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

Versions: 00 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

IDR Working Group                                           Rajiv Asati
Internet Draft                                            Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational
Expires: March 2009

                                                        October 27, 2008

                      BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
   any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
   aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
   becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
   BCP 79.

   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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Asati, et al.           Expires April 27, 2009                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria     October 27, 2008


   BGP specification [RFC4271] prescribes 'BGP next-hop reachability' as
   one of the key 'Route Resolvability Condition' that must be satisfied
   before the BGP bestpath candidate selection. This condition, however,
   may not be sufficient (as explained in the Appendix section) and
   desire further granularity.

Conventions used in this document

   In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
   server respectively.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................2
   2. Route Resolvability Condition - Modification...................3
   3. Conclusions....................................................4
   4. Security Considerations........................................4
   5. IANA Considerations............................................4
   6. Acknowledgments................................................4
   7. Appendix.......................................................5
   8. References.....................................................7
   Author's Addresses................................................8
   Intellectual Property Statement...................................8
   Disclaimer of Validity............................................9

1. Introduction

   As per BGP specification [RFC4271], when a router receives a BGP
   path, BGP must qualify it as the valid candidate prior to the BGP
   bestpath selection using the 'Route Resolvability Condition'
   (section# of RFC4271]. After the path gets qualified as the
   bestpath candidate, it becomes eligible to be the bestpath, and may
   get advertised out to the neigbhor(s), if it became the bestpath.

   However, in BGP networks that utilize data plane protocol other than
   IP, such as MPLS etc. to forward the received traffic towards the

Asati, et al.             Expires March 2009                   [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria     October 27, 2008

   next-hop, the above qualification condition may not be sufficient. In
   fact, this may expose the BGP networks to experience traffic
   blackholing i.e. traffic loss, due to malfunctioning of the chosen
   data plane protocol to the next-hop. This is explained further in the
   Appendix section.

   This document defines further granularity to the "Route Resolvability
   Condition" by (a) resolving the BGP next-hop reachability in the
   forwarding database of a particular data plane protocol, and (b)
   optionally including the BGP next-hop "path availability" check.

2. Route Resolvability Condition - Modification

   This document proposes two amendments to 'Route Resolvability
   Condition', which is defined in RFC4271, in consideration for a
   particular data plane protocol.

   1) The next-hop reachability SHOULD be resolved in a particular data
      plane protocol.

   For example, if a BGP IPv4/v6 or VPNv4/v6 path wants to use MPLS data
   plane to the next-hop, as determined by the policy, then the BGP
   'next-hop reachability' should be resolved using the MPLS data plane.
   In another example, if BGP path wants to use the IP data plane to the
   next-hop, as determined by the policy, then BGP 'next-hop
   reachability' should be resolved using the IP data plane. The latter
   example covers MPLS-in-IP encapsulation techniques such as [RFC4817],
   [RFC4023] etc.

   The selection of particular data plane is a matter of a policy, and
   is outside the scope of this document. A dynamic signaling such as
   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi [ENCAP] may be used to convey the
   data plane protocol chosen by the policy.

   This check may be limited to confirming the availability of the valid
   forwarding entry for the next-hop in the forwarding database of the
   chosen data plane protocol.

   2) The 'path availability' check for the BGP next-hop MAY be
      performed. This criterion checks for the functioning path to the
      next-hop in a particular data plane protocol.

Asati, et al.             Expires March 2009                   [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria     October 27, 2008

   The path availability check may be performed by any of the OAM data-
   plane liveness mechanisms associated with the data plane that is used
   to reach the Next Hop. The data plane protocol for this criterion
   must be the same as the one selected by the previous criterion (#1).

   The mechanism(s) to perform the "path availability" check and the
   selection of particular data plane are a matter of a policy and
   outside the scope of this document.

   For example, if a BGP VPNv4 path wants to use the MPLS as the data
   plane protocol to the next-hop, then MPLS path availability to the
   next-hop should be evaluated i.e. liveness of MPLS LSP to the next-
   hop should be validated.

3. Conclusions

   Both amendments discussed in section 2 provide further clarity and
   granularity to help the BGP speaker to either continue to advertise a
   BGP path's reachability or withdraw the BGP path's reachability,
   based on the consideration for the path's next-hop reachability
   and/or availability in a particular data plane.

4. Security Considerations

   This draft doesn't impose any additional security constraints.

5. IANA Considerations


6. Acknowledgments

   Yakov Rekhter provided critical suggestions and feedback to improve
   this document. Thanks to John Scudder and Chandrashekhar Appanna for
   contributing to the discussions that formed the basis of this
   document. Thanks to Ilya Varlashkin, who made the case to revive this
   document and provided useful feedback.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

Asati, et al.             Expires March 2009                   [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria     October 27, 2008

7. Appendix

7.1. Problem Applicability

   In IP networks using BGP, a router would continue to attract traffic
   by advertising the BGP prefix reachability to neighbor(s) as long as
   the router had a route to the next-hop in its routing table, but
   independent of whether the router has a functional forwarding path to
   the next-hop. This may cause the forwarded traffic to be dropped
   inside the IP network.

   In MPLS or MPLS VPN networks [RFC4364], the same problem is observed
   if the functional MPLS LSP to the next-hop is not available (due to
   the forwarding path error on any node along the path to the next-

   The following MPLS/VPN topology clarifies the problem -

        <-eBGP/IGP-> <-------MP-BGP------> <-eBGP/IGP->

        CE1~~~~~~~~~PE1~~~MPLS Network~~~PE2~~~~~~~~CE2~~
                      ======PE1-PE2 LSP==>              ^

                         Figure 1 MPLS VPN Network

   In the network illustrated in Figure 1, the PE1 to PE2 LSP may be
   non-functional due to any reason such as corrupted MPLS Forwarding
   Table entry, or the missing MPLS Forwarding table entry, or LDP
   binding defect, or down LDP session between the P routers (with
   independent label distribution control) etc. In such a situation, it
   is clear that the CE1->CE2 traffic inserted into the MPLS network by
   PE1 will get dropped inside the MPLS network.

   It is undesirable to have PE1 continue to convey to the CE1 router
   that PE1 (and the MPLS network) is still the next-hop for the remote
   VPN reachability, without being sure of the corresponding LSP health.

Asati, et al.             Expires March 2009                   [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria     October 27, 2008

7.1.1. Multi-Homed VPN Site

   If the remote VPN site is dual-homed to both PE2 and PE3, then PE1
   may learn two VPNv4 paths to the prefix a.b.c.d. via PE2 and PE3
   routers, as shown below in Figure 2. PE1 may select the bestpath for
   the prefix a.b.c.d via PE2 (say, for which the PE1->PE2 LSP is mal-
   functioning) and advertise that bestpath to CE1 in the context of
   figure 2.


        CE1~~~~~~~~~PE1~~~MPLS Network~~~PE2~~~~~~~~CE2~~
                             \                      /   ^
                              \~~~~~~~~~~PE3~~~~~~~/    ^

                Figure 2 MPLS VPN Network - CE2 Dual-Homing

   This causes CE1 to likely send the traffic destined to prefix a.b.c.d
   to the PE1 router, which forwards the traffic over the malfunctioning
   LSP to PE2. It is clear that this MPLS encapsulated VPN traffic ends
   up getting dropped or blackholed somewhere inside the MPLS network.

   It is desirable to force PE1 to select an alternate bestpath via that
   next-hop (such as PE3), whose LSP is correctly functioning.

7.1.2. Single-Homed VPN Site with Site-to-Site Backup Connectivity

   The local VPN site may have a backup/dial-up link available at the CE
   router, but the backup link will not even be activated as long as the
   CE's routing table continues to point to the PE router as the next-
   hop (over the MPLS/VPN network).

Asati, et al.             Expires March 2009                   [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria     October 27, 2008


        CE1~~~~~~~~~PE1~~~MPLS Network~~~PE2~~~~~~~~CE2~~
          \                                         /   ^
           \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~backup path~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/    ^

           Figure 3 MPLS VPN Network - CE1-CE2 Backup connection

   Unless PE2 withdraws the route via the routing protocol used on the
   PE-CE link, CE1 will not be able to activate the backup link (barring
   any tracking functionality) to the remote VPN site.

   In summary, if PE1 could appropriately qualify the BGP VPNv4
   bestpath, then the VPN traffic outage could likely be avoided. Even
   if the VPN site was not multi-homed, it is desirable to force PE1 to
   withdraw the path from CE1 to improve the CE-to-CE convergence. This
   document proposes a mechanism to achieve the optimal BGP behavior at

8. References

8.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4364] Rosen E. and Rekhter Y., "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
             Networks (VPNs)", RFC4364, February 2006.

   [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li T., and Hares S.(editors), "A Border
             Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006

Asati, et al.             Expires March 2009                   [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria     October 27, 2008

8.2. Informative References

   [ENCAP]   Rosen, E., Mohapatra, P., "BGP Encapsulation SAFI and BGP
             Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-softwire-
             encaps-safi-03.txt, work in progress.

   [RFC4023] Rosen, et al., "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing
             Encapsulation", RFC4023, March 2005.

   [RFC4817] Townsley, et al., "Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2
             Tunneling Protocol Version 3", RFC4817, Nov 2006.

Author's Addresses

   Rajiv Asati
   Cisco Systems
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   RTP, NC 27560 USA
   Email: rajiva@cisco.com

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

Asati, et al.             Expires March 2009                   [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria     October 27, 2008

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Asati, et al.             Expires March 2009                   [Page 9]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/