Internet-Draft End.M.GTP6.E.Red November 2026
Kawakami, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page]
Workgroup:
Distributed Mobility Management
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-gtp6e-reduced-01
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Authors:
Y. Kawakami
SoftBank
S. Matsushima
SoftBank
S. Zadok
Broadcom
D. Yeung
Arrcus, Inc.
D. Voyer
Cisco Systems, Inc.

SRH Reduction for SRv6 End.M.GTP6.E Behavior

Abstract

Segment Routing over IPv6 for the Mobile User Plane specifies interworking between SRv6 networks and GTP-U networks including required behaviors. This document specifies a new behavior named End.M.GTP6.E.Red which makes the End.M.GTP6.E behavior more amenable to hardware implementation by encoding the information required for GTP-U encapsulation in a single SRv6 SID, together with a locally maintained mapping.

Status of This Memo

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 5 May 2027.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Segment Routing over IPv6 for the Mobile User Plane [RFC9433] defines interworking between SRv6 [RFC8986] networks and GTP-U [TS.29281] networks including required behaviors such as End.M.GTP6.E. This End.M.GTP6.E behavior converts SRv6 packets to GTP-U packets for downlink (DL) traffic at an egress MUP-PE [I-D.ietf-dmm-mup-architecture] when a gNB [TS.23501] uses IPv6/GTP-U.

In the End.M.GTP6.E behavior, an ingress MUP-PE requires two SIDs in an SRH with the remote endpoint information (IP address and TEID) in separate locations within the SRH and an egress MUP-PE also needs to fetch the last SID next to the active SID before outer IPv6 and SRH decapsulation to restore the IPv6/GTP-U header from those SIDs, in which current hardware pipelines may be unfamiliar or insufficient to implement.

This document specifies a new behavior named End.M.GTP6.E.Red which makes End.M.GTP6.E behavior more hardware-friendly by encoding the required information in a single SID. This behavior uses an Interwork Segment Discovery (ISD) Route and Type 1 Session Transformed (ST) Route of MUP SAFI [I-D.ietf-bess-mup-safi], specified in [I-D.ietf-dmm-mup-architecture] to reconstruct the gNB IPv6 address from the End.M.GTP6.E.Red SID and a locally maintained mapping.

2. Conventions and Definitions

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.

2.1. Terminology

Terminology used in this document is given by [RFC9433] and [I-D.ietf-dmm-mup-architecture].

3. End.M.GTP6.E.Red Behavior

End.M.GTP6.E.Red (Endpoint Behavior with encapsulation for IPv6/GTP-U tunnel with reduced SRH) is used in the interworking scenarios described in [RFC9433] for the downlink toward a legacy gNB using IPv6/GTP-U.

Figure 1 depicts a topology used for the example. This topology is the same as Figure 4 described in Section 5.3 of [RFC9433] but terminology has been adapted from [I-D.ietf-dmm-mup-architecture].

              Interwork Segment             Direct Segment _______
                 IP GTP-U          SRv6                   /       \
+--+      +-----+ [N3] +--------+        +--------+ [N6] /         \
|UE|------| gNB |------| MUP-PE |--------| MUP-PE |------\   DN    /
+--+      +-----+      +--------+        +--------+       \_______/
                     Egress PE for DL   Ingress PE for DL
Figure 1: Example Topology for Interworking

In this topology, the following addressing parameters are assumed:

Figure 2 shows the relationship between RAN IP Prefix, gNB address and End.M.GTP6.E.Red SID.

0
|
| NLRI in ISD Route                    40+b
+----------------------------------------+
|   advertised RAN IP Prefix             |
+----------------------------------------+
|   actual RAN IP Prefix   | stuff field |
+--------------------------+-------------+
|          a bits          | b+40-a bits |
:                          :             :
: gNB address              :             :                128
+--------------------------+-------------+-----------------+
|                       IPv6 address                       |
+--------------------------+-------------+-----------------+
:                                       /:                 :
:                         -------------- :                 :
: End.M.GTP6.E.Red SID   /               :                 :
+-----------------------+----------------+-----------------+
|  SRGW-IPv6-LOC-FUNC   |Args.Mob.Session| remainder bits  |
+-----------------------+----------------+-----------------+
|        b bits         |     40 bits    |   128-40-b bits |
Figure 2: Relationship between RAN IP Prefix and gNB address and SID in the case of a < b+40

In one deployment scenario, the length of actual RAN IP Prefix can be 64 bits (a=64) or shorter (a<64) and the length of SRGW-IPv6-LOC-FUNC can be 48 bits (b=48) in both cases of full SID and uSID. These are given by the addressing design of the RAN and the SRv6 domain. In this case, the stuff field is 24 bits (or more) and then, the prefix length of advertised RAN IP Prefix (the NLRI in the ISD Route) is 88 bits.

3.1. Control Plane Specification

3.1.1. Egress PE

If a is less than b+40, the Egress PE constructs an advertised RAN IP Prefix of length b+40 bits by appending the next b+40-a bits (stuff field) of the gNB's IPv6 address to the actual RAN IP Prefix. Otherwise, the actual RAN IP Prefix is used as the advertised RAN IP Prefix without modification.

The Egress PE allocates an End.M.GTP6.E.Red SID prefix, consisting of a b-bit SRGW-IPv6-LOC-FUNC field, for each advertised RAN IP Prefix. The Egress PE maintains a mapping between each allocated SID prefix and its corresponding advertised RAN IP Prefix. This mapping is used to reconstruct the destination IPv6 address of the gNB during End.M.GTP6.E.Red processing.

The Egress PE MUST advertise an Interwork Segment Discovery (ISD) Route [I-D.ietf-dmm-mup-architecture] whose NLRI contains the advertised RAN IP Prefix with the corresponding SID information.

3.1.2. Ingress PE

The Ingress PE receives a Type 1 Session Transformed (ST) Route [I-D.ietf-dmm-mup-architecture] for the UE from the MUP Controller and an ISD Route for the gNB from the Egress PE.

When the Type 1 ST Route can be resolved using the advertised RAN IP Prefix in the NLRI field of the ISD Route, the Ingress PE MUST construct a 128-bit End.M.GTP6.E.Red SID by concatenating the following fields:

  • The b-bit SRGW-IPv6-LOC-FUNC field obtained from the SID information associated with the ISD Route.

  • The 40-bit Args.Mob.Session field, constructed from the TEID and QFI fields of the Type 1 ST Route, as specified in [RFC9433].

  • The least significant 128-b-40 bits of the gNB IPv6 address carried in the Endpoint Address field of the Type 1 ST Route.

The Ingress PE then uses the constructed SID as the H.Encaps(.Red) behavior SID for the host route of the corresponding UE.

3.2. Data Plane Specification

3.2.1. Ingress PE

When the Ingress PE receives a packet destined for the UE and finds the corresponding route in the FIB, it performs the encapsulation behavior associated with that route.

3.2.2. Egress PE

When Egress PE node N receives a packet destined to D, and D is a local End.M.GTP6.E.Red SID, N does the following:

   S01. When an SRH is processed {
   S02.   If (Segments Left != 0) {
   S03.      Send an ICMP Parameter Problem to the Source Address with
                 Code 0 (Erroneous header field encountered) and
                 Pointer set to the Segments Left field,
                 interrupt packet processing, and discard the packet.
   S04.   }
   S05.   Proceed to process the next header in the packet
   S06. }

When processing the Upper-Layer header of a packet matching a FIB entry locally instantiated as an End.M.GTP6.E.Red SID, N does the following:

   S01.    Store the IPv6 DA and SA in buffer memory
   S02.    Pop the IPv6 header and all its extension headers
   S03.    Push a new IPv6 header with a UDP/GTP-U header
   S04.    Set the outer IPv6 SA to S
   S05.    Set the outer IPv6 DA (from buffer memory and mapping)
   S06.    Set the outer Payload Length, Traffic Class, Flow Label,
              Hop Limit, and Next Header fields
   S07.    Set the GTP-U TEID (from buffer memory)
   S08.    Submit the packet to the egress IPv6 FIB lookup for
              transmission to the new destination

Notes:

  • The source address S SHOULD be an End.M.GTP6.D SID instantiated at N or an IPv6 address of the UPF.

  • The higher b+40 bits of the IPv6 DA can be restored from the advertised RAN IP Prefix corresponding to the SID in the mapping, and the lower 128-40-b bits can be restored from the remainder bits of the End.M.GTP6.E.Red SID.

  • The GTP-U TEID is restored from the Args.Mob.Session field in the SID as defined in [RFC9433].

4. Security Considerations

The security considerations for Segment Routing and SRv6 described in [RFC8402] and [RFC8754] apply to the behavior specified in this document.

The End.M.GTP6.E.Red behavior reconstructs the destination IPv6 address of a GTP-U tunnel using information encoded in the received SRv6 SID and a locally maintained mapping between SID prefixes and advertised RAN IP Prefixes. The GTP-U TEID is extracted from the Args.Mob.Session field of the received SID.

An attacker capable of injecting packets containing unauthorized End.M.GTP6.E.Red SIDs into the SR domain could potentially cause packets to be forwarded to unintended GTP-U endpoints or tunnels. Therefore, access to End.M.GTP6.E.Red SIDs needs to be restricted to authorized traffic within the SR domain, consistent with the security mechanisms described in [RFC8754].

The correctness of the destination address reconstruction depends on the integrity of the control-plane information used to establish the SID-to-RAN-prefix mappings. Unauthorized modification of this information could cause packets to be forwarded to incorrect destinations. Deployments need to protect the distribution and installation of these mappings using the security mechanisms applicable to the underlying control-plane protocols.

5. IANA Considerations

The following values have been allocated in the "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors" [RFC8986] subregistry within the top-level "Segment Routing Parameters" registry:

Table 1: New SRv6 Mobile User-plane Endpoint Behavior Types
Value Hex Endpoint behavior Reference
168 0x00a8 End.M.GTP6.E.Red This.ID

IANA is requested to update the Reference field for this allocation to refer to this document upon its publication as an RFC.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-bess-mup-safi]
Murakami, T., Patel, K., Matsushima, S., Zhang, Z. J., Agrawal, S., and D. Voyer, "BGP Extensions for the Mobile User Plane (MUP) SAFI", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bess-mup-safi-01, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-mup-safi-01>.
[I-D.ietf-dmm-mup-architecture]
Matsushima, S., Horiba, K., Kawakami, Y., Murakami, T., Patel, K., and J. Horn, "Mobile User Plane Architecture for Distributed Mobility Management", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-dmm-mup-architecture-02, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmm-mup-architecture-02>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8986>.
[RFC9433]
Matsushima, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Kohno, M., Camarillo, P., Ed., and D. Voyer, "Segment Routing over IPv6 for the Mobile User Plane", RFC 9433, DOI 10.17487/RFC9433, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9433>.
[TS.29281]
3GPP, "General Packet Radio System (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol User Plane (GTPv1-U)", Version 17.4.0, 3GPP TS 29.281, , <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29281.htm>.

6.2. Informative References

[TS.23501]
3GPP, "System architecture for the 5G System (5GS)", Version 17.0.0, 3GPP TS 23.501, , <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23501.htm>.

Authors' Addresses

Yuya Kawakami
SoftBank
Satoru Matsushima
SoftBank
Shay Zadok
Broadcom
Derek Yeung
Arrcus, Inc.
Daniel Voyer
Cisco Systems, Inc.