💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc9524.txt captured on 2024-06-16 at 13:09:13.
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-03-21)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Voyer, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9524 Bell Canada
Category: Standards Track C. Filsfils
ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Parekh
Cisco Systems, Inc.
H. Bidgoli
Nokia
Z. Zhang
Juniper Networks
February 2024
Segment Routing Replication for Multipoint Service Delivery
Abstract
This document describes the Segment Routing Replication segment for
multipoint service delivery. A Replication segment allows a packet
to be replicated from a replication node to downstream nodes.
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/rfc9524.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology
1.2. Use Cases
2. Replication Segment
2.1. SR-MPLS Data Plane
2.2. SRv6 Data Plane
2.2.1. End.Replicate: Replicate and/or Decapsulate
2.2.2. OAM Operations
2.2.3. ICMPv6 Error Messages
3. IANA Considerations
4. Security Considerations
5. References
5.1. Normative References
5.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Illustration of a Replication Segment
A.1. SR-MPLS
A.2. SRv6
A.2.1. Pinging a Replication-SID
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The Replication segment is a new type of segment for Segment Routing
(SR) [RFC8402], which allows a node (henceforth called a "replication
node") to replicate packets to a set of other nodes (called
"downstream nodes") in an SR domain. A Replication segment can
replicate packets to directly connected nodes or to downstream nodes
(without the need for state on the transit routers). This document
focuses on specifying the behavior of a Replication segment for both
Segment Routing with Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-MPLS)
[RFC8660] and Segment Routing with IPv6 (SRv6) [RFC8986]. The
examples in Appendix A illustrate the behavior of a Replication
Segment in an SR domain. The use of two or more Replication segments
stitched together to form a tree using a control plane is left to be
specified in other documents. The management of IP multicast groups,
building IP multicast trees, and performing multicast congestion
control are out of scope of this document.
1.1. Terminology
This section defines terms introduced and used frequently in this
document. Refer to the Terminology sections of [RFC8402], [RFC8754],
and [RFC8986] for other terms used in SR.
Replication segment: A segment in an SR domain that replicates
packets. See Section 2 for details.
Replication node: A node in an SR domain that replicates packets
based on a Replication segment.
Downstream nodes: A Replication segment replicates packets to a set
of nodes. These nodes are downstream nodes.
Replication state: State held for a Replication segment at a
replication node. It is conceptually a list of Replication
branches to downstream nodes. The list can be empty.
Replication-SID: Data plane identifier of a Replication segment.
This is an SR-MPLS label or SRv6 Segment Identifier (SID).
SRH: IPv6 Segment Routing Header [RFC8754].
Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Service: A service that has one ingress
node and one or more egress nodes. A packet is delivered to all
the egress nodes.
Root node: An ingress node of a P2MP service.
Leaf node: An egress node of a P2MP service.
Bud node: A node that is both a replication node and a leaf node.
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.
1.2. Use Cases
In the simplest use case, a single Replication segment includes the
ingress node of a multipoint service and the egress nodes of the
service as all the downstream nodes. This achieves Ingress
Replication [RFC7988] that has been widely used for Multicast VPN
(MVPN) [RFC6513] and Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC7432] bridging of
Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM) traffic. This
Replication segment on ingress and egress nodes can either be
provisioned locally or using dynamic autodiscovery procedures for
MVPN and EVPN. Note SRv6 [RFC8986] has End.DT2M replication behavior
for EVPN BUM traffic.
Replication segments can also be used to form trees by stitching
Replication segments on a root node, intermediate replication nodes,
and leaf nodes for efficient delivery of MVPN and EVPN BUM traffic.
2. Replication Segment
In an SR domain, a Replication segment is a logical construct that
connects a replication node to a set of downstream nodes. A
Replication segment is a local segment instantiated at a Replication
node. It can be either provisioned locally on a node or programmed
by a control plane.
Replication segments can be stitched together to form a tree by
either local provisioning on nodes or using a control plane. The
procedures for doing this are out of scope of this document. One
such control plane using a PCE with the SR P2MP policy is specified
in [P2MP-POLICY]. However, if local provisioning is used to stitch
Replication segments, then a chain of Replication segments SHOULD NOT
form a loop. If a control plane is used to stitch Replication
segments, the control plane specification MUST prevent loops or
detect and mitigate loops in steady state.
A Replication segment is identified by the tuple <Replication-ID,
Node-ID>, where:
Replication-ID: An identifier for a Replication segment that is
unique in context of the replication node.
Node-ID: The address of the replication node for the Replication
segment. Note that the root of a multipoint service is also a
Replication node.
Replication-ID is a variable-length field. In the simplest case, it
can be a 32-bit number, but it can be extended or modified as
required based on the specific use of a Replication segment. This is
out of scope for this document. The length of the Replication-ID is
specified in the signaling mechanism used for the Replication
segment. Examples of such signaling and extensions are described in
[P2MP-POLICY]. When the PCE signals a Replication segment to its
node, the <Replication-ID, Node-ID> tuple identifies the segment.
A Replication segment includes the following elements:
Replication-SID: The Segment Identifier of a Replication segment.
This is an SR-MPLS label or an SRv6 SID [RFC8402].
Downstream nodes: Set of nodes in an SR domain to which a packet is
replicated by the Replication segment.
Replication state: See below.
The downstream nodes and Replication state (RS) of a Replication
segment can change over time, depending on the network state and leaf
nodes of a multipoint service that the segment is part of.
The Replication-SID identifies the Replication segment in the
forwarding plane. At a replication node, the Replication-SID
operates on the RS of the Replication segment.
RS is a list of Replication branches to the downstream nodes. In
this document, each branch is abstracted to a <downstream node,
downstream Replication-SID> tuple. <downstream node> represents the
reachability from the replication node to the downstream node. In
its simplest form, this MAY be specified as an interface or next-hop
if the downstream node is adjacent to the replication node. The
reachability may be specified in terms of a Flexible Algorithm path
(including the default algorithm) [RFC9350] or specified by an SR-
explicit path represented either by a SID list (of one or more SIDs)
or by a Segment Routing Policy [RFC9256]. The downstream
Replication-SID is the Replication-SID of the Replication segment at
the downstream node.
A packet is steered into a Replication segment at a replication node
in two ways:
* When the active segment [RFC8402] is a locally instantiated
Replication-SID.
* By the root of a multipoint service based on local configuration
that is outside the scope of this document.
In either case, the packet is replicated to each downstream node in
the associated RS.
If a downstream node is an egress (leaf) of the multipoint service,
no further replication is needed. The leaf node's Replication
segment has an indicator for the leaf role, and it does not have any
RS (i.e., the list of Replication branches is empty). The
Replication-SID at a leaf node MAY be used to identify the multipoint
service. Notice that the segment on the leaf node is still referred
to as a "Replication segment" for the purpose of generalization.
A node can be a bud node (i.e., it is a replication node and a leaf
node of a multipoint service [P2MP-POLICY]). The Replication segment
of a bud node has a list of Replication branches as well as a leaf
role indicator.
In principle, it is possible for different Replication segments to
replicate packets to the same Replication segment on a downstream
node. However, such usage is intentionally left out of scope of this
document.
2.1. SR-MPLS Data Plane
When the active segment is a Replication-SID, the processing results
in a POP [RFC8402] operation and the lookup of the associated RS.
For each replication in the RS, the operation is a PUSH [RFC8402] of
the downstream Replication-SID and an optional segment list onto the
packet to steer the packet to the downstream node.
The operation performed on the incoming Replication-SID is NEXT
[RFC8402] at a leaf or bud node where delivery of payload off the
tree is per local configuration. For some usages, this may involve
looking at the next SID, for example, to get the necessary context.
When the root of a multipoint service steers a packet to a
Replication segment, it results in a replication to each downstream
node in the associated RS. The operation is a PUSH of the
Replication-SID and an optional segment list onto the packet, which
is forwarded to the downstream node.
The following applies to a Replication-SID in MPLS encapsulation:
* SIDs MAY be inserted before the downstream SR-MPLS Replication-SID
in order to guide a packet from a non-adjacent SR node to a
replication node.
* A replication node MAY replicate a packet to a non-adjacent
downstream node using SIDs it inserts in the copy preceding the
downstream Replication-SID. The downstream node may be a leaf
node of the Replication segment, another replication node, or both
in the case of a bud node.
* A replication node MAY use an Anycast-SID or a Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) PeerSet-SID in the segment list to send a
replicated packet to one downstream replication node in a set of
Anycast nodes. This occurs if and only if all nodes in the set
have an identical Replication-SID and reach the same set of
receivers.
* For some use cases, there MAY be SIDs after the Replication-SID in
the segment list of a packet. These SIDs are used only by the
leaf and bud nodes to forward a packet off the tree independent of
the Replication-SID. Coordination regarding the absence or
presence and value of context information for leaf and bud nodes
is outside the scope of this document.
2.2. SRv6 Data Plane
For SRv6 [RFC8986], this document specifies "Endpoint with
replication and/or decapsulate" behavior (End.Replicate for short) to
replicate a packet and forward the replicas according to an RS.
When processing a packet destined to a local Replication-SID, the
packet is replicated according to the associated RS to downstream
nodes and/or locally delivered off the tree when this is a leaf or
bud node. For replication, the outer header is reused, and the
downstream Replication-SID, from RS, is written into the outer IPv6
header Destination Address (DA). If required, an optional segment
list may be used on some branches using H.Encaps.Red [RFC8986] (while
some other branches may not need that). Note that this H.Encaps.Red
is independent of the Replication segment: it is just used to steer
the replicated packet on a traffic-engineered path to a downstream
node. The penultimate segment in the encapsulating IPv6 header will
execute the Ultimate Segment Decapsulation (USD) flavor [RFC8986] of
End/End.X behavior and forward the inner (replicated) packet to the
downstream node. If H.Encaps.Red is used to steer a replicated
packet to a downstream node, the operator must ensure the MTU on path
to the downstream node is sufficient to account for additional SRv6
encapsulation. This also applies when the Replication segment is for
the root node, whose upstream node has placed the Replication-SID in
the header.
A local application on root (e.g., MVPN [RFC6513] or EVPN [RFC7432])
may also apply H.Encaps.Red and then steer the resulting traffic into
the Replication segment. Again, note that H.Encaps.Red is
independent of the Replication segment: it is the action of the
application (e.g. MVPN or EVPN service). If the service is on a
root node, then the two H.Encaps mentioned, one for the service and
the other in the previous paragraph for replication to the downstream
node, SHOULD be combined for optimization (to avoid extra IPv6
encapsulation).
When processing a packet destined to a local Replication-SID, the
IPv6 Hop Limit MUST be decremented and MUST be non-zero to replicate
the packet. A root node that encapsulates a payload can set the IPv6
Hop Limit based on a local policy. This local policy SHOULD set the
IPv6 Hop Limit so that a replicated packet can reach the furthest
leaf node. A root node can also have a local policy to set the IPv6
Hop Limit from the payload. In this case, the IPv6 Hop Limit may not
be sufficient to get the replicated packet to all the leaf nodes.
Non-replication nodes (i.e., nodes that forward replicated packets
based on the IPv6 locator unicast prefix) can decrement the IPv6 Hop
Limit to zero and originate ICMPv6 error packets to the root node.
This can result in a storm of ICMPv6 packets (see Section 2.2.3) to
the root node. To avoid this, a Replication segment has an optional
IPv6 Hop Limit Threshold. If this threshold is set, a replication
node MUST discard an incoming packet with a local Replication-SID if
the IPv6 Hop Limit in the packet is less than the threshold and log
this in a rate-limited manner. The IPv6 Hop Limit Threshold SHOULD
be set so that an incoming packet can be replicated to the furthest
leaf node.
For leaf and bud nodes, local delivery off the tree is per
Replication-SID or the next SID (if present in the SRH). For some
usages, this may involve getting the necessary context either from
the next SID (e.g., MVPN with a shared tree) or from the Replication-
SID itself (e.g., MVPN with a non-shared tree). In both cases, the
context association is achieved with signaling and is out of scope of
this document.
The following applies to a Replication-SID in SRv6 encapsulation:
* There MAY be SIDs preceding the SRv6 Replication-SID in order to
guide a packet from a non-adjacent SR node to a replication node
via an explicit path.
* A replication node MAY steer a replicated packet on an explicit
path to a non-adjacent downstream node using SIDs it inserts in
the copy preceding the downstream Replication-SID. The downstream
node may be a leaf node of the Replication segment, another
replication node, or both in the case of a bud node.
* For SRv6, as described in above paragraphs, the insertion of SIDs
prior to the Replication-SID entails a new IPv6 encapsulation with
the SRH. However, this can be optimized on the root node or for
compressed SRv6 SIDs.
* The locator of the Replication-SID is sufficient to guide a packet
on the shortest path between non-adjacent nodes for default or
Flexible Algorithms.
* A replication node MAY use an Anycast-SID or a BGP PeerSet-SID in
the segment list to send a replicated packet to one downstream
replication node in an Anycast set. This occurs if and only if
all nodes in the set have an identical Replication-SID and reach
the same set of receivers.
* There MAY be SIDs after the Replication-SID in the SRH of a
packet. These SIDs are used to provide additional context for
processing a packet locally at the node where the Replication-SID
is the active segment. Coordination regarding the absence or
presence and value of context information for leaf and bud nodes
is outside the scope of this document.
2.2.1. End.Replicate: Replicate and/or Decapsulate
The "Endpoint with replication and/or decapsulate" (End.Replicate for
short) is a variant of End behavior. The pseudocode in this section
follows the convention introduced in [RFC8986].
An RS conceptually contains the following elements:
Replication state:
{
Node-Role: {Head, Transit, Leaf, Bud};
IPv6 Hop Limit Threshold; # default is zero
# On Leaf, replication list is zero length
Replication-List:
{
downstream node: <Node-Identifier>;
downstream Replication-SID: R-SID;
# Segment-List may be empty
Segment-List: [SID-1, .... SID-N];
}
}
Below is the Replicate function on a packet for Replication state
(RS).
S01. Replicate(RS, packet)
S02. {
S03. For each Replication R in RS.Replication-List {
S04. Make a copy of the packet
S05. Set IPv6 DA = RS.R-SID
S06. If RS.Segment-List is not empty {
S07. # Head node may optimize below encapsulation and
S08. # the encapsulation of packet in a single encapsulation
S09. Execute H.Encaps or H.Encaps.Red with RS.Segment-List
on packet copy #RFC 8986, Sections 5.1 and 5.2
S10. }
S11. Submit the packet to the egress IPv6 FIB lookup and
transmission to the new destination
S12. }
S13. }
Notes:
* The IPv6 DA in the copy of a packet is set from the local state
and not from the SRH.
When N receives a packet whose IPv6 DA is S and S is a local
End.Replicate SID, N does:
S01. Lookup FUNCT portion of S to get Replication state (RS)
S02. If (IPv6 Hop Limit <= 1) {
S03. Discard the packet
S04. # ICMPv6 Time Exceeded is not permitted
(see Section 2.2.3)
S05. }
S06. If RS is not found {
S07. Discard the packet
S08. }
S09. If (IPv6 Hop Limit < RS.IPv6 Hop Limit Threshold) {
S10. Discard the packet
S11. # Rate-limited logging
S12. }
S13. Decrement IPv6 Hop Limit by 1
S14. If (IPv6 NH == SRH and SRH TLVs present) {
S15. Process SRH TLVs if allowed by local configuration
S16. }
S17. Call Replicate(RS, packet)
S18. If (RS.Node-Role == Leaf OR RS.Node-Role == bud) {
S19. If (IPv6 NH == SRH and Segments Left > 0) {
S20. Derive packet processing context (PPC) from Segment List
S21. If (Segments Left != 0) {
S22. Discard the packet
S23. # ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message with Code 0
S24. # (Erroneous header field encountered)
S25. # is not permitted (Section 2.2.3)
S26. }
S27. } Else {
S28. Derive packet processing context (PPC)
from FUNCT of Replicatio-SID
S29. }
S30. Process the next header
S31. }
The processing of the Upper-Layer header of a packet matching the
End.Replicate SID at a leaf or bud node is as follows:
S01. If (Upper-Layer header type == 4(IPv4) OR
Upper-Layer header type == 41(IPv6) ) {
S02. Remove the outer IPv6 header with all its extension headers
S03. Process the packet in context of PPC
S04. } Else If (Upper-Layer header type == 143(Ethernet) ) {
S05. Remove the outer IPv6 header with all its extension headers
S06. Process the Ethernet Frame in context of PPC
S07. } Else If (Upper-Layer header type is allowed
by local configuration) {
S08. Proceed to process the Upper-Layer header
S09. } Else {
S10. Discard the packet
S11. # ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message with Code 4
S12. # (SR Upper-Layer header Error)
S13. # is not permitted (Section 2.2.3)
S14. }
Notes:
* The behavior above MAY result in a packet with a partially
processed segment list in the SRH under some circumstances. For
example, a head node may encode a context-SID in an SRH. As per
the pseudocode above, a replication node that receives a packet
with a local Replication-SID will not process the SRH segment list
and will just forward a copy with an unmodified SRH to downstream
nodes.
* The packet processing context is usually a FIB table "T".
If configured to process TLVs, processing the Replication-SID may
modify the "variable-length data" of TLV types that change en route.
Therefore, TLVs that change en route are mutable. The remainder of
the SRH (Segments Left, Flags, Tag, Segment List, and TLVs that do
not change en route) are immutable while processing this SID.
2.2.1.1. Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) SRH TLV
If a root node encodes a context-SID in an SRH with an optional HMAC
SRH TLV [RFC8754], it MUST set the 'D' bit as defined in
Section 2.1.2 of [RFC8754] because the Replication-SID is not part of
the segment list in the SRH.
HMAC generation and verification is as specified in [RFC8754].
Verification of an HMAC TLV is determined by local configuration. If
verification fails, an implementation of a Replication-SID MUST NOT
originate an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message with code 0. The
failure SHOULD be logged (rate-limited) and the packet SHOULD be
discarded.
2.2.2. OAM Operations
[RFC9259] specifies procedures for Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) like ping and traceroute on SRv6 SIDs.
Assuming the source node knows the Replication-SID a priori, it is
possible to ping a Replication-SID of a leaf or bud node directly by
putting it in the IPv6 DA without an SRH or in an SRH as the last
segment. While it is not possible to ping a Replication-SID of a
transit node because transit nodes do not process Upper-Layer
headers, it is still possible to ping a Replication-SID of a leaf or
bud node of a tree via the Replication-SID of intermediate transit
nodes. The source of the ping MUST compute the ICMPv6 Echo Request
checksum using the Replication-SID of the leaf or bud node as the DA.
The source can then send the Echo Request packet to a transit node's
Replication-SID. The transit node replicates the packet by replacing
the IPv6 DA until the packet reaches the leaf or bud node, which
responds with an ICMPv6 Echo Reply. Note that a transit replication
node may replicate Echo Request packets to other leaf or bud nodes.
These nodes will drop the Echo Request due to an incorrect checksum.
Procedures to prevent the misdelivery of an Echo Request may be
addressed in a future document. Appendix A.2.1 illustrates examples
of a ping to a Replication-SID.
Traceroute to a leaf or bud node Replication-SID is not possible due
to restrictions prohibiting the origination of the ICMPv6 Time
Exceeded error message for a Replication-SID as described in
Section 2.2.3.
2.2.3. ICMPv6 Error Messages
Section 2.4 of [RFC4443] states an ICMPv6 error message MUST NOT be
originated as a result of receiving a packet destined to an IPv6
multicast address. This is to prevent a source node from being
overwhelmed by a storm of ICMPv6 error messages resulting from
replicated IPv6 packets. There are two exceptions:
1. The Packet Too Big message for Path MTU discovery, and
2. The ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message with Code 2 reporting an
unrecognized IPv6 option.
An implementation of a Replication segment for SRv6 MUST enforce
these same restrictions and exceptions.
3. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned the following codepoint for End.Replicate behavior
in the "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors" registry in the "Segment Routing"
registry group.
+=======+========+===================+===========+============+
| Value | Hex | Endpoint Behavior | Reference | Change |
| | | | | Controller |
+=======+========+===================+===========+============+
| 75 | 0x004B | End.Replicate | RFC 9524 | IETF |
+-------+--------+-------------------+-----------+------------+
Table 1: SRv6 Endpoint Behavior
4. Security Considerations
The SID behaviors defined in this document are deployed within an SR
domain [RFC8402]. An SR domain needs protection from outside
attackers (as described in [RFC8754]). The following is a brief
reminder of the same:
* For SR-MPLS deployments:
- Disable MPLS on external interfaces of each edge node or any
other technique to filter labeled traffic ingress on these
interfaces.
* For SRv6 deployments:
- Allocate all the SIDs from an IPv6 prefix block S/s and
configure each external interface of each edge node of the
domain with an inbound Infrastructure Access Control List
(IACL) that drops any incoming packet with a DA in S/s.
- Additionally, an IACL may be applied to all nodes (k)
provisioning SIDs as defined in this specification:
o Assign all interface addresses from within IPv6 prefix A/a.
At node k, all SIDs local to k are assigned from prefix Sk/
sk. Configure each internal interface of each SR node k in
the SR domain with an inbound IACL that drops any incoming
packet with a DA in Sk/sk if the source address is not in A/
a.
- Deny traffic with spoofed source addresses by implementing
recommendations in BCP 84 [RFC3704].
- Additionally, the block S/s from which SIDs are allocated may
be an address that is not globally routable such as a Unique
Local Address (ULA) or the prefix defined in [SIDS-SRv6].
Failure to protect the SR-MPLS domain by correctly provisioning MPLS
support per interface permits attackers from outside the domain to
send packets that use the replication services provisioned within the
domain.
Failure to protect the SRv6 domain with IACLs on external interfaces
combined with failure to implement the recommendations of BCP 38
[RFC2827] or apply IACLs on nodes provisioning SIDs permits attackers
from outside the SR domain to send packets that use the replication
services provisioned within the domain.
Given the definition of the Replication segment in this document, an
attacker subverting the ingress filters above cannot take advantage
of a stack of Replication segments to perform amplification attacks
nor link exhaustion attacks. Replication segment trees always
terminate at a leaf or bud node resulting in a decapsulation.
However, this does allow an attacker to inject traffic to the
receivers within a P2MP service.
This document introduces an SR segment endpoint behavior that
replicates and decapsulates an inner payload for both the MPLS and
IPv6 data planes. Similar to any MPLS end-of-stack label, or SRv6
END.D* behavior, if the protections described above are not
implemented, an attacker can perform an attack via the decapsulating
segment (including the one described in this document).
Incorrect provisioning of Replication segments can result in a chain
of Replication segments forming a loop. This can happen if
Replication segments are provisioned on SR nodes without using a
control plane. In this case, replicated packets can create a storm
until MPLS TTL (for SR-MPLS) or IPv6 Hop Limit (for SRv6) decrements
to zero. A control plane such as PCE can be used to prevent loops.
The control plane protocols (like Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP), BGP, etc.) used to instantiate
Replication segments can leverage their own security mechanisms such
as encryption, authentication filtering, etc.
For SRv6, Section 2.2.3 describes an exception for the ICMPv6
Parameter Problem message with Code 2. If an attacker sends a packet
destined to a Replication-SID with the source address of a node and
with an extension header using the unknown option type marked as
mandatory, then a large number of ICMPv6 Parameter Problem messages
can cause a denial-of-service attack on the source node. Although
this document does not specify any extension headers, any future
extension of this document that does so is susceptible to this
security concern.
If an attacker can forge an IPv6 packet with:
* the source address of a node,
* a Replication-SID as the DA, and
* an IPv6 Hop Limit such that nodes that forward replicated packets
on an IPv6 locator unicast prefix, decrement the Hop Limit to
zero,
then these nodes can cause a storm of ICMPv6 error packets to
overwhelm the source node under attack. The IPv6 Hop Limit Threshold
check described in Section 2.2 can help mitigate such attacks.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[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>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[RFC9259] Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Matsushima, S., Voyer, D., and M.
Chen, "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
in Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9259, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9259>.
5.2. Informative References
[P2MP-POLICY]
Voyer, D., Ed., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and
Z. J. Zhang, "Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-
policy-07, 11 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-sr-
p2mp-policy-07>.
[PGM-ILLUSTRATION]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Ed., Li, Z., Matsushima, S.,
Decraene, B., Steinberg, D., Lebrun, D., Raszuk, R., and
J. Leddy, "Illustrations for SRv6 Network Programming",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-filsfils-spring-
srv6-net-pgm-illustration-04, 30 March 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-
spring-srv6-net-pgm-illustration-04>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, DOI 10.17487/RFC3704, March
2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3704>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC7988] Rosen, E., Ed., Subramanian, K., and Z. Zhang, "Ingress
Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN", RFC 7988,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7988, October 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7988>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
[RFC9350] Psenak, P., Ed., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K.,
and A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", RFC 9350,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9350, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9350>.
[SIDS-SRv6]
Krishnan, S., "SRv6 Segment Identifiers in the IPv6
Addressing Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-6man-sids-06, 15 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-
sids-06>.
Appendix A. Illustration of a Replication Segment
This section illustrates an example of a single Replication segment.
Examples showing Replication segments stitched together to form a
P2MP tree (based on SR P2MP policy) are in [P2MP-POLICY].
Consider the following topology:
R3------R6
/ \
R1----R2----R5-----R7
\ /
+--R4---+
Figure 1: Topology for Illustration of a Replication Segment
A.1. SR-MPLS
In this example, the Node-SID of a node Rn is N-SIDn and the Adj-SID
from node Rm to node Rn is A-SIDmn. The interface between Rm and Rn
is Lmn. The state representation uses "R-SID->Lmn" to represent a
packet replication with outgoing Replication-SID R-SID sent on
interface Lmn.
Assume a Replication segment identified with R-ID at Replication node
R1 and downstream nodes R2, R6, and R7. The Replication-SID at node
n is R-SIDn. A packet replicated from R1 to R7 has to traverse R4.
The Replication segments at nodes R1, R2, R6, and R7 are shown below.
Note nodes R3, R4, and R5 do not have a Replication segment.
Replication segment at R1:
Replication segment
<R-ID,R1>: Replication-SID: R-SID1 Replication state: R2:
<R-SID2->L12> R6: <N-SID6, R-SID6> R7: <N-SID4,
A-SID47, R-SID7>
Replication to R2 steers the packet directly to R2 on interface L12.
Replication to R6, using N-SID6, steers the packet via the shortest
path to that node. Replication to R7 is steered via R4, using N-SID4
and then adjacency SID A-SID47 to R7.
Replication segment at R2:
Replication segment
<R-ID,R2>: Replication-SID: R-SID2 Replication state: R2:
<Leaf>
Replication segment at R6:
Replication segment
<R-ID,R6>: Replication-SID: R-SID6 Replication state: R6:
<Leaf>
Replication segment at R7:
Replication segment
<R-ID,R7>: Replication-SID: R-SID7 Replication state: R7:
<Leaf>
When a packet is steered into the Replication segment at R1:
* R1 performs the PUSH operation with just the <R-SID2> label for
the replicated copy and sends it to R2 on interface L12, since R1
is directly connected to R2. R2, as leaf, performs the NEXT
operation, pops the R-SID2 label, and delivers the payload.
* R1 performs the PUSH operation with the <N-SID6, R-SID6> label
stack for the replicated copy to R6 and sends it to R2, which is
the nexthop on the shortest path to R6. R2 performs the CONTINUE
operation on N-SID6 and forwards it to R3. R3 is the penultimate
hop for N-SID6; it performs penultimate hop popping, which
corresponds to the NEXT operation. The packet is then sent to R6
with <R-SID6> in the label stack. R6, as leaf, performs the NEXT
operation, pops the R-SID6 label, and delivers the payload.
* R1 performs the PUSH operation with the <N-SID4, A-SID47, R-SID7>
label stack for the replicated copy to R7 and sends it to R2,
which is the nexthop on the shortest path to R4. R2 is the
penultimate hop for N-SID4; it performs penultimate hop popping,
which corresponds to the NEXT operation. The packet is then sent
to R4 with <A-SID47, R-SID1> in the label stack. R4 performs the
NEXT operation, pops A-SID47, and delivers the packet to R7 with
<R-SID7> in the label stack. R7, as leaf, performs the NEXT
operation, pops the R-SID7 label, and delivers the payload.
A.2. SRv6
For SRv6, we use the SID allocation scheme, reproduced below, from
"Illustrations for SRv6 Network Programming" [PGM-ILLUSTRATION]:
* 2001:db8::/32 is an IPv6 block allocated by a Regional Internet
Registry (RIR) to the operator.
* 2001:db8:0::/48 is dedicated to the internal address space.
* 2001:db8:cccc::/48 is dedicated to the internal SRv6 SID space.
* We assume a location expressed in 64 bits and a function expressed
in 16 bits.
* Node k has a classic IPv6 loopback address 2001:db8::k/128, which
is advertised in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP).
* Node k has 2001:db8:cccc:k::/64 for its local SID space. Its SIDs
will be explicitly assigned from that block.
* Node k advertises 2001:db8:cccc:k::/64 in its IGP.
* Function :1:: (function 1, for short) represents the End function
with the Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP) of the SRH [RFC8986] and
USD support.
* Function :Cn:: (function Cn, for short) represents the End.X
function from to Node n with PSP and USD support.
Each node k has:
* An explicit SID instantiation 2001:db8:cccc:k:1::/128 bound to an
End function with additional support for PSP and USD.
* An explicit SID instantiation 2001:db8:cccc:k:Cj::/128 bound to an
End.X function to neighbor J with additional support for PSP and
USD.
* An explicit SID instantiation 2001:db8:cccc:k:Fk::/128 bound to an
End.Replicate function.
Assume a Replication segment identified with R-ID at Replication node
R1 and downstream nodes R2, R6, and R7. The Replication-SID at node
k, bound to an End.Replicate function, is 2001:db8:cccc:k:Fk::/128.
A packet replicated from R1 to R7 has to traverse R4.
The Replication segments at nodes R1, R2, R6, and R7 are shown below.
Note nodes R3, R4, and R5 do not have a Replication segment. The
state representation uses "R-SID->Lmn" to represent a packet
replication with outgoing Replication-SID R-SID sent on interface
Lmn. "SL" represents an optional segment list used to steer a
replicated packet on a specific path to a downstream node.
Replication segment at R1:
Replication segment
<R-ID,R1>: Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:1:F1::0 Replication
state: R2: <2001:db8:cccc:2:F2::0->L12> R6:
<2001:db8:cccc:6:F6::0> R7: <2001:db8:cccc:4:C7::0>, SL:
<2001:db8:cccc:7:F7::0>
Replication to R2 steers the packet directly to R2 on interface L12.
Replication to R6, using 2001:db8:cccc:6:F6::0, steers the packet via
the shortest path to that node. Replication to R7 is steered via R4,
using H.Encaps.Red with End.X SID 2001:db8:cccc:4:C7::0 at R4 to R7.
Replication segment at R2:
Replication segment
<R-ID,R2>: Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:2:F2::0 Replication
state: R2: <Leaf>
Replication segment at R6:
Replication segment
<R-ID,R6>: Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:6:F6::0 Replication
state: R6: <Leaf>
Replication segment at R7:
Replication segment
<R-ID,R7>: Replication-SID: 2001:db8:cccc:7:F7::0 Replication
state: R7: <Leaf>
When a packet, (A,B2), is steered into the Replication segment at R1:
* R1 creates an encapsulated replicated copy (2001:db8::1,
2001:db8:cccc:2:F2::0) (A, B2), and sends it to R2 on interface
L12, since R1 is directly connected to R2. R2, as leaf, removes
the outer IPv6 header and delivers the payload.
* R1 creates an encapsulated replicated copy (2001:db8::1,
2001:db8:cccc:6:F6::0) (A, B2) then forwards the resulting packet
on the shortest path to 2001:db8:cccc:6::/64. R2 and R3 forward
the packet using 2001:db8:cccc:6::/64. R6, as leaf, removes the
outer IPv6 header and delivers the payload.
* R1 has to steer the packet to downstream node R7 via node R4. It
can do this in one of two ways:
- R1 creates an encapsulated replicated copy (2001:db8::1,
2001:db8:cccc:7:F7::0) (A, B2) and then performs H.Encaps.Red
using the SL to create the (2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:4:C7::0)
(2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:7:F7::0) (A, B2) packet. It sends
this packet to R2, which is the nexthop on the shortest path to
2001:db8:cccc:4::/64. R2 forwards the packet to R4 using
2001:db8:cccc:4::/64. R4 executes the End.X function on
2001:db8:cccc:4:C7::0, performs a USD action, removes the outer
IPv6 encapsulation, and sends the resulting packet
(2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:7:F7::0) (A, B2) to R7. R7, as
leaf, removes the outer IPv6 header and delivers the payload.
- R1 is the root of the Replication segment. Therefore, it can
combine above encapsulations to create an encapsulated
replicated copy (2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:4:C7::0)
(2001:db8:cccc:7:F7::0; SL=1) (A, B2) and sends it to R2, which
is the nexthop on the shortest path to 2001:db8:cccc:4::/64.
R2 forwards the packet to R4 using 2001:db8:cccc:4::/64. R4
executes the End.X function on 2001:db8:cccc:4:C7::0, performs
a PSP action, removes the SRH, and sends the resulting packet
(2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:7:F7::0) (A, B2) to R7. R7, as
leaf, removes the outer IPv6 header and delivers the payload.
A.2.1. Pinging a Replication-SID
This section illustrates the ping of a Replication-SID.
Node R1 pings the Replication-SID of node R6 directly by sending the
following packet:
1. R1 to R6: (2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:6:F6::0; NH=ICMPv6) (ICMPv6
Echo Request).
2. Node R6 as a leaf processes the upper-layer ICMPv6 Echo Request
and responds with an ICMPv6 Echo Reply.
Node R1 pings the Replication-SID of R7 via R4 by sending the
following packet with the SRH:
1. R1 to R4: (2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:4:C7::0)
(2001:db8:cccc:7:F7::0; SL=1; NH=ICMPV6) (ICMPv6 Echo Request).
2. R4 to R7: (2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:7:F7::0; NH=ICMPv6) (ICMPv6
Echo Request).
3. Node R7 as a leaf processes the upper-layer ICMPv6 Echo Request
and responds with an ICMPv6 Echo Reply.
Assume node R4 is a transit replication node with Replication-SID
2001:db8:cccc:4:F4::0 replicating to R7. Node R1 pings the
Replication-SID of R7 via the Replication-SID of R4 as follows:
1. R1 to R4: (2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:4:F4::0; NH=ICMPv6) (ICMPv6
Echo Request).
2. R4 replicates to R7 by replacing the IPv6 DA with the
Replication-SID of R7 from its Replication state.
3. R4 to R7: (2001:db8::1, 2001:db8:cccc:7:F7::0; NH=ICMPv6) (ICMPv6
Echo Request).
4. Node R7 as a leaf processes the upper-layer ICMPv6 Echo Request
and responds with an ICMPv6 Echo Reply.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Siva Sivabalan, Mike Koldychev,
Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Alexander Vainshtein, Bruno Decraene, Thierry
Couture, Joel Halpern, Ketan Talaulikar, Darren Dukes and Jingrong
Xie for their valuable inputs.
Contributors
Clayton Hassen
Bell Canada
Vancouver
Canada
Email: clayton.hassen@bell.ca
Kurtis Gillis
Bell Canada
Halifax
Canada
Email: kurtis.gillis@bell.ca
Arvind Venkateswaran
Cisco Systems, Inc.
San Jose, CA
United States of America
Email: arvvenka@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
United States of America
Email: zali@cisco.com
Swadesh Agrawal
Cisco Systems, Inc.
San Jose, CA
United States of America
Email: swaagraw@cisco.com
Jayant Kotalwar
Nokia
Mountain View, CA
United States of America
Email: jayant.kotalwar@nokia.com
Tanmoy Kundu
Nokia
Mountain View, CA
United States of America
Email: tanmoy.kundu@nokia.com
Andrew Stone
Nokia
Ottawa
Canada
Email: andrew.stone@nokia.com
Tarek Saad
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: tsaad@cisco.com
Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: skraza@cisco.com
Jingrong Xie
Huawei Technologies
Beijing
China
Email: xiejingrong@huawei.com
Authors' Addresses
Daniel Voyer (editor)
Bell Canada
Montreal
Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Rishabh Parekh
Cisco Systems, Inc.
San Jose, CA
United States of America
Email: riparekh@cisco.com
Hooman Bidgoli
Nokia
Ottawa
Canada
Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks
Email: zzhang@juniper.net