draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-17.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-18.txt 
IDR S. Previdi, Ed. IDR S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem, Ed.
Expires: August 24, 2018 Cisco Systems Expires: September 28, 2018 Cisco Systems
A. Sreekantiah A. Sreekantiah
H. Gredler H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
February 20, 2018 March 27, 2018
Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for BGP Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for BGP
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-17 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-18
Abstract Abstract
The Segment Routing (SR) architecture allows a node to steer a packet The Segment Routing (SR) architecture allows a node to steer a packet
flow through any topological path and service chain by leveraging flow through any topological path and service chain by leveraging
source routing. The ingress node prepends an SR header to a packet source routing. The ingress node prepends an SR header to a packet
containing a set of segment identifiers (SID). Each SID represents a containing a set of segment identifiers (SID). Each SID represents a
topological or a service-based instruction. Per-flow state is topological or a service-based instruction. Per-flow state is
maintained only on the ingress node of the SR domain. maintained only on the ingress node of the SR domain.
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 28, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 9, line 23 skipping to change at page 9, line 23
If multiple different prefixes are received with the same label If multiple different prefixes are received with the same label
index, all of the different prefixes MUST have their BGP Prefix-SID index, all of the different prefixes MUST have their BGP Prefix-SID
attribute considered as "conflicting". attribute considered as "conflicting".
If multiple valid paths for the same prefix are received from If multiple valid paths for the same prefix are received from
multiple BGP speakers or, in the case of [RFC7911], from the same BGP multiple BGP speakers or, in the case of [RFC7911], from the same BGP
speaker, and the BGP Prefix-SID attributes do not contain the same speaker, and the BGP Prefix-SID attributes do not contain the same
label index, then the label index from the best path BGP Prefix-SID label index, then the label index from the best path BGP Prefix-SID
attribute SHOULD be chosen with a notable exception being when attribute SHOULD be chosen with a notable exception being when
[RFC5005] is being used to dampen route changes. [RFC5004] is being used to dampen route changes.
When a BGP speaker receives a path from a neighbor with an When a BGP speaker receives a path from a neighbor with an
"acceptable" BGP Prefix-SID attribute and that path is selected as "acceptable" BGP Prefix-SID attribute and that path is selected as
the best path, it SHOULD program the derived label as the label for the best path, it SHOULD program the derived label as the label for
the prefix in its local MPLS dataplane. the prefix in its local MPLS dataplane.
When a BGP speaker receives a path from a neighbor with an "invalid" When a BGP speaker receives a path from a neighbor with an "invalid"
or "conflicting" BGP Prefix-SID attribute or when a BGP speaker or "conflicting" BGP Prefix-SID attribute or when a BGP speaker
receives a path from a neighbor with a BGP Prefix-SID attribute but receives a path from a neighbor with a BGP Prefix-SID attribute but
is unable to process it (e.g., local policy disables the is unable to process it (e.g., local policy disables the
skipping to change at page 14, line 25 skipping to change at page 14, line 25
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), January 2018. in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-11 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-12
(work in progress), October 2017. (work in progress), February 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4271>. editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
skipping to change at page 15, line 34 skipping to change at page 15, line 34
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04
(work in progress), January 2018. (work in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, S., and J. Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, S., and J.
Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress
Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing- Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-
epe-14 (work in progress), December 2017. epe-15 (work in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Mitchell, J., Aries, E., and P. Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Mitchell, J., Aries, E., and P.
Lapukhov, "BGP-Prefix Segment in large-scale data Lapukhov, "BGP-Prefix Segment in large-scale data
centers", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08 (work centers", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08 (work
in progress), December 2017. in progress), December 2017.
[IANA-MPLS-SPECIAL-LABEL] [IANA-MPLS-SPECIAL-LABEL]
"IANA Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) "IANA Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Label Values Registry", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ Label Values Registry", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
mpls-label-values/>. mpls-label-values/>.
[RFC5005] Nottingham, M., "Feed Paging and Archiving", RFC 5005, [RFC5004] Chen, E. and S. Sangli, "Avoid BGP Best Path Transitions
DOI 10.17487/RFC5005, September 2007, <https://www.rfc- from One External to Another", RFC 5004,
editor.org/info/rfc5005>. DOI 10.17487/RFC5004, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5004>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7752>. editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stefano Previdi (editor) Stefano Previdi (editor)
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 13 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/