[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]



Network Working Group                                              X. Xu
Internet-Draft                                                   Alibaba
Intended status: Standards Track                               S. Bryant
Expires: September 2, 2018                                        Huawei
                                                               A. Farrel
                                                                 Juniper
                                                             A. Bashandy
                                                                   Cisco
                                                           W. Henderickx
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                   Z. Li
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           March 1, 2018


                            SR-MPLS over IP
                      draft-xu-mpls-sr-over-ip-00

Abstract

   MPLS Segment Routing (SR-MPLS in short) is an MPLS data plane-based
   source routing paradigm in which the sender of a packet is allowed to
   partially or completely specify the route the packet takes through
   the network by imposing stacked MPLS labels on the packet.  SR-MPLS
   could be leveraged to realize a source routing mechanism across MPLS,
   IPv4, and IPv6 data planes by using an MPLS label stack as a source
   routing instruction set while preserving backward compatibility with
   SR-MPLS.

   This document describes how SR-MPLS capable routers and IP-only
   routers can seamlessly co-exist and interoperate through the use of
   SR-MPLS label stacks and IP encapsulation/tunnelling such as MPLS-in-
   UDP [RFC7510].

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.





Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Procedures of SR-MPLS over IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Forwarding Entry Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Packet Forwarding Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  Packet Forwarding with Penultimate Hop Popping  . . .   7
       4.2.2.  Packet Forwarding without Penultimate Hop Popping . .   8
       4.2.3.  Additional Forwarding Procedures  . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Forwarding Details of SR-MPLS over UDP  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Domain Ingress Nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.2.  Legacy Transit Nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.3.  On-Path Pass-Through SR Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.4.  SR Transit Nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.5.  Penultimate SR Transit Nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.5.1.  A Note on Segment Routing Paths and Penultimate Hop
               Popping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.6.  Domain Egress Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15



Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   MPLS Segment Routing (SR-MPLS in short)
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] is an MPLS data plane-based
   source routing paradigm in which the sender of a packet is allowed to
   partially or completely specify the route the packet takes through
   the network by imposing stacked MPLS labels on the packet.  SR-MPLS
   could be leveraged to realize a source routing mechanism across MPLS,
   IPv4, and IPv6 data planes by using an MPLS label stack as a source
   routing instruction set while preserving backward compatibility with
   SR-MPLS.  More specifically, the source routing instruction set
   information contained in a source routed packet could be uniformly
   encoded as an MPLS label stack no matter whether the underlay is
   IPv4, IPv6, or MPLS.

   This document describes how SR-MPLS capable routers and IP-only
   routers can seamlessly co-exist and interoperate through the use of
   SR-MPLS label stacks and IP encapsulation/tunnelling such as MPLS-in-
   UDP [RFC7510].

   Although the source routing instructions are encoded as MPLS labels,
   this is a hardware convenience rather than an indication that the
   whole MPLS protocol stack needs to be deployed.  In particular, the
   MPLS control protocols are not used in this or any other form of SR-
   MPLS.

   Section 3 describes various use cases for the tunneling SR-MPLS over
   IP.  Section 4 describes a typical application scenario and how the
   packet forwarding happens.  Section 5 describes the forwarding
   procedures of different elements when UDP encapsulation is adopted
   for source routing.

2.  Terminology

   This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC3031] and
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls].







Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


3.  Use Cases

   Tunnelling SR-MPLS using IPv4 and/or IPv6 tunnels is useful at least
   in the following use cases:

   o  Incremental deployment of the SR-MPLS technology may be
      facilitated by tunnelling SR-MPLS packets across parts of a
      network that are not SR-MPLS enabled using an IP tunneling
      mechanism such as MPLS-in-UDP [RFC7510].  The tunnel destination
      address is the address of the next SR-MPLS-capable node along the
      path (i.e., the egress of the active node segment).  This is shown
      in Figure 1.


                      ________________________
       _______       (                        )       _______
      (       )     (        IP Network        )     (       )
     ( SR-MPLS )   (                            )   ( SR-MPLS )
    (  Network  ) (                              ) (  Network  )
   (         --------                          --------         )
   (        | Border |    SR-in-UDP Tunnel    | Border |        )
   (        | Router |========================| Router |        )
   (        |   R1   |                        |   R2   |        )
   (         --------                          --------         )
    (           ) (                              ) (           )
     (         )   (                            )   (         )
      (_______)     (                          )     (_______)
                     (________________________)


         Figure 1: SR-MPLS in UDP to Tunnel Between SR-MPLS Sites

   o  If encoding of entropy is desired, IP tunneling mechanims that
      allow encoding of entrpopy, such as MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation
      [RFC7510] where the source port of the UDP header is used as an
      entropy field, may be used to maximize the untilization of ECMP
      and/or UCMP, specially when it is difficult to make use of entropy
      label mechanism.  Refer to [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label])
      for more discussion about using entropy label in SR-MPLS.

   o  Tunneling MPLS into IP provides a transition technology that
      enables SR in an IPv4 and/or IPv6 network where many routers have
      not yet been upgraded to have SRv6 capabilities
      [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].  It could be deployed as
      an interim until full featured SRv6 is available on more
      platforms.  This is shown in Figure 2.





Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


                    __________________________________
                 __(           IP Network             )__
              __(                                        )__
             (               --        --        --         )
        --------   --   --  |SR|  --  |SR|  --  |SR|  --   --------
       | Ingress| |IR| |IR| |  | |IR| |  | |IR| |  | |IR| | Egress |
   --->| Router |===========|  |======|  |======|  |======| Router |--->
       |   SR   | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |   SR   |
        --------   --   --  |  |  --  |  |  --  |  |  --   --------
             (__             --        --        --       __)
                (__                                    __)
                   (__________________________________)

      Key:
        IR : IP-only Router
        SR : SR-MPLS-capable Router
        == : SR-MPLS in UDP Tunnel


              Figure 2: SR-MPLS Enabled Within an IP Network

4.  Procedures of SR-MPLS over IP

   This section describes the construction of forwarding information
   base (FIB) entries and the forwarding behavior that allow the
   deployment of SR-MPLS when some routers in the network are IP only
   (i.e., do not support SR-MPLS).  Note that the examples described in
   Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 assume that OSPF or ISIS is enabled: in
   fact, other mechanisms of discovery and advertisement could be used
   including other routing protocols (such as BGP) or a central
   controller.

4.1.  Forwarding Entry Construction

   This sub-section describes the how to construct the forwarding
   information base (FIB) entry on an SR-MPLS-capable router when some
   or all of the next-hops along the shortest path towards a prefix-SID
   are IP-only routers.

   Consider router A that receives a labeled packet with top label L(E)
   that corresponds to the prefix-SID SID(E) of prefix P(E) advertised
   by router E.  Suppose the ith next-hop router (termed NHi) along the
   shortest path from router A toward SID(E) is not SR-MPLS capable.
   That is both routers A and E are SR-MPLS capable, but some router NHi
   along the shortest path from A to E is not SR-MPLS capable.  The
   following processing steps apply:





Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   o  Router E is SR-MPLS capable so it advertises the SR-Capabilities
      sub-TLV including the SRGB as described in
      [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
      [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].

   o  Router E advertises the prefix-SID SID(E) of prefix P(E) so MUST
      also advertise the encapsulation endpoint and the tunnel type of
      any tunnel used to reach E.  It does this using the mechanisms
      described in [I-D.ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap] or
      [I-D.ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap].

   o  If A and E are in different IGP areas/levels, then:

      *  The OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation TLV
         [I-D.ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap] or the ISIS Tunnel
         Encapsulation sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap] is
         flooded domain-wide.

      *  The OSPF SID/label range TLV
         [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] or the ISIS SR-
         Capabilities Sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
         is advertised domain-wide.  This way router A knows the
         characteristics of the router that originated the advertisement
         of SID(E) (i.e., router E).

      *  When router E advertises the prefix P(E):

         +  If router E is running ISIS it uses the extended
            reachability TLV (TLVs 135, 235, 236, 237) and associates
            the IPv4/IPv6 or IPv4/IPv6 source router ID sub-TLV(s)
            [RFC7794].

         +  If router E is running OSPF it uses the OSPFv2 Extended
            Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684] and sets the flooding scope to
            AS-wide.

      *  If router E is running ISIS and advertises the ISIS
         capabilities TLV (TLV 242) [RFC7981], it MUST set the "router-
         ID" field to a valid value or include an IPV6 TE router-ID sub-
         TLV (TLV 12), or do both.  The "S" bit (flooding scope) of the
         ISIS capabilities TLV (TLV 242) MUST be set to "1" .

   o  Router A programs the FIB entry for prefix P(E) corresponding to
      the SID(E) as follows:

      *  If the NP flag in OSPF or the P flag in ISIS is clear:

            pop the top label



Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


      *  If the NP flag in OSPF or the P flag in ISIS is set:

            swap the top label to a value equal to SID(E) plus the lower
            bound of the SRGB of E

      *  Encapsulate the packet according to the encapsulation
         advertised in [I-D.ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap] or
         [I-D.ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap]

      *  Send the packet towards the next hop NHi.

4.2.  Packet Forwarding Procedures

4.2.1.  Packet Forwarding with Penultimate Hop Popping

   The description in this section assumes that the label associated
   with each prefix-SID is advertised by the owner of the prefix-SID is
   a Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) label.  That is, the NP flag in OSPF
   or the P flag in ISIS associated with the prefix SID is not set.


     +-----+       +-----+       +-----+        +-----+        +-----+
     |  A  +-------+  B  +-------+  C  +--------+  D  +--------+  H  |
     +-----+       +--+--+       +--+--+        +--+--+        +-----+
                      |             |              |
                      |             |              |
                   +--+--+       +--+--+        +--+--+
                   |  E  +-------+  F  +--------+  G  |
                   +-----+       +-----+        +-----+


          +--------+
          |IP(A->E)|
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          |  UDP   |                 |IP(E->G)|        |IP(G->H)|
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          |  L(G)  |                 |  UDP   |        |  UDP   |
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          |  L(H)  |                 |  L(H)  |        |Exp Null|
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          | Packet |     --->        | Packet |  --->  | Packet |
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+


               Figure 3: Packet Forwarding Example with PHP

   In the example shown in Figure 3, assume that routers A, E, G, and H
   are SR-MPLS-capable while the remaining routers (B, C, D, and F) are



Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   only capable of forwarding IP packets.  Routers A, E, G, and H
   advertise their Segment Routing related information via IS-IS or
   OSPF.

   Now assume that router A wants to send a packet via the explicit path
   {E->G->H}. Router A will impose an MPLS label stack corresponding to
   that explicit path on the packet.  Since the next hop toward router E
   is only IP-capable, router A replaces the top label (that indicated
   router E) with a UDP-based tunnel for MPLS (i.e., MPLS-over-UDP
   [RFC7510]) to router E and then sends the packet.  In other words,
   router A pops the top label and then encapsulates the MPLS packet in
   a UDP tunnel to router E.

   When the IP-encapsulated MPLS packet arrives at router E, router E
   strips the IP-based tunnel header and then process the decapsulated
   MPLS packet.  The top label indicates that the packet must be
   forwarded toward router G.  Since the next hop toward router G is
   only IP-capable, router E replaces the current top label with an
   MPLS-over-UDP tunnel toward router G and sends it out.  That is,
   router E pops the top label and then encapsulates the MPLS packet in
   a UDP tunnel to router G.

   When the packet arrives at router G, router G will strip the IP-based
   tunnel header and then process the decapsulated MPLS packet.  The top
   label indicates that the packet must be forwarded toward router H.
   Since the next hop toward router H is only IP-capable, router G would
   replace the current top label with an MPLS-over-UDP tunnel toward
   router H and send it out.  However, this would leave the original
   packet that router A wanted to send to router H encapsulated in UDP
   as if it was MPLS even though the original packet could have been any
   protocol.  That is, the final SR-MPLS has been popped exposing the
   payload packet.

   To handle this, when a router (here it is router G) pops the final
   SR-MPLS label, it inserts an explicit null label [RFC3032] before
   encapsulating the packet with an MPLS-over-UDP tunnel toward router H
   and sending it out.  That is, router G pops the top label, discovers
   it has reached the bottom of stack, pushes an explicit null label,
   and then encapsulates the MPLS packet in a UDP tunnel to router H.

4.2.2.  Packet Forwarding without Penultimate Hop Popping

   Figure 4 demonstrates the packet walk in the case where the label
   associated with each prefix-SID advertised by the owner of the
   prefix-SID is not a Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) label (i.e., the
   the NP flag in OSPF or the P flag in ISIS associated with the prefix
   SID is set).




Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


     +-----+       +-----+       +-----+        +-----+        +-----+
     |  A  +-------+  B  +-------+  C  +--------+  D  +--------+  H  |
     +-----+       +--+--+       +--+--+        +--+--+        +-----+
                      |             |              |
                      |             |              |
                   +--+--+       +--+--+        +--+--+
                   |  E  +-------+  F  +--------+  G  |
                   +-----+       +-----+        +-----+

          +--------+
          |IP(A->E)|
          +--------+                 +--------+
          |  UDP   |                 |IP(E->G)|
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          |  L(E)  |                 |  UDP   |        |IP(G->H)|
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          |  L(G)  |                 |  L(G)  |        |  UDP   |
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          |  L(H)  |                 |  L(H)  |        |  L(H)  |
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+
          | Packet |     --->        | Packet |  --->  | Packet |
          +--------+                 +--------+        +--------+


              Figure 4: Packet Forwarding Example without PHP

   As can be seen from the figure, the SR-MPLS label for each segment is
   left in place until the end of the segment where it is popped and the
   next instruction is processed.  Further description can be found in
   Section 5.

4.2.3.  Additional Forwarding Procedures

   Although the description in the previous two sections is based on the
   use of prefix-SIDs, tunneling SR-MPLS packets are useful when the top
   label of a received SR-MPLS packet indicates an adjacncy-SID and the
   corresponding adjacent node to that adjacency-SID is not capable of
   MPLS forwarding but can still process SR-MPLS packets.  In this
   scenario the top label would be replaced by an IP tunnel toward that
   adjacent node and then forwarded over the corresponding link
   indicated by the adjacency-SID.

   When encapsulating an MPLS packet with an IP tunnel header that is
   capable of encoding entropy (such as [RFC7510]), the corresponding
   entropy field (the source port in case UDP tunnel) MAY be filled with
   an entropy value that is generated by the encapsulator to uniquely
   identify a flow.  However, what constitutes a flow is locally
   determined by the encapsulator.  For instance, if the MPLS label



Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   stack contains at least one entropy label and the encapsulator is
   capable of reading that entropy label, the entropy label value could
   be directly copied to the source port of the UDP header.  Otherwise,
   the encapsulator may have to perform a hash on the whole label stack
   or the five-tuple of the SR-MPLS payload if the payload is determined
   as an IP packet.  To avoid re-performing the hash or hunting for the
   entropy label each time the packet is encapsulated in a UDP tunnel it
   MAY be desireable that the entropy value contained in the incoming
   packet (i.e., the UDP source port value) is retained when stripping
   the UDP header and is re-used as the entropy value of the outgoing
   packet.

5.  Forwarding Details of SR-MPLS over UDP

   This section provides supplementary details to the description found
   in Section 4.

   [RFC7510] specifies an IP-based encapsulation for MPLS, i.e., MPLS-
   in-UDP, which is applicable in some circumstances where IP-based
   encapsulation for MPLS is required and further fine-grained load
   balancing of MPLS packets over IP networks over Equal-Cost Multipath
   (ECMP) and/or Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs) is required as well.
   This section provides details about the forwarding procedure when
   when UDP encapsulation is adopted for SR-MPLS over IP.

   Nodes that are SR capable can process SR-MPLS packets.  Not all of
   the nodes in an SR domain are SR capable.  Some nodes may be "legacy
   routers" that cannot handle SR packets but can forward IP packets.
   An SR capable node may advertise its capabilities using the IGP as
   described in Section 4.  There are six types of node in an SR domain:

   o  Domain ingress nodes that receive packets and encapsulate them for
      transmission across the domain.  Those packets may be any payload
      protocol including native IP packets or packets that are already
      MPLS encapsulated.

   o  Legacy transit nodes that are IP routers but that are not SR
      capable (i.e., are not able to perform segment routing).

   o  Transit nodes that are SR capable but that are not identified by a
      SID in the SID stack.

   o  Transit nodes that are SR capable and need to perform SR routing
      because they are identified by a SID in the SID stack.

   o  The penultimate SR capable node on the path that processes the
      last SID on the stack on behalf of the domain egress node.




Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   o  The domain egress node that forwards the payload packet for
      ultimate delivery.

   The following sub-sections describe the processing behavior in each
   case.

5.1.  Domain Ingress Nodes

   Domain ingress nodes receive packets from outside the domain and
   encapsulate them to be forwarded across the domain.  Received packets
   may already be SR-MPLS packets (in the case of connecting two SR-MPLS
   networks across a native IP network), or may be native IP or MPLS
   packets.

   In the latter case, the packet is classified by the domain ingress
   node and an SR-MPLS stack is imposed.  In the former case the SR-MPLS
   stack is already in the packet.  The top entry in the stack is popped
   from the stack and retained for use below.

   The packet is then encapsulated in UDP with the destination port set
   to 6635 to indicate "MPLS-UDP" or to 6636 to indicate "MPLS-UDP-DTLS"
   as described in [RFC7510].  The source UDP port is set randomly or to
   provide entropy as described in [RFC7510] and Section 4.2.3, above.

   The packet is then encapsulated in IP for transmission across the
   network.  The IP source address is set to the domain ingress node,
   and the destination address is set to the address corresponding to
   the label that was previously popped from the stack.

   This processing is equivalent to sending the packet out of a virtual
   interface that corresponds to a virtual link between the ingress node
   and the next hop SR node realized by a UDP tunnel.  The packet is
   then sent into the IP network and is routed according to the local
   FIB and applying hashing to resolve any ECMP choices.

5.2.  Legacy Transit Nodes

   A legacy transit node is an IP router that has no SR capabilities.
   When such a router receives an SR-MPLS-in-UDP packet it will carry
   out normal TTL processing and if the packet is still live it will
   forward it as it would any other UDP-in-IP packet.  The packet will
   be routed toward the destination indicated in the packet header using
   the local FIB and applying hashing to resolve any ECMP choices.

   If the packet is mistakenly addressed to the legacy router, the UDP
   tunnel will be terminated and the packet will be discarded either
   because the MPLS-in-UDP port is not supported or because the




Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   uncovered top label has not been allocated.  This is, however, a
   misconnection and should not occur unless there is a routing error.

5.3.  On-Path Pass-Through SR Nodes

   Just because a node is SR capable and receives an SR-MPLS-in-UDP
   packet does not mean that it performs SR processing on the packet.
   Only routers identified by SIDs in the SR stack need to do such
   processing.

   Routers that are not addressed by the destination address in the IP
   header simply treat the packet as a normal UDP-in-IP packet carrying
   out normal TTL processing and if the packet is still live routing the
   packet according to the local FIB and applying hashing to resolve any
   ECMP choices.

   This is important because it means that the SR stack can be kept
   relatively small and the packet can be steered through the network
   using shortest path first routing between selected SR nodes.

5.4.  SR Transit Nodes

   An SR capable node that is addressed by the top most SID in the stack
   when that is not the last SID in the stack (i.e., the S bit is not
   set) is an SR transit node.  When an SR transit node receives an SR-
   MPLS-in-UDP packet that is addressed to it, it acts as follows.

   o  Perform TTL processing as normal for an IP packet.

   o  Determine that the packet is addressed to the local node.

   o  Find that the payload is UDP and that the destination port
      indicates MPLS-in-UDP.

   o  Strip the IP and UDP headers.

   o  Examine the label at the top of the stack and process according to
      the FIB entry (see Section 4.1.

      *  If the top label identifies this node then no PHP was used on
         the incoming segment and the label is popped.  Continue the
         processing with the new top label.

      *  Retain the value of the top label.

      *  If the top label was advertised requesting PHP, pop the label.
         (Note that the case where this is the last label in the stack
         is covered in Section 5.5.)



Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   o  Encapsulate the packet in UDP with the destination port set to
      6635 (or 6636 for DTLS) and the source port set for entropy.  The
      entropy value SHOULD be retained from the received UDP header or
      MAY be freshly generated since this is a new UDP tunnel (see
      Section 4.2.3).

   o  Encapsulate the packet in IP with the IP source address set to
      this transit router, and the destination address set to the
      address corresponding to the SID for the label value retained
      earlier.

   o  Send the packet into the IP network routing the packet according
      to the local FIB and applying hashing to resolve any ECMP choices.

5.5.  Penultimate SR Transit Nodes

   The penultimate SR transit node is an SR transit node as described in
   Section 5.4 where the top label is the last label on the stack.  When
   a penultimate SR transit node receives an SR-MPLS-in-UDP packet that
   is addressed to it, it processes as for any other transit node (see
   Section 5.4) except for a special case if PHP is supported for the
   final SID.

   If PHP is allowed for the final SID the penultimate SR transit node
   acts as follows:

   o  Perform TTL processing as normal for an IP packet.

   o  Determine that the packet is addressed to the local node.

   o  Find that the payload is UDP and that the destination port
      indicates MPLS-in-UDP.

   o  Strip the IP and UDP headers.

   o  Examine the label at the top of the stack and process according to
      the FIB entry (see Section 4.1.

      *  If the top label identifies this node then no PHP was used on
         the incoming segment and the label is popped.  Continue the
         processing with the new top label.

      *  Retain the value of the top label.

      *  If the top label was advertised requesting PHP, pop the label.
         This will have been the last label in the stack.  Push an
         explicit null label [RFC3032] (0 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6) with
         bottom of stack (S bit) set.



Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   o  Encapsulate the packet in UDP with the destination port set to
      6635 (or 6636 for DTLS) and the source port set for entropy.  The
      entropy value SHOULD be retained from the received UDP header or
      MAY be freshly generated since this is a new UDP tunnel.

   o  Encapsulate the packet in IP with the IP source address set to
      this transit router, and the destination address set to the domain
      egress node IP address corresponding to the SID for the label
      value retained earlier.

   o  Send the packet into the IP network routing the packet according
      to the local FIB and applying hashing to resolve any ECMP choices.

5.5.1.  A Note on Segment Routing Paths and Penultimate Hop Popping

   End-to-end SR paths are comprised of multiple segments.  The end
   point of each segment is identified by a SID in the SID stack.  In
   normal SR processing a penultimate hop is the router that performs SR
   routing immediately prior to the end-of-segment router.  PHP applies
   at the penultimate router in a segment.

   With SR-MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation, each SR segment is achieved using
   an MPLS-in-UDP tunnel that runs the full length of the segment.  The
   SR SID stack on a packet is only examined at the head and tail ends
   of this segment.  Thus, each segment is effectively one hop long in
   the SR overlay network and if there is any PHP processing it takes
   place at the head-end of the segment.

5.6.  Domain Egress Nodes

   The domain egress acts as follows:

   o  Perform TTL processing as normal for an IP packet.

   o  Determine that the packet is addressed to the local node.

   o  Find that the payload is UDP and that the destination port
      indicates MPLS-in-UDP.

   o  Strip the IP and UDP headers.

   o  Examine the label at the top of the stack and process according to
      the FIB entry (see Section 4.1.

      *  If the top label identifies this node then no PHP was used on
         the incoming segment and the label is popped.  Continue the
         processing with the new top label.




Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


      *  If there is another label it should be the explicit null.  Pop
         it but retain its value.

   o  Forward the payload packet according to its type (as potentially
      indicated by the value of the popped explicit null label) and the
      local routing/forwarding mechanisms.

6.  Contributors











































Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco
   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com

   John Drake
   Juniper
   Email: jdrake@juniper.net

   Shaowen Ma
   Juniper
   Email: mashao@juniper.net

   Mach Chen
   Huawei
   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com

   Hamid Assarpour
   Broadcom
   Email:hamid.assarpour@broadcom.com

   Robert Raszuk
   Bloomberg LP
   Email: robert@raszuk.net

   Uma Chunduri
   Huawei
   Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com

   Luis M. Contreras
   Telefonica I+D
   Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com

   Luay Jalil
   Verizon
   Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com

   Gunter Van De Velde
   Nokia
   Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com

   Tal Mizrahi
   Marvell
   Email: talmi@marvell.com

   Jeff Tantsura
   Individual
   Email: jefftant@gmail.com




Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


7.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Joel Halpern, Bruno Decraene, Loa Andersson, Ron Bonica,
   Eric Rosen, Jim Guichard, and Gunter Van De Velde for their
   insightful comments on this draft.

8.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA action is required.

9.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap]
              Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras,
              L., and L. Jalil, "Advertising Tunnelling Capability in
              IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap-01 (work in
              progress), April 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
              Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
              Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura,
              "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
              segment-routing-extensions-15 (work in progress), December
              2017.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap]
              Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Contreras, L., and L.
              Jalil, "The Tunnel Encapsulations OSPF Router
              Information", draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-09 (work
              in progress), October 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
              Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
              Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
              Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
              routing-extensions-24 (work in progress), December 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
              Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
              data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-12
              (work in progress), February 2018.



Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "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>.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.

   [RFC7510]  Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
              "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.

   [RFC7684]  Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
              Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
              Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.

   [RFC7794]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and
              U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4
              and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,
              March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.

   [RFC7981]  Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions
              for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "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>.

10.2.  Informative References











Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., Dukes, D., Leddy, J.,
              Field, B., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
              daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., Leung, I.,
              Linkova, J., Aries, E., Kosugi, T., Vyncke, E., Lebrun,
              D., Steinberg, D., and R. Raszuk, "IPv6 Segment Routing
              Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-08
              (work in progress), January 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]
              Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
              Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy label for SPRING
              tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-08 (work in
              progress), January 2018.

Authors' Addresses

   Xiaohu Xu
   Alibaba

   Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com


   Stewart Bryant
   Huawei

   Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com


   Adrian Farrel
   Juniper

   Email: afarrel@juniper.net


   Ahmed Bashandy
   Cisco

   Email: bashandy@cisco.com


   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia

   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com






Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               SR-MPLS over IP                  March 2018


   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com















































Xu, et al.              Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/