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/