| Internet-Draft | Service Metadata in BGP-LS | August 2023 |
| Li, et al. | Expires 22 February 2024 | [Page] |
In edge computing, a service may be deployed on multiple instances within one or more sites, called edge service. The edge service is associated with an ANYCAST address in IP layer, and the route of it with potential service metadata will be distributed to the network. The Edge Service Metadata can be used by ingress routers to make path selections not only based on the routing cost but also the running environment of the edge services.¶
The service route with metadata can be collected by a PCE(Path Compute Element) or an analyzer for calculating the best path to the best site/instance. This draft describes a mechanism to collect the information of the service routes and related service metadata in BGP-LS.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://VMatrix1900.github.io/draft-service-metadata-in-BGP-LS/draft-ls-idr-bgp-ls-service-metadata.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ls-idr-bgp-ls-service-metadata/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group mailing list (mailto:idr@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/VMatrix1900/draft-service-metadata-in-BGP-LS.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
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 22 February 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 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.¶
Many services deploy their service instances in multiple sites to get better response time and resource utilization. These sites are often geographically distributed to serve the user demand. For some services such as VR/AR and intelligent transportation, the QoE will depend on both the network metrics and the compute metrics. For example, if the nearest site is overloaded due to the demand fluctuation, then steer the user traffic to an another light-loaded sites may improve the QoE.¶
[I-D.ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata] describes the BGP extension of distributing service route with network and computing-related metrics. The router connected to the site will receive the service routes and service metadata sent from devices inside the edge site, and then generates the corresponding routes and distributes them to ingress routers. However, the route with service metadata on the router connected to the site can be also collected by a central Controller for calculating the best path to the best site.¶
This document defines an extension of BGP-LS to carry the service metadata along with the service route. Using the service metadata and the service route, the controller can calculate the best site for the traffic, giving each user the best QoE.¶
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.¶
The goal of the BGP-LS extension is to collect information of the service prefix and metadata of the service, such as network metrics and compute metrics. A service is identified by a prefix, and this information is carried by the existing prefix NLRI TLV. Other information including service metadata is carried by attributes TLVs.¶
A service is identified by a prefix, and the Prefix NLRI defined in the [RFC7752] is used to collect the prefix information of the service. The format of the Prefix NLRI is shown in Figure 1 for better understanding.¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier |
| (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local Node Descriptors (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Prefix Descriptors (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Specifically, the service prefix is carried by the IP Reachability Information TLV(Figure 2) inside the Prefix Descriptor field. The Prefix Length field contains the length of the prefix in bits. The IP Prefix field contains the most significant octets of the prefix.¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | IP Prefix (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The following three prefix attribute TLVs are used to carry the metadata of a service instance:¶
The Metadata Path Attribute TLV is an optional attribute to carry the Edge Service Metadata defined in the [I-D.ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata]. It contains multiple sub-TLVs, with each sub-TLV containing a specific metric of the Edge Service Metadata. This document defines a new TLV in BGP-LS, which reuse the name and the format of Metadata Path Attribute TLV.¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Value (multiple Metadata sub-TLVs) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
There are three types of Edge Service Metadata sub-TLVs defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata]:¶
To collect this information, this document defines TLVs reusing the name and format of the TLVs defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata].¶
In some cases, there may be multiple sites connected to one Edge(egress) router through different interfaces. Generally, an overlay tunnel will be used between the ingress router and the egress for steering the traffic to the best site correctly. In SR-MPLS networks or SRv6 networks, a prefix SID is needed. For example, some SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors such as End.DX6, End.X can be encoded for each site so that the egress router can steer the traffic to the corresponding site. The Prefix SID TLV defined [RFC9085] can be used to collect this information.¶
The Prefix SID TLV is an optional TLV to carry the Prefix SID associated with the edge site. The TLV format is illustrated in Figure 4.¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Value (Prefix SID sub-TLV) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Color is used to indicate the service level. For example, different sites may have different levels of service capability which is taken into account by the controller when calculating the path to the egress router. More details can be added in the future revision.¶
The TLV format(shown in Figure 5) is similar to the BGP Color Extended Community defined in [RFC9012].¶
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Color Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Color Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This document requires IANA to assign the following code points from the registry called "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs":¶
| Value | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| TBD1 | Metadata Path Attribute Type | Section 2.2.1 |
| TBD2 | Site Preference Sub-Type | Section 2.2.1 |
| TBD3 | Capacity Sub-Type | Section 2.2.1 |
| TBD4 | Load Measurement Sub-Type1: Aggregated-Cost | Section 2.2.1 |
| TBD5 | Load Measurement Sub-Type2: Raw-Measurements | Section 2.2.1 |
| TBD6 | Color Attribute Type | Section 2.3.1 |
Xiangfeng Ding¶
email: dingxiangfeng@huawei.com¶
The authors would like to thank Haibo Wang, LiLi Wang, Jianwei Mao for their help.¶