RFC 8661
Segment Routing MPLS Interworking with LDP
Pages: ~21
IETF/rtg/spring/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-15
Proposed Standard
A. Bashandy, Ed.
Individual
C. Filsfils, Ed.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
S. Previdi, Ed.
Huawei Technologies
B. Decraene, Ed.
S. Litkowski
Orange
December 2019
Segment Routing MPLS Interworking with LDP
Abstract
A Segment Routing (SR) 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 enforcing a flow through any topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node to the SR domain.
The Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to the MPLS data plane with no change in the forwarding plane. This document describes how Segment Routing MPLS operates in a network where LDP is deployed and in the case where SR-capable and non-SR-capable nodes coexist.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for 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 this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8661 .
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 (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
Segment Routing, as described in [RFC 8402], can be used on top of the MPLS data plane without any modification as described in [RFC 8660].
Segment Routing control plane can coexist with current label distribution protocols such as LDP [RFC 5036].
This document outlines the mechanisms through which SR interworks with LDP in cases where a mix of SR-capable and non-SR-capable routers coexist within the same network and more precisely in the same routing domain.
Section 2 describes the coexistence of SR with other MPLS control-plane protocols. Section 3 documents the interworking between SR and LDP in the case of nonhomogeneous deployment. Section 4 describes how a partial SR deployment can be used to provide SR benefits to LDP-based traffic including a possible application of SR in the context of interdomain MPLS use cases. Appendix A documents a method to migrate from LDP to SR-based MPLS tunneling.
Typically, an implementation will allow an operator to select (through configuration) which of the described modes of SR and LDP coexistence to use.
1.1. Requirements Language
2. SR-LDP Ships-in-the-Night Coexistence
"MPLS Control-Plane Client (MCC)" refers to any control-plane protocol installing forwarding entries in the MPLS data plane. SR, LDP [RFC 5036], RSVP-TE [RFC 3209], BGP [RFC 8277], etc., are examples of MCCs.
An MCC, operating at Node N, must ensure that the incoming label it installs in the MPLS data plane of Node N has been uniquely allocated to itself.
Segment Routing makes use of the Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB, as defined in [RFC 8402]) for the label allocation. The use of the SRGB allows SR to coexist with any other MCC.
This is clearly the case for the adjacency segment: it is a local label allocated by the label manager, as is the case for any MCC.
This is clearly the case for the prefix segment: the label manager allocates the SRGB set of labels to the SR MCC client, and the operator ensures the unique allocation of each global prefix segment or label within the allocated SRGB set.
Note that this static label-allocation capability of the label manager has existed for many years across several vendors and is therefore not new. Furthermore, note that the label manager's ability to statically allocate a range of labels to a specific application is not new either. This is required for MPLS-TP operation. In this case, the range is reserved by the label manager, and it is the MPLS-TP [RFC 5960] Network Management System (acting as an MCC) that ensures the unique allocation of any label within the allocated range and the creation of the related MPLS forwarding entry.
Let us illustrate an example of ship-in-the-night (SIN) coexistence.
The EVEN VPN service is supported by PE2 and PE4 while the ODD VPN service is supported by PE1 and PE3. The operator wants to tunnel the ODD service via LDP and the EVEN service via SR.
This can be achieved in the following manner:
PE2 PE4
\ /
PE1----A----B---C---PE3
- The operator configures PE1, PE2, PE3, and PE4 with respective loopbacks 192.0.2.201/32, 192.0.2.202/32, 192.0.2.203/32, and 192.0.2.204/32. These PEs advertised their VPN routes with next hop set on their respective loopback address.
- The operator configures A, B, C with respective loopbacks 192.0.2.1/32, 192.0.2.2/32, 192.0.2.3/32.
- The operator configures PE2, A, B, C, and PE4 with SRGB [100, 300].
- The operator attaches the respective Node Segment Identifiers (Node SIDs, as defined in [RFC 8402]), 202, 101, 102, 103, and 204, to the loopbacks of nodes PE2, A, B, C, and PE4. The Node SIDs are configured to request Penultimate Hop Popping.
- PE1, A, B, C, and PE3 are LDP capable.
- PE1 and PE3 are not SR capable.
- The ODD service is tunneled from PE1 to PE3 through a continuous LDP LSP traversing A, B, and C.
- The EVEN service is tunneled from PE2 to PE4 through a continuous SR node segment traversing A, B, and C.
2.1. MPLS2MPLS, MPLS2IP, and IP2MPLS Coexistence
MPLS2MPLS refers to the forwarding behavior where a router receives a labeled packet and switches it out as a labeled packet. Several MPLS2MPLS entries may be installed in the data plane for the same prefix.
Let us examine A's MPLS forwarding table as an example:
-
Incoming label: 1037
- Outgoing label: 2048
- Outgoing next hop: B
-
Incoming label: 203
- Outgoing label: 203
- Outgoing next hop: B
3. SR and LDP Interworking
This section analyzes the case where SR is available in one part of the network and LDP is available in another part. It describes how a continuous MPLS tunnel can be built throughout the network.
Let us analyze the following example:
PE2 PE4
\ /
PE1----P5--P6--P7--P8---PE3
<-----SR---->
<------LDP------>
- P6, P7, P8, PE4, and PE3 are LDP capable.
- PE1, PE2, P5, and P6 are SR capable. PE1, PE2, P5, and P6 are configured with SRGB (100, 200) and with node segments 101, 102, 105, and 106, respectively.
- A service flow must be tunneled from PE1 to PE3 over a continuous MPLS tunnel encapsulation; therefore, SR and LDP need to interwork.
3.1. LDP to SR
In this section, a right-to-left traffic flow is analyzed.
PE3 has learned a service route whose next hop is PE1. PE3 has an LDP label binding from the next-hop P8 for the FEC "PE1". Therefore, PE3 sends its service packet to P8 as per classic LDP behavior.
P8 has an LDP label binding from its next-hop P7 for the FEC "PE1" and therefore, P8 forwards to P7 as per classic LDP behavior.
P7 has an LDP label binding from its next-hop P6 for the FEC "PE1" and therefore, P7 forwards to P6 as per classic LDP behavior.
P6 does not have an LDP binding from its next-hop P5 for the FEC "PE1". However, P6 has an SR node segment to the IGP route "PE1". Hence, P6 forwards the packet to P5 and swaps its local LDP label for FEC "PE1" by the equivalent node segment (i.e., 101).
P5 pops 101 (assuming PE1 advertised its node segment 101 with the penultimate-pop flag set) and forwards to PE1.
PE1 receives the tunneled packet and processes the service label.
The end-to-end MPLS tunnel is built by stitching an LDP LSP from PE3 to P6 and the related node segment from P6 to PE1.
3.1.1. LDP to SR Behavior
It has to be noted that no additional signaling or state is required in order to provide interworking in the direction LDP to SR.
An SR node having LDP neighbors MUST create LDP bindings for each Prefix-SID learned in the SR domain by treating SR-learned labels as if they were learned through an LDP neighbor. In addition, for each FEC, the SR node stitches the incoming LDP label to the outgoing SR label. This has to be done in both LDP-independent and ordered label distribution control modes as defined in [RFC 5036].
3.2. SR to LDP
In this section, the left-to-right traffic flow is analyzed.
This section defines the Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS). The SRMS is an IGP node advertising mapping between Segment Identifiers (SID) and prefixes advertised by other IGP nodes. The SRMS uses a dedicated IGP extension (IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3), which is protocol specific and defined in [RFC 8665], [RFC 8666], and [RFC 8667].
The SRMS function of an SR-capable router allows distribution of mappings for prefixes not locally attached to the advertising router and therefore allows advertisement of mappings on behalf of non-SR-capable routers.
The SRMS is a control-plane-only function that may be located anywhere in the IGP flooding scope. At least one SRMS server MUST exist in a routing domain to advertise Prefix-SIDs on behalf of non-SR nodes, thereby allowing non-LDP routers to send and receive labeled traffic from LDP-only routers. Multiple SRMSes may be present in the same network (for redundancy). This implies that there are multiple ways a prefix-to-SID mapping can be advertised. Conflicts resulting from inconsistent advertisements are addressed by [RFC 8660].
The example depicted in Figure 2 assumes that the operator configures P5 to act as a Segment Routing Mapping Server and advertises the following mappings: (P7, 107), (P8, 108), (PE3, 103), and (PE4, 104).
The mappings advertised by one or more SRMSes result from local policy information configured by the operator.
If PE3 had been SR capable, the operator would have configured PE3 with node segment 103. Instead, as PE3 is not SR capable, the operator configures that policy at the SRMS and it is the latter that advertises the mapping.
The Mapping Server Advertisements are only understood by SR-capable routers. The SR-capable routers install the related node segments in the MPLS data plane exactly like the node segments had been advertised by the nodes themselves.
For example, PE1 installs the node segment 103 with next-hop P5 exactly as if PE3 had advertised node segment 103.
PE1 has a service route whose next hop is PE3. PE1 has a node segment for that IGP route: 103 with next-hop P5. Hence, PE1 sends its service packet to P5 with two labels: the bottom label is the service label and the top label is 103.
P5 swaps 103 for 103 and forwards to P6.
P6's next hop for the IGP route "PE3" is not SR capable (P7 does not advertise the SR capability). However, P6 has an LDP label binding from that next hop for the same FEC (e.g., LDP label 1037). Hence, P6 swaps 103 for 1037 and forwards to P7.
P7 swaps this label with the LDP label received from P8 and forwards to P8.
P8 pops the LDP label and forwards to PE3.
PE3 receives the tunneled packet and processes the service label.
The end-to-end MPLS tunnel is built by stitching an SR node segment from PE1 to P6 and an LDP LSP from P6 to PE3.
SR-mapping advertisement for a given prefix provides no information about Penultimate Hop Popping. Other mechanisms, such as IGP-specific mechanisms ([RFC 8665], [RFC 8666], and [RFC 8667]), MAY be used to determine the Penultimate Hop Popping in such case.
3.2.1. Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS)
This section specifies the concept and externally visible functionality of a Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS).
The purpose of SRMS functionality is to support the advertisement of Prefix-SIDs to a prefix without the need to explicitly advertise such assignment within a prefix reachability advertisement. Examples of explicit Prefix-SID Advertisement are the Prefix-SID sub-TLVs defined in [RFC 8665], [RFC 8666], and [RFC 8667].
The SRMS functionality allows assigning of Prefix-SIDs to prefixes owned by non-SR-capable routers as well as to prefixes owned by SR-capable nodes. It is the former capability that is essential to the SR-LDP interworking described later in this section.
The SRMS functionality consists of two functional blocks: the Mapping Server (MS) and Mapping Client (MC).
An MS is a node that advertises an SR mappings. Advertisements sent by an MS define the assignment of a Prefix-SID to a prefix independent of the advertisement of reachability to the prefix itself. An MS MAY advertise SR mappings for any prefix whether or not it advertises reachability for the prefix and irrespective of whether that prefix is advertised by or even reachable through any router in the network.
An MC is a node that receives and uses the MS mapping advertisements. Note that a node may be both an MS and an MC. An MC interprets the SR-mapping advertisement as an assignment of a Prefix-SID to a prefix. For a given prefix, if an MC receives an SR-mapping advertisement from a Mapping Server and also has received a Prefix-SID Advertisement for that same prefix in a prefix reachability advertisement, then the MC MUST prefer the SID advertised in the prefix reachability advertisement over the Mapping Server Advertisement, i.e., the Mapping Server Advertisement MUST be ignored for that prefix. Hence, assigning a Prefix-SID to a prefix using the SRMS functionality does not preclude assigning the same or different Prefix-SID(s) to the same prefix using explicit Prefix-SID Advertisement such as the aforementioned Prefix-SID sub-TLVs.
For example, consider an IPv4 prefix advertisement received by an IS-IS router in the Extended IP reachability TLV (TLV 135). Suppose TLV 135 contained the Prefix-SID sub-TLV. If the router that receives TLV 135 with the Prefix-SID sub-TLV also received an SR-mapping advertisement for the same prefix through the SID/Label Binding TLV, then the receiving router must prefer the Prefix-SID sub-TLV over the SID/Label Binding TLV for that prefix. Refer to [RFC 8667] for details about the Prefix-SID sub-TLV and SID/Label Binding TLV.
3.2.2. SR to LDP Behavior
SR to LDP interworking requires an SRMS as defined above.
Each SR-capable router installs in the MPLS data-plane Node SIDs learned from the SRMS exactly as if these SIDs had been advertised by the nodes themselves.
An SR node having LDP-only neighbors MUST stitch the incoming SR label (whose SID is advertised by the SRMS) to the outgoing LDP label.
It has to be noted that the SR to LDP behavior does not propagate the status of the LDP FEC that was signaled by LDP when configured in ordered mode.
It has to be noted that in the case of SR to LDP, the label binding is equivalent to the independent LDP Label Distribution Control Mode [RFC 5036] where a label is bound to a FEC independently from the received binding for the same FEC.
3.2.3. Interoperability of Multiple SRMSes and Prefix-SID Advertisements
In the case of SR-LDP interoperability through the use of an SRMS, mappings are advertised by one or more SRMSes.
SRMS functionality is implemented in the link-state protocol (such as IS-IS and OSPF). Link-state protocols allow propagation of updates across area boundaries and, therefore, SRMS advertisements are propagated through the usual inter-area advertisement procedures in link-state protocols.
Multiple SRMSes can be provisioned in a network for redundancy. Moreover, a preference mechanism may also be used among SRMSes to deploy a primary/secondary SRMS scheme allowing controlled modification or migration of SIDs.
The content of SRMS advertisement (i.e., mappings) are a matter of local policy determined by the operator. When multiple SRMSes are active, it is necessary that the information (mappings) advertised by the different SRMSes is aligned and consistent. The following mechanism is applied to determine the preference of SRMS advertisements:
If a node acts as an SRMS, it MAY advertise a preference to be associated with all SRMS SID Advertisements sent by that node. The means of advertising the preference is defined in the protocol-specific documents, e.g., [RFC 8665], [RFC 8666], and [RFC 8667]. The preference value is an unsigned 8-bit integer with the following properties:
Table 1
Advertisement of a preference value is optional. Nodes that do not advertise a preference value are assigned a preference value of 128.
An MCC on a node receiving one or more SRMS mapping advertisements applies them as follows:
| 0 | Reserved value indicating advertisements from that node MUST NOT be used |
| 1-255 | Preference value (255 is most preferred) |
- For any prefix for which it did not receive a Prefix-SID Advertisement, the MCC applies the SRMS mapping advertisements with the highest preference. The mechanism by which a Prefix-SID is advertised for a given prefix is defined in the protocol specifications [RFC 8665], [RFC 8666], and [RFC 8667].
- If there is an incoming label collision as specified in [RFC 8660], apply the steps specified in [RFC 8660] to resolve the collision.
4. SR-LDP Interworking Use Cases
SR can be deployed, for example, to enhance LDP transport. The SR deployment can be limited to the network region where the SR benefits are most desired.
4.1. SR Protection of LDP-Based Traffic
In Figure 3, let us assume:
The operator would like to resolve the following issues:
- All link costs are 10 except FG, which is 30.
- All routers are LDP capable.
- X, Y, and Z are PEs participating in an important service S.
- The operator requires 50 msec link-based Fast Reroute (FRR) for service S.
- A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are SR capable.
- X, Y, and Z are not SR capable, e.g., as part of a staged migration from LDP to SR, the operator deploys SR first in a subpart of the network and then everywhere.
X
|
Y--A---B---E--Z
| | \
D---C--F--G
30
- To protect the link BA along the shortest-path of the important flow XY, B requires a Remote Loop-Free Alternate (RLFA; see [RFC 7490]) repair tunnel to D and, therefore, a targeted LDP session from B to D. Typically, network operators prefer avoiding these dynamically established multi-hop LDP sessions in order to reduce the number of protocols running in the network and, therefore, simplify network operations.
- There is no LFA/RLFA solution to protect the link BE along the shortest path of the important flow XZ. The operator wants a guaranteed link-based FRR solution.
- The operator configures A, B, C, D, E, F, and G with SRGB [100, 200] and with node segments 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107, respectively.
- The operator configures D as an SR Mapping Server with the following policy mapping: (X, 201), (Y, 202), and (Z, 203).
- Each SR node automatically advertises a local adjacency segment for its IGP adjacencies. Specifically, F advertises adjacency segment 9001 for its adjacency FG.
-
Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Y
- Outgoing label: LDP label bound by A for FEC Y
- Outgoing next hop: A
-
Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Z
- Outgoing label: LDP label bound by E for FEC Z
- Outgoing next hop: E
- Eliminate targeted LDP sessions.
- Provide guaranteed FRR coverage.
- Keep the traffic over LDP LSP in steady state.
- Partially deploy SR only where needed.
4.2. Eliminating Targeted LDP Sessions
B's MPLS entry to Y becomes:
-
Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Y
- Outgoing label: LDP label bound by A for FEC Y
- Backup outgoing label: SR node segment for Y {202}
- Outgoing next hop: A
- Backup next hop: repair tunnel: node segment to D {104} with outgoing next hop: C
-
Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Y
- Outgoing label: LDP label bound by C for FEC Y
- Outgoing next hop: C
4.3. Guaranteed FRR Coverage
As mentioned in Section 4.1, in the example topology described in Figure 3, there is no RLFA-based solution for protecting the traffic flow YZ against the failure of link BE because there is no intersection between the extended P-space and Q-space (see [RFC 7490] for details). However:
- G belongs to the Q space of Z.
- G can be reached from B via a "repair SR path" {106, 9001} that is not affected by failure of link BE. (The method by which G and the repair tunnel to it from B are identified are outside the scope of this document.)
-
Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Z
- Outgoing label: LDP label bound by E for FEC Z
- Backup outgoing label: SR node segment for Z {203}
- Outgoing next hop: E
- Backup next hop: repair tunnel to G: {106, 9001}
- G is reachable from B via the combination of a node segment to F {106} and an adjacency segment FG {9001}.
- Note that {106, 107} would have equally worked. Indeed, in many cases, P's shortest path to Q is over the link PQ. The adjacency segment from P to Q is required only in very rare topologies where the shortest-path from P to Q is not via the link PQ.
-
Incoming label: local LDP label bound by B for FEC Z
- Outgoing label: LDP label bound by C for FEC Z
- Outgoing next hop: C
- the operator has eliminated its second problem: guaranteed FRR coverage is provided. The steady-state traffic is still transported over LDP. The SR deployment is confined to the area where these benefits are required.
- FRR coverage has been achieved without any signaling for setting up the repair LSP and without setting up a targeted LDP session between B and G.
4.4. Inter-AS Option C, Carrier's Carrier
In inter-AS Option C [RFC 4364], two interconnected ASes sets up inter-AS MPLS connectivity. SR may be independently deployed in each AS.
In Inter-AS Option C, B2 advertises to B1 a labeled BGP route [RFC 8277] for PE2, and B1 reflects it to its internal peers, e.g., PE1. PE1 learns from a service route reflector a service route whose next hop is PE2. PE1 resolves that service route on the labeled BGP route to PE2. That labeled BGP route to PE2 is itself resolved on the AS1 IGP route to B1.
If AS1 operates SR, then the tunnel from PE1 to B1 is provided by the node segment from PE1 to B1.
PE1 sends a service packet with three labels: the top one is the node segment to B1, the next one is the label in the labeled BGP route provided by B1 for the route "PE2", and the bottom one is the service label allocated by PE2.
PE1---R1---B1---B2---R2---PE2
<-----------> <----------->
AS1 AS2
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Manageability Considerations
6.1. SR and LDP Coexistence
When both SR and LDP coexist, the following applies:
- If both SR and LDP propose an IP2MPLS entry for the same IP prefix, then by default the LDP route SHOULD be selected. This is because it is expected that SR is introduced into networks that contain routers that do not support SR. Hence, by having a behavior that prefers LDP over SR, traffic flow is unlikely to be disrupted.
- A local policy on a router MUST allow to prefer the SR-provided IP2MPLS entry.
- Note that this policy MAY be locally defined. There is no requirement that all routers use the same policy.
6.2. Data-Plane Verification
When Label switch paths (LSPs) are defined by stitching LDP LSPs with SR LSPs, it is necessary to have mechanisms allowing the verification of the LSP connectivity as well as validation of the path. These mechanisms are described in [RFC 8287].
7. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any change to the MPLS data plane [RFC 3031] and therefore no additional security of the MPLS data plane is required.
This document introduces another form of label binding advertisements. The security associated with these advertisements is part of the security applied to routing protocols such as IS-IS [RFC 5304] and OSPF [RFC 5709], which both optionally make use of cryptographic authentication mechanisms. This form of advertisement is more centralized, on behalf of the node advertising the IP reachability, which presents a different risk profile. This document also specifies a mechanism by which the ill effects of advertising conflicting label bindings can be mitigated. In particular, advertisements from the node advertising the IP reachability is more preferred than the centralized one. This document recognizes that errors in configuration and/or programming may result in false or conflicting label binding advertisements compromising traffic forwarding. Therefore, this document recommends the operator implement strict configuration/programmability control, the monitoring of the advertised SIDs, the preference of an IP reachability SID Advertisement over a centralized SID Advertisement, and the logging of any error message in order to avoid, or at least significantly minimize, the possibility of such risk.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
S. Bradner, "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 - [RFC5036]
-
L. Andersson, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc5036 - [RFC8174]
-
B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8174 - [RFC8402]
-
C. Filsfils, S. Previdi, L. Ginsberg, B. Decraene, S. Litkowski, and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8402 - [RFC8660]
-
A Bashandy, C Filsfils, S Previdi, B Decraene, S Litkowski, and R Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8660
8.2. Informative References
- [RFC3031]
-
E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc3031 - [RFC3209]
-
D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc3209 - [RFC4364]
-
E. Rosen, 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 - [RFC5304]
-
T. Li, and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc5304 - [RFC5709]
-
M. Bhatia, V. Manral, M. Fanto, R. White, M. Barnes, T. Li, and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc5709 - [RFC5960]
-
D. Frost, S. Bryant, and M. Bocci, "MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture", RFC 5960, DOI 10.17487/RFC5960, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc5960 - [RFC7490]
-
S. Bryant, C. Filsfils, S. Previdi, M. Shand, and N. So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)", RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc7490 - [RFC8277]
-
E. Rosen, "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8277 - [RFC8287]
-
N. Kumar, C. Pignataro, G. Swallow, N. Akiya, S. Kini, and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8287 - [RFC8355]
-
C. Filsfils, S. Previdi, B. Decraene, and R. Shakir, "Resiliency Use Cases in Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Networks", RFC 8355, DOI 10.17487/RFC8355, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8355 - [RFC8665]
-
P Psenak, S Previdi, C Filsfils, H Gredler, R Shakir, W Henderickx, and J Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://doi.org/10.17487/ >.RFC8665 - [RFC8666]
-
P Psenak, and S Previdi, "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, December 2019,
<https://doi.org/10.17487/ >.RFC8666 - [RFC8667]
-
S Previdi, L Ginsberg, C Filsfils, A Bashandy, H Gredler, and B Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://doi.org/10.17487/ >.RFC8667
Appendix A. Migration from LDP to SR
PE2 PE4
\ /
PE1----P5--P6--P7---PE3
- The service from PE1 to any other PE is now riding over SR. All other service traffic is still transported over LDP LSPs.
- All the service traffic is now transported over SR. LDP is still operational and services could be reverted to LDP.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Pierre Francois, Ruediger Geib, and Alexander Vainshtein for their contributions to the content of this document.
Contributors
Edward Crabbe Individual Email: edward.crabbe@gmail.com
Igor Milojevic Email: milojevicigor@gmail.com
Saku Ytti TDC Email: saku@ytti.fi
Rob Shakir Google Email: robjs@google.com
Martin Horneffer Deutsche Telekom Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de
Wim Henderickx Nokia Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Jeff Tantsura Apstra, Inc. Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Les Ginsberg Cisco Systems Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses
Ahmed Bashandy
Individual
United States of America
Email: abashandy.ietf@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi
Huawei Technologies
Italy
Email: stefano@previdi.net
Bruno Decraene
Orange
France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Stephane Litkowski
Orange
France
Email: slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
