viewpoint, the only difference is that Node7 would allocate a dynamic (random) label to the prefix 192.0.2.11/32 (e.g. 123456) instead of the "hinted" label as instructed by the BGP-Prefix-SID. The neighbors of Node7 adapt automatically as they always use the label in the BGP8277 NLRI as outgoing label.</t> <t>Node4 does understand the BGP-Prefix-SID and hence allocates the indexed label in the SRGB (16011) for 192.0.2.11/32.</t> <t>As a result, all the data-plane entries across the network would be unchanged except the entries at Node7 and its neighbor Node4 as shown in the figures below.</t> <t>The key point is that the end-to-end Label Switched Path (LSP) is preserved because the outgoing label is always derived from the received label within the BGP8277 NLRI. The index in the BGP-Prefix-SID is only used as a hint on how to allocate the local label (the incoming label) but never for the outgoing label.</t><figure anchor="NODE7FIBINC"><table anchor="NODE7FIBINC" align="center"> <name>Node7 Forwarding Table</name><artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[------------------------------------------ Incoming<thead> <tr> <th align="center">Incoming label| outgoing | Outgoingor IPdestination | label | Interface -------------------+---------------------- 12345 | 16011 | 10 ]]></artwork> </figure> <figure anchor="NODE4FIBINC">destination</th> <th align="center">Outgoing label</th> <th align="center">Outgoing interface</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">12345</td> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">10</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table anchor="NODE4FIBINC" align="center"> <name>Node4 Forwarding Table</name><artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[------------------------------------------ Incoming<thead> <tr> <th align="center">Incoming label| outgoing | Outgoingor IPdestination | label | Interface -------------------+---------------------- 16011 | 12345 | 7 ]]></artwork> </figure>destination</th> <th align="center">Outgoing label</th> <th align="center">Outgoing interface</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="center">16011</td> <td align="center">12345</td> <td align="center">7</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t>The BGP-Prefix-SID can thus be deployed incrementally one node at a time.</t> <t>When deployed together with a homogeneous SRGB (same SRGB across the fabric), the operator incrementally enjoys the global prefix segment benefits as the deployment progresses through the fabric.</t> </section> </section> <section anchor="iBGP3107" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>iBGP Labeled Unicast (RFC8277)</name> <t>The same exact design as eBGP8277 is used with the following modifications:</t> <ul empty="true" spacing="normal"> <li>All nodes use the same AS number.</li> <li>Each node peers with its neighbors via an internal BGP session (iBGP) with extensions defined in <xref target="RFC8277" format="default"/> (named "iBGP8277" throughout this document).</li> <li>Each node acts as a route-reflector for each of its neighbors and with the next-hop-self option. Next-hop-self is a well known operational feature which consists of rewriting the next-hop of a BGP update prior to send it to the neighbor. Usually, it's a common practice to apply next-hop-self behavior towards iBGP peers for eBGP learned routes. In the case outlined in this section it is proposed to use the next-hop-self mechanism also to iBGP learned routes.</li> <li> <figure anchor="IBGPFIG"> <name>iBGP Sessions with Reflection and Next-Hop-Self</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ Cluster-1 +-----------+ | Tier-1 | | +-----+ | | |NODE | | | | 5 | | Cluster-2 | +-----+ | Cluster-3 +---------+ | | +---------+ | Tier-2 | | | | Tier-2 | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | |NODE | | | |NODE | | | |NODE | | | | 3 | | | | 6 | | | | 9 | | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | |NODE | | | |NODE | | | |NODE | | | | 4 | | | | 7 | | | | 10 | | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | +---------+ | | +---------+ | | | +-----+ | | |NODE | | Tier-3 | | 8 | | Tier-3 +-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ |NODE | |NODE | +-----------+ |NODE | |NODE | | 1 | | 2 | | 11 | | 12 | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ]]></artwork> </figure> </li> <li> <t>For simple and efficient route propagation filtering and as illustrated in <xref target="IBGPFIG" format="default"/>: </t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>Node5, Node6, Node7 and Node8 use the same Cluster ID (Cluster-1)</li> <li>Node3 and Node4 use the same Cluster ID (Cluster-2)</li> <li>Node9 and Node10 use the same Cluster ID (Cluster-3)</li> </ul> </li> <li>The control-plane behavior is mostly the same as described in the previous section: the only difference is that the eBGP8277 path propagation is simply replaced by an iBGP8277 path reflection with next-hop changed to self.</li> <li>The data-plane tables are exactly the same.</li> </ul> </section> </section> <section anchor="IPV6" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Applying Segment Routing in the DC with IPv6 dataplane</name> <t>The design described in <xref target="RFC7938" format="default"/> is reused with one single modification. It is highlighted using the example of the reachability to Node11 via spine node Node5.</t> <t>Node5 originates 2001:DB8::5/128 with the attached BGP-Prefix-SID for IPv6 packets destined to segment 2001:DB8::5 (<xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid" format="default"/>).</t> <t>Node11 originates 2001:DB8::11/128 with the attached BGP-Prefix-SID advertising the support of the SRH for IPv6 packets destined to segment 2001:DB8::11.</t> <t>The control-plane and data-plane processing of all the other nodes in the fabric is unchanged. Specifically, the routes to 2001:DB8::5 and 2001:DB8::11 are installed in the FIB along the eBGP best-path to Node5 (spine node) and Node11 (ToR node) respectively.</t> <t>An application on HostA which needs to send traffic to HostZ via only Node5 (spine node) can do so by sending IPv6 packets with a Segment Routing header (SRH, <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header" format="default"/>). The destination address and active segment is set to 2001:DB8::5. The next and last segment is set to 2001:DB8::11.</t> <t>The application must only use IPv6 addresses that have been advertised as capable for SRv6 segment processing (e.g. for which the BGP prefix segment capability has been advertised). How applications learn this (e.g.: centralized controller and orchestration) is outside the scope of this document.</t> </section> <section anchor="COMMHOSTS" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Communicating path information to the host</name> <t>There are two general methods for communicating path information to the end-hosts: "proactive" and "reactive", aka "push" and "pull" models. There are multiple ways to implement either of these methods. Here, it is noted that one way could be using a centralized controller: the controller either tells the hosts of the prefix-to-path mappings beforehand and updates them as needed (network event driven push), or responds to the hosts making request for a path to specific destination (host event driven pull). It is also possible to use a hybrid model, i.e., pushing some state from the controller in response to particular network events, while the host pulls other state on demand.</t> <t>It is also noted, that when disseminating network-related data to the end-hosts a trade-off is made to balance the amount of information Vs. the level of visibility in the network state. This applies both to push and pull models. In the extreme case, the host would request path information on every flow, and keep no local state at all. On the other end of the spectrum, information for every prefix in the network along with available paths could be pushed and continuously updated on all hosts.</t> </section> <section anchor="BENEFITS" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Additional Benefits</name> <section anchor="MPLSIMPLE" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>MPLS Dataplane with operational simplicity</name> <t>As required by <xref target="RFC7938" format="default"/>, no new signaling protocol is introduced. The BGP-Prefix-SID is a lightweight extension to BGP Labeled Unicast <xref target="RFC8277" format="default"/>. It applies either to eBGP or iBGP based designs.</t> <t>Specifically, LDP and RSVP-TE are not used. These protocols would drastically impact the operational complexity of the Data Center and would not scale. This is in line with the requirements expressed in <xref target="RFC7938" format="default"/>.</t> <t>Provided the same SRGB is configured on all nodes, all nodes use the same MPLS label for a given IP prefix. This is simpler from an operation standpoint, as discussed in <xref target="SINGLESRGB" format="default"/></t> </section> <section anchor="MINFIB" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Minimizing the FIB table</name> <t>The designer may decide to switch all the traffic at Tier-1 and Tier-2's based on MPLS, hence drastically decreasing the IP table size at these nodes.</t> <t>This is easily accomplished by encapsulating the traffic either directly at the host or the source ToR node by pushing the BGP-Prefix-SID of the destination ToR for intra-DC traffic, or the BGP-Prefix-SID for the the border node for inter-DC or DC-to-outside-world traffic.</t> </section> <section anchor="EPE" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Egress Peer Engineering</name> <t>It is straightforward to combine the design illustrated in this document with the Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) use-case described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe" format="default"/>.</t> <t>In such case, the operator is able to engineer its outbound traffic on a per host-flow basis, without incurring any additional state at intermediate points in the DC fabric.</t> <t>For example, the controller only needs to inject a per-flow state on the HostA to force it to send its traffic destined to a specific Internet destination D via a selected border node (say Node12 in <xref target="FIGLARGE" format="default"/> instead of another border node, Node11) and a specific egress peer of Node12 (say peer AS 9999 of local PeerNode segment 9999 at Node12 instead of any other peer which provides a path to the destination D). Any packet matching this state at host A would be encapsulated with SR segment list (label stack) {16012, 9999}. 16012 would steer the flow through the DC fabric, leveraging any ECMP, along the best path to border node Node12. Once the flow gets to border node Node12, the active segment is 9999 (because of PHP on the upstream neighbor of Node12). This EPE PeerNode segment forces border node Node12 to forward the packet to peer AS 9999, without any IP lookup at the border node. There is no per-flow state for this engineered flow in the DC fabric. A benefit of segment routing is the per-flow state is only required at the source.</t> <t>As well as allowing full traffic engineering control such a design also offers FIB table minimization benefits as the Internet-scale FIB at border node Node12 is not required if all FIB lookups are avoided there by using EPE.</t> </section> <section anchor="ANYCAST" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Anycast</name> <t>The design presented in this document preserves the availability and load-balancing properties of the base design presented in <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing" format="default"/>.</t> <t>For example, one could assign an anycast loopback 192.0.2.20/32 and associate segment index 20 to it on the border Node11 and Node12 (in addition to their node-specific loopbacks). Doing so, the EPE controller could express a default "go-to-the-Internet via any border node" policy as segment list {16020}. Indeed, from any host in the DC fabric or from any ToR node, 16020 steers the packet towards the border Node11 or Node12 leveraging ECMP where available along the best paths to these nodes.</t> </section> </section> <section anchor="SINGLESRGB" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Preferred SRGB Allocation</name> <t>In the MPLS case, it is recommend to use same SRGBs at each node.</t> <t>Different SRGBs in each node likely increase the complexity of the solution both from an operational viewpoint and from a controller viewpoint.</t> <t>From an operation viewpoint, it is much simpler to have the same global label at every node for the same destination (the MPLS troubleshooting is then similar to the IPv6 troubleshooting where this global property is a given).</t> <t>From a controller viewpoint, this allows us to construct simple policies applicable across the fabric.</t> <t>Let us consider two applications A and B respectively connected to Node1 and Node2 (ToR nodes). A has two flows FA1 and FA2 destined to Z. B has two flows FB1 and FB2 destined to Z. The controller wants FA1 and FB1 to be load-shared across the fabric while FA2 and FB2 must be respectively steered via Node5 and Node8.</t> <t>Assuming a consistent unique SRGB across the fabric as described in the document, the controller can simply do it by instructing A and B to use {16011} respectively for FA1 and FB1 and by instructing A and B to use {16005 16011} and {16008 16011} respectively for FA2 and FB2.</t> <t>Let us assume a design where the SRGB is different at every node and where the SRGB of each node is advertised using the Originator SRGB TLV of the BGP-Prefix-SID as defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid" format="default"/>: SRGB of Node K starts at value K*1000 and the SRGB length is 1000 (e.g. Node1's SRGB is [1000, 1999], Node2's SRGB is [2000, 2999], ...).</t> <t>In this case, not only the controller would need to collect and store all of these different SRGB's (e.g., through the Originator SRGB TLV of the BGP-Prefix-SID), furthermore it would need to adapt the policy for each host. Indeed, the controller would instruct A to use {1011} for FA1 while it would have to instruct B to use {2011} for FB1 (while with the same SRGB, both policies are the same {16011}).</t> <t>Even worse, the controller would instruct A to use {1005, 5011} for FA1 while it would instruct B to use {2011, 8011} for FB1 (while with the same SRGB, the second segment is the same across both policies: 16011). When combining segments to create a policy, one need to carefully update the label of each segment. This is obviously more error-prone, more complex and more difficult to troubleshoot.</t> </section> <section anchor="IANA" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IANA Considerations</name> <t>This document does not make any IANA request.</t> </section> <section anchor="MANAGE" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Manageability Considerations</name> <t>The design and deployment guidelines described in this document are based on the network design described in <xref target="RFC7938" format="default"/>.</t> <t>The deployment model assumed in this document is based on a single domain where the interconnected DCs are part of the same administrative domain (which, of course, is split into different autonomous systems). The operator has full control of the whole domain and the usual operational and management mechanisms and procedures are used in order to prevent any information related to internal prefixes and topology to be leaked outside the domain.</t> <t>As recommended in <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing" format="default"/>, the same SRGB should be allocated in all nodes in order to facilitate the design, deployment and operations of the domain.</t> <t>When EPE (<xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe" format="default"/>) is used (as explained in <xref target="EPE" format="default"/>, the same operational model is assumed. EPE information is originated and propagated throughout the domain towards an internal server and unless explicitly configured by the operator, no EPE information is leaked outside the domain boundaries.</t> </section> <section anchor="SEC" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Security Considerations</name> <t>This document proposes to apply Segment Routing to a well known scalability requirement expressed in <xref target="RFC7938" format="default"/> using the BGP-Prefix-SID as defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid" format="default"/>.</t> <t>It has to be noted, as described in <xref target="MANAGE" format="default"/> that the design illustrated in <xref target="RFC7938" format="default"/> and in this document, refer to a deployment model where all nodes are under the same administration. In this context, it is assumed that the operator doesn't want to leak outside of the domain any information related to internal prefixes and topology. The internal information includes prefix-sid and EPE information. In order to prevent such leaking, the standard BGP mechanisms (filters) are applied on the boundary of the domain.</t> <t>Therefore, the solution proposed in this document does not introduce any additional security concerns from what expressed in <xref target="RFC7938" format="default"/> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid" format="default"/>. It is assumed that the security and confidentiality of the prefix and topology information is preserved by outbound filters at each peering point of the domain as described in <xref target="MANAGE" format="default"/>.</t> </section> <section anchor="Acknowledgements" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Acknowledgements</name> <t>The authors would like to thank Benjamin Black, Arjun Sreekantiah, Keyur Patel, Acee Lindem and Anoop Ghanwani for their comments and review of this document.</t> </section> <section anchor="Contributors" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Contributors</name><artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[Gaya<artwork><![CDATA[ Gaya Nagarajan Facebook US Email:gaya@fb.com]]></artwork> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[Gauravgaya@fb.com Gaurav Dawra Cisco Systems US Email:gdawra.ietf@gmail.com]]></artwork> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[Dmitrygdawra.ietf@gmail.com Dmitry Afanasiev Yandex RU Email:fl0w@yandex-team.ru]]></artwork> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[Timfl0w@yandex-team.ru Tim Laberge Cisco US Email:tlaberge@cisco.com]]></artwork> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[Edettlaberge@cisco.com Edet Nkposong Salesforce.com Inc. US Email:enkposong@salesforce.com]]></artwork> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[Mohanenkposong@salesforce.com Mohan Nanduri Microsoft US Email:mnanduri@microsoft.com]]></artwork> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[Jamesmnanduri@microsoft.com James Uttaro ATT US Email:ju1738@att.com]]></artwork> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[Saikatju1738@att.com Saikat Ray Unaffiliated US Email:raysaikat@gmail.com]]></artwork> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[Jonraysaikat@gmail.com Jon Mitchell Unaffiliated US Email:jrmitche@puck.nether.net]]></artwork>jrmitche@puck.nether.net ]]></artwork> </section> </middle> <back> <references> <name>References</name> <references> <name>Normative References</name> <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"> <front> <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/> <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/> <author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="S. Bradner"> <organization/> </author> <date year="1997" month="March"/> <abstract> <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t> </abstract> </front> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC8277" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8277.xml"> <front> <title>Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes</title> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8277"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8277"/> <author initials="E." surname="Rosen" fullname="E. Rosen"> <organization/> </author> <date year="2017" month="October"/> <abstract> <t>This document specifies a set of procedures for using BGP to advertise that a specified router has bound a specified MPLS label (or a specified sequence of MPLS labels organized as a contiguous part of a label stack) to a specified address prefix. This can be done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer Reachability Information field contains both the prefix and the MPLS label(s) and whose Next Hop field identifies the node at which said prefix is bound to said label(s). This document obsoletes RFC 3107.</t> </abstract> </front> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC4271" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4271.xml"> <front> <title>A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)</title> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4271"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4271"/> <author initials="Y." surname="Rekhter" fullname="Y. Rekhter" role="editor"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="T." surname="Li" fullname="T. Li" role="editor"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="S." surname="Hares" fullname="S. Hares" role="editor"> <organization/> </author> <date year="2006" month="January"/> <abstract> <t>This document discusses the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol.</t> <t>The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This network reachability information includes information on the list of Autonomous Systems (ASes) that reachability information traverses. This information is sufficient for constructing a graph of AS connectivity for this reachability from which routing loops may be pruned, and, at the AS level, some policy decisions may be enforced.</t> <t>BGP-4 provides a set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). These mechanisms include support for advertising a set of destinations as an IP prefix, and eliminating the concept of network "class" within BGP. BGP-4 also introduces mechanisms that allow aggregation of routes, including aggregation of AS paths.</t> <t>This document obsoletes RFC 1771. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> </reference> <reference anchor="RFC7938" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7938.xml"> <front> <title>Use of BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers</title> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7938"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7938"/> <author initials="P." surname="Lapukhov" fullname="P. Lapukhov"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="A." surname="Premji" fullname="A. Premji"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="J." surname="Mitchell" fullname="J. Mitchell" role="editor"> <organization/> </author> <date year="2016" month="August"/> <abstract> <t>Some network operators build and operate data centers that support over one hundred thousand servers. In this document, such data centers are referred to as "large-scale" to differentiate them from smaller infrastructures. Environments of this scale have a unique set of network requirements with an emphasis on operational simplicity and network stability. This document summarizes operational experience in designing and operating large-scale data centers using BGP as the only routing protocol. The intent is to report on a proven and stable routing design that could be leveraged by others in the industry.</t> </abstract> </front> </reference> <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing" target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15.txt"> <front> <title>Segment Routing Architecture</title> <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15"/> <author initials="C" surname="Filsfils" fullname="Clarence Filsfils"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="S" surname="Previdi" fullname="Stefano Previdi"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="L" surname="Ginsberg" fullname="Les Ginsberg"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="B" surname="Decraene" fullname="Bruno Decraene"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="S" surname="Litkowski" fullname="Stephane Litkowski"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="R" surname="Shakir" fullname="Rob Shakir"> <organization/> </author> <date month="January" day="25" year="2018"/> <abstract> <t>Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called segments. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service-based. A segment can have a semantic local to an SR node or global within an SR domain. SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress nodes to the SR domain. Segment Routing can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with no change on the forwarding plane. A segment is encoded as an MPLS label. An ordered list of segments is encoded as a stack of labels. The segment to process is on the top of the stack. Upon completion of a segment, the related label is popped from the stack. Segment Routing can be applied to the IPv6 architecture, with a new type of routing header. A segment is encoded as an IPv6 address. An ordered list of segments is encoded as an ordered list of IPv6 addresses in the routing header. The active segment is indicated by the Destination Address of the packet. The next active segment is indicated by a pointer in the new routing header.</t> </abstract> </front> </reference> <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid" target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27.txt"> <front> <title>Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for BGP</title> <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27"/> <author initials="S" surname="Previdi" fullname="Stefano Previdi"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="C" surname="Filsfils" fullname="Clarence Filsfils"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="A" surname="Lindem" fullname="Acee Lindem"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="A" surname="Sreekantiah" fullname="Arjun Sreekantiah"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="H" surname="Gredler" fullname="Hannes Gredler"> <organization/> </author> <date month="June" day="26" year="2018"/> <abstract> <t>Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called segments. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service-based. The ingress node prepends an SR header to a packet containing a set of segment identifiers (SID). 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 is defined as a single administrative domain for global SID assignment. This document defines an optional, transitive BGP attribute for announcing BGP Prefix Segment Identifiers (BGP Prefix-SID) information and the specification for SR-MPLS SIDs.</t> </abstract> </front> </reference> <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe" target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-10.txt"> <front> <title>Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer Engineering</title> <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-10"/> <author initials="C" surname="Filsfils" fullname="Clarence Filsfils"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="S" surname="Previdi" fullname="Stefano Previdi"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="G" surname="Dawra" fullname="Gaurav Dawra"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="E" surname="Aries" fullname="Ebben Aries"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="D" surname="Afanasiev" fullname="Dmitry Afanasiev"> <organization/> </author> <date month="December" day="21" year="2017"/> <abstract> <t>Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any instruction topological or service-based. SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain. The Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to the MPLS dataplane with no change on the forwarding plane. It requires a minor extension to the existing link-state routing protocols. This document illustrates the application of Segment Routing to solve the BGP Egress Peer Engineering (BGP-EPE) requirement. The SR-based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized (Software Defined Network, SDN) controller to program any egress peer policy at ingress border routers or at hosts within the domain.</t> </abstract> </front> </reference> </references> <references> <name>Informative References</name> <reference anchor="RFC6793" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6793.xml"> <front> <title>BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space</title> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6793"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6793"/> <author initials="Q." surname="Vohra" fullname="Q. Vohra"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="E." surname="Chen" fullname="E. Chen"> <organization/> </author> <date year="2012" month="December"/> <abstract> <t>The Autonomous System number is encoded as a two-octet entity in the base BGP specification. This document describes extensions to BGP to carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities. This document obsoletes RFC 4893 and updates RFC 4271. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t> </abstract> </front> </reference> <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header" target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-21.txt"> <front> <title>IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)</title> <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-21"/> <author initials="C" surname="Filsfils" fullname="Clarence Filsfils"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="D" surname="Dukes" fullname="Darren Dukes"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="S" surname="Previdi" fullname="Stefano Previdi"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="J" surname="Leddy" fullname="John Leddy"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="S" surname="Matsushima" fullname="Satoru Matsushima"> <organization/> </author> <author initials="d" surname="daniel.voyer@bell.ca" fullname="daniel.voyer@bell.ca"> <organization/> </author> <date month="June" day="13" year="2019"/> <abstract> <t>Segment Routing can be applied to the IPv6 data plane using a new type of Routing Extension Header. This document describes the Segment Routing Extension Header and how it is used by Segment Routing capable nodes.</t> </abstract> </front> </reference> </references> </references> </back> </rfc>