[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 4576

Network Working Group                                      Eric C. Rosen
Internet Draft                                              Peter Psenak
Expiration Date: December 2003                       Cisco Systems, Inc.

                                                    Padma Pillay-Esnault
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.

                                                               June 2003


    Using an LSA Options Bit to Prevent Looping in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs


                   draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

   [VPN] describes a method by which a Service Provider (SP) may provide
   an "IP VPN" service to its customers.  In VPNs of that sort, a
   Customer Edge (CE) Router and a Provider Edge Router become routing
   peers, and the customer routes are sent to the SP.  BGP is then used
   to carry the customer routes across the SP's backbone to other PE
   routers, and the routes are then sent to other CE routers.  Since CE
   routers and PE routers are routing peers, it is customary to run a
   routing protocol between them.  [VPN] allows a number of different
   PE-CE protocols.  If OSPF is used as the PE-CE routing protocol, the
   PE must execute additional procedures not specified in [VPN]; these
   procedures are specified in [OSPF-VPN].  These additional procedures



Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 1]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit-00.txt           June 2003


   translate customer OSPF routes from a CE router into BGP routes.  The
   BGP routes are sent to the other PE routers, which translate them
   back into OSPF routes, and then distribute them to CE routers.
   During this translation, some of the information needed to prevent
   loops may be lost.  The procedures specified in this document remedy
   this situation by specifying that one of the OSPF options bits be
   used to ensure that when a VPN route is sent from a PE to a CE, the
   route will be ignored by any PE which receives it back from a CE.



Table of Contents

    1        Specification of Requirements  ........................   2
    2        Introduction  .........................................   2
    3        Information Loss and Loops  ...........................   4
    4        Using the LSA Options to Prevent Loops  ...............   5
    5        Acknowledgments  ......................................   5
    6        Authors' Addresses  ...................................   5
    7        Normative References  .................................   6





1. Specification of Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.


2. Introduction

   [VPN] describes a method by which a Service Provider (SP) can use its
   IP backbone to provide an "IP VPN" service to customers.  In that
   sort of service, a customer's edge devices (CE devices) are connected
   to the provider's edge routers (PE routers).  Each CE device is in a
   single VPN.  Each PE device may attach to multiple CEs, of the same
   or of different VPNs.  A VPN thus consists of a set of "network
   segments" connected by the SP's backbone.

   A CE exchanges routes with a PE, using a routing protocol that is
   jointly agreed to by the customer and the SP.  The PE runs that
   routing protocol's decision process to determine the set of IP
   address prefixes for which the following two conditions hold:





Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 2]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit-00.txt           June 2003


     - each address prefix in the set can be reached via that CE

     - the path from that CE to each such address prefix does NOT
       include the SP backbone (i.e., does not include any PE routers).

   The PE routers which attach to a particular VPN then "leak" routes to
   these address prefixes into BGP, and use BGP to distribute the VPN's
   routes to each other.   BGP carries these routes in the "VPN-IP
   address family", so that they are distinct from ordinary Internet
   routes.  (The VPN-IP address family also extends the IP addresses on
   the left so that address prefixes from two different VPNs are always
   distinct to BGP, even if both VPNs use the same piece of the private
   RFC1918 address space.)  The routes of a particular VPN are carried
   only to the PE routers which attach to that VPN.

   If a PE router receives a VPN-IP route via BGP, and that PE is
   attached to a CE in the VPN to which the route belongs, the PE will
   translate the route back to IP, and leak it into the routing
   algorithm which is running on the link to that CE.

   This methodology provides a "peer model"; CE routers peer with PE
   routers, but CE routers at different sites do not peer with each
   other.

   When a VPN uses OSPF as its internal routing protocol this does not
   necessarily mean that the CE routers of that VPN must use OSPF to
   peer with the PE routers.  Each site in a VPN can use OSPF as its
   intra-site routing protocol, while using, e.g., BGP or RIP to
   distribute routes to a PE router.  However, it is certainly
   convenient, when OSPF is being used intra-site, to use it on the PE-
   CE link as well, and [VPN] explicitly allows this.

   When this is done, the PE routers must convert between BGP routes and
   OSPF routes. Procedures for this are specified in [VPN-OSPF].  PE
   routers act like OSPF border routers.  PE routers will sometimes
   convert BGP routes to OSPF AS-external routes, and will sometimes
   convert BGP routes to OSPF summary routes.  In either case, the PE
   will originate an LSA, and distribute it to any CE routers (in the
   appropriate VPN) with which it maintains an OSPF adjacency.

   Similarly, when a PE router receives a summary LSA or an AS-external
   LSA from a CE router, it may convert those LSAs to BGP routes for
   distribution to other PEs.








Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 3]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit-00.txt           June 2003


3. Information Loss and Loops

   A PE, say PE1, may learn a route to a particular VPN-IP address
   prefix via BGP.  This may cause it to generate a summary LSA or an
   AS-external LSA in which it reports that address prefix.  This LSA
   may then be distributed to a particular CE, say CE1.  The LSA may
   then be distributed throughout a particular OSPF area, reaching
   another CE, say CE2.  CE2 may then distribute the LSA to another PE,
   say PE2.

   As stated in the previous section, PE2 must run the OSPF decision
   process to determine whether a particular address prefix, reported in
   an LSA from CE2, is reachable from CE2 via a path which does not
   include any PE router.  Unfortunately, there is no standard way to do
   this.  The OSPF LSAs do not necessarily carry the information needed
   to enables PE2 to determine that the path to address prefix X in a
   particular LSA from CE2 is actually a path that includes, say, PE1.
   If PE2 then leaks X into BGP as a VPN-IP route, then PE2 is violating
   one of the constraints for loop-freedom in BGP, viz., that routes
   learned from a particular BGP domain not be redistributed back into
   that BGP domain.   This could cause a routing loop to be created.

   It is therefore necessary to have a means by which an LSA may carry
   the information that a particular address prefix has been learned
   from a PE router.  Any PE router which receives an LSA with this
   information would omit the information in this LSA from its OSPF
   decision process, and thus would not leak the information back into
   BGP.

   When a PE generates an AS-external LSA, it could use a distinct tag
   value to indicate that the LSA is carrying information about an
   address prefix for whom the path includes a PE router.  However, this
   method is not available in the case where the PE generates a Summary
   LSA.  (The reader will note that loops can only induced by Summary
   LSAs when the PE-CE links are area 0 links; however, this is an
   important case to handle correctly.)  Thus one needs a more generally
   applicable method of indicating that an LSA contains information
   about a path via a PE router.













Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 4]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit-00.txt           June 2003


4. Using the LSA Options to Prevent Loops

   The high-order bit of the LSA Options field (a previously unused bit)
   is used to solve the problem described in the previous section.  We
   refer to this bit as the DN bit.  When an LSA is sent from a PE to a
   CE, the DN bit MUST be set.

   When the PE receives, from a CE router, an LSA with the DN bit set,
   the information from that LSA MUST NOT be used during the OSPF route
   calculation.  As a result, the LSA is not translated into a BGP
   route.

   This prevents routes learned via BGP from being redistributed to BGP.


5. Acknowledgments

   The idea of using the high-order options bit for this purpose is due
   to Derek Yeung. Thanks to Yakov Rekhter for his contribution to this
   work.


6. Authors' Addresses


   Eric C. Rosen
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA 01719

   E-mail: erosen@cisco.com



   Peter Psenak
   Parc Pegasus,
   De Kleetlaan 6A
   1831 Diegem
   Belgium

   E-mail: ppsenak@cisco.com










Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 5]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-2547-dnbit-00.txt           June 2003



   Padma Pillay-Esnault
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089

   E-mail: padma@juniper.net



7. Normative References

   [OSPF] "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, Moy, J., April 1998

   [VPN] "BGP/MPLS VPNs", draft-ietf-ppvpn-rfc2547bis-04.txt, Rosen,
   Rekhter, et. al., May 2003

   [OSPF-VPN] "OSPF as the PE/CE Protocol in BGP/MPLS VPNs", draft-
   ietf-ppvpn-ospf-2547-00.txt, Rosen, Psenak, Pillay-Esnault, June 2003
































Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/