draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-02.txt   draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-03.txt 
IDR Working Group E. Jasinska IDR Working Group E. Jasinska
Internet-Draft Microsoft Corporation Internet-Draft Microsoft Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track N. Hilliard Intended status: Standards Track N. Hilliard
Expires: August 29, 2013 INEX Expires: March 02, 2014 INEX
R. Raszuk R. Raszuk
NTT MCL Inc. NTT MCL Inc.
N. Bakker N. Bakker
AMS-IX B.V. AMS-IX B.V.
February 25, 2013 August 29, 2013
Internet Exchange Route Server Internet Exchange Route Server
draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-02 draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-03
Abstract Abstract
This document outlines a specification for multilateral This document outlines a specification for multilateral
interconnections at Internet exchange points (IXPs). Multilateral interconnections at Internet exchange points (IXPs). Multilateral
interconnection is a method of exchanging routing information between interconnection is a method of exchanging routing information between
three or more exterior BGP speakers using a single intermediate three or more exterior BGP speakers using a single intermediate
broker system, referred to as a route server. Route servers are broker system, referred to as a route server. Route servers are
typically used on shared access media networks, such as Internet typically used on shared access media networks, such as Internet
exchange points (IXPs), to facilitate simplified interconnection exchange points (IXPs), to facilitate simplified interconnection
between multiple Internet routers. between multiple Internet routers.
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 02, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Technical Considerations for Route Server Implementations . . 4 2. Technical Considerations for Route Server Implementations . . 3
2.1. Client UPDATE Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Client UPDATE Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Attribute Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Attribute Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. NEXT_HOP Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.1. NEXT_HOP Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2. AS_PATH Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.2. AS_PATH Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.3. MULTI_EXIT_DISC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.3. MULTI_EXIT_DISC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.4. Communities Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.4. Communities Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Per-Client Policy Control in Multilateral 2.3. Per-Client Policy Control in Multilateral Interconnection 5
Interconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3.2. Mitigation of Path Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2. Mitigation of Path Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2.1. Multiple Route Server RIBs . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2.1. Multiple Route Server RIBs . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2.2. Advertising Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2.2. Advertising Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.3. Implementation Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.3. Implementation Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection 1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection
Internet exchange points (IXPs) provide IP data interconnection Internet exchange points (IXPs) provide IP data interconnection
facilities for their participants, typically using shared Layer-2 facilities for their participants, typically using shared Layer-2
networking media such as Ethernet. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) networking media such as Ethernet. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
[RFC4271], an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol, is commonly [RFC4271], an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol, is commonly
used to facilitate exchange of network reachability information over used to facilitate exchange of network reachability information over
such media. such media.
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 5, line 35
possible, there are circumstances where control of path distribution possible, there are circumstances where control of path distribution
on a per-client basis is important to ensure that desired on a per-client basis is important to ensure that desired
interconnection policies are met. interconnection policies are met.
The control of path distribution on a per-client basis can lead to a The control of path distribution on a per-client basis can lead to a
path being hidden from the route server client. We refer to this as path being hidden from the route server client. We refer to this as
"path hiding". "path hiding".
2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server 2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server
___ ___ ___ ___
/ \ / \ / \ / \
..| AS1 |..| AS2 |.. ..| AS1 |..| AS2 |..
: \___/ \___/ : : \___/ \___/ :
: \ / | : : \ / | :
: \ / | : : \ / | :
: IXP \/ | : : IXP \/ | :
: /\ | : : /\ | :
: / \ | : : / \ | :
: ___/____\_|_ : : ___/____\_|_ :
: / \ / \ : : / \ / \ :
..| AS3 |..| AS4 |.. ..| AS3 |..| AS4 |..
\___/ \___/ \___/ \___/
Figure 1: Per-Client Policy Controlled Interconnection at an IXP Figure 1: Per-Client Policy Controlled Interconnection at an IXP
Using the example in Figure 1, AS1 does not directly exchange prefix Using the example in Figure 1, AS1 does not directly exchange prefix
information with either AS2 or AS3 at the IXP, but only interconnects information with either AS2 or AS3 at the IXP, but only interconnects
with AS4. with AS4.
In the traditional bilateral interconnection model, per-client policy In the traditional bilateral interconnection model, per-client policy
control to a third party exchange participant is accomplished either control to a third party exchange participant is accomplished either
by not engaging in a bilateral interconnection with that participant by not engaging in a bilateral interconnection with that participant
skipping to change at page 9, line 42 skipping to change at page 9, line 22
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist] [I-D.ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist]
Raszuk, R., Fernando, R., Patel, K., McPherson, D., and K. Raszuk, R., Fernando, R., Patel, K., McPherson, D., and K.
Kumaki, "Distribution of diverse BGP paths.", Kumaki, "Distribution of diverse BGP paths.", draft-ietf-
draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-08 (work in grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-08 (work in progress), July
progress), July 2012. 2012.
[I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths] [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths]
Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-
draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-08 (work in progress), add-paths-08 (work in progress), December 2012.
December 2012.
[RFC1863] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full [RFC1863] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full
mesh routing", RFC 1863, October 1995. mesh routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.
[RFC4223] Savola, P., "Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic", [RFC4223] Savola, P., "Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic",
RFC 4223, October 2005. RFC 4223, October 2005.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006. (IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006.
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 45 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/