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

Versions: 00 RFC 1863

Internet Engineering Task Force                         Dimitry Haskin
Internet Draft                                      Bay Networks, Inc.
Expires September 1995                                      March 1995
draft-haskin-bgp-idrp-mesh-routing-00.txt


      A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet Draft.  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. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
   other documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use Internet
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working
   draft" or "work in progress."

   Please check the I-D abstract listing contained in each Internet
   Draft directory to learn the current status of this or any other
   Internet Draft.

Abstract

   This document describes the use and detailed design of Route Servers
   for dissemination of routing information among BGP/IDRP speaking
   routers.

   The intention of the proposed technique is to reduce overhead and
   management complexity of maintaining numerous direct BGP/IDRP
   sessions which otherwise might be required or desired among routers
   within a single routing domain as well as among routers in different
   domains that are connected to a common switched fabric (e.g. an ATM
   cloud).


1. Overview

 Current deployments of Exterior Routing protocols, such as the Border
 Gateway Protocol [BGP4] and the adaptation of the ISO Inter-Domain
 Routing Protocol [IDRP], require that all BGP/IDRP routers,  which
 participate in inter-domain routing (border routers) and belong to the
 same routing domain, establish a full mesh connectivity with each other
 for purpose of exchanging routing information acquired from other
 routing domains. In large routing domains the number of intra-domain
 connections that needs to be maintained by each border route can be
 significant.



Expires September 1995                                       [Page 1]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




 In addition, it may be desired for a border router to establish routing
 sessions with all border routers in other domains which are reachable
 via a shared communication media. We refer to routers that are directly
 reachable via a shared media as adjacent routers.  Such direct peering
 allows a router to acquire "first hand" information about destinations
 which are directly reachable through adjacent routers and select the
 optimum direct paths to these destinations.  Establishment of BGP/IDRP
 sessions among all adjacent border routers would result in a full mesh
 routing connectivity.  Unfortunately for a switched media as ATM, SMDS
 or Frame Relay network which may inter-connect a large number of
 routers,  due to the number of connections that would be needed to
 maintain a full mesh direct peering between the routers,  makes this
 approach impractical.

 In order to alleviate the "full mesh" problem, this paper proposes to
 use IDRP/BGP Route Servers which would relay external routes with all
 of their attributes between client routers. The clients would maintain
 IDRP/BGP sessions only with the assigned route servers (sessions with
 more than one server would be needed if redundancy is desired).  Since
 all external routes and their attributes are relayed unmodified between
 the client routers,  the client routers would acquire the same routing
 information as they would via direct peering.  We refer to such
 arrangement as virtual peering.  Virtual peering allows client routers
 independently apply selection criteria to acquired external routes
 according to their local policies as they would if direct peering were
 established.

 The routing approach described in this paper assumes that border
 routers possess a mechanism to resolve the media access address of the
 next hop router for any route acquired from a virtual peer.

 It is fair to note that the approach presented in this paper only
 reduces the number of routing connection each border router needs to
 maintain. It does not reduce the volume of routing information that
 needs to maintained at each border router.

 Besides addressing the "full mesh" problems,  the proposal attempts to
 achieve the following goals:

  - to minimize BGP/IDRP changes that need to be implemented in client
    routers in order to inter-operate with route servers;

  - to provide for redundancy of distribution of routing information to
    route server clients;

  - to minimize the amount of routing updates that have to be sent to
    route server clients;



Expires September 1995                                       [Page 2]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




  - to provide load distribution between route servers;

  - to avoid an excessive complexity of the interactions between Route
    Servers themselves.


2. Terms And Acronyms


 The following terms and acronyms are used in this paper:

  Routing Domain     -  a collection of routers with the same set of
                        routing policies.  For IPv4 it can be identified
                        with an Autonomous System Number, for IPv6
                        it can be identified with a Routing Domain
                        Identifier.

  Border Router (BR) -  a router that acquires external routes, i.e.
                        routes to internet points outside its routing
                        domain.

  Route Server (RS)  -  a process that collects routing information
                        from border routers and distributes this
                        information to 'client routers'.

  RS Client (RC)     -  a router than peers with an RS in order to
                        acquire routing information.  A server's client
                        can be a router or another route server.

  RS Cluster (RSC)   -  two or more of route servers that share the same
                        subset of clients.  A RS Cluster provides
                        redundancy of routing information to its
                        clients,  i.e. routing information is provided
                        to all RS Cluster clients as long as there is
                        at least one functional route server in the RS
                        Cluster.

  RCID             -    Cluster ID












Expires September 1995                                       [Page 3]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




3. RS Model


 In the proposed scheme a Route Server (RS) does not apply any selection
 criteria to the routes received from border routers for the purpose
 of distributing these routes to its clients.  All routes acquired
 from border routers or other Route Servers are relayed to the client
 border routers.

 There can be two classes of Route Server: Route Server that relays
 external routes between routers in a single routing domain and Route
 Server that relays external routes between border routers in different
 routing domains.  The former are Intra-Domain Route Servers and the
 latter are Inter-Domain Route Servers.

 In the RS model proposed in this document there is no routing exchange
 between Intra-Domain Route Servers and Inter-Domain Route Servers.
 Routes that cross a domain boundary must always pass through a border
 router of such a domain which may apply administrative filters to such
 routes.

 Operations of Intra-Domain Route Servers and Inter-Domain Route Servers
 are identical.

 One or more Route Servers form an RS Cluster (RSC).  For redundancy's
 sake two or more RSs can be configured to operate in an RS Cluster.
 All route servers in an RSC share the same clients,  i.e. cluster
 clients establish connections to all route servers in such an RSC for
 the purpose of exchanging routing information. Each cluster is assigned
 an unique RSC Identifier (RCID) represented by a 2-octet unsigned
 integer.

 Clusters which provide virtual connectivity between their clients would
 be normally exchanging routing information among themselves so that all
 external routes are propagated to all participating clients.

 Though a Route Server Client (RC) can be associated with multiple RSC,
 it seems that there is no real advantage of doing so except for a short
 transition period to provide a graceful re-assignment from one RSC to
 another or, if for some reason, there are multiple RS groups that don't
 exchange routing information with each other.

 The inter-cluster route exchange can be accomplished by forming
 a full mesh routing adjacency between clusters.  In this approach,
 illustrated in the diagram below,  each RS in each RSC would maintain
 a routing connection with every RS in other RS clusters.  Only routes
 that are acquired from border routers are propagated to RSs in other



Expires September 1995                                       [Page 4]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




 RS clusters.

         BR11   BR12   BR1n     BR21  BR22  BR2n
           |     |  ... |        |     | ...  |
          -----------------     ------------------
          !  RS11  RS12   ! --- !  RS21    RS22  !
          -----------------     ------------------
               <RSC#1>  \           /    <RSC#2>
                         \         /
                       -----------------
                       !  RS31  RS32   !   <RSC#3>
                       -----------------
                         |     | ... |
                        BR31  BR32  BR3n


 Another way to propagate routing information between clusters would be
 to form a cluster hierarchy in which an RS in one cluster maintains
 sessions only with RSs in designated clusters.  In this approach an RS
 must advertise all acquired routes to an RS in another cluster except
 the routes that are acquired from that cluster.  Nevertheless,  it
 allows for minimizing the number of routing sessions which can be
 highly desirable in some network.  It is important for the hierarchical
 scheme that the inter-cluster route exchange links form a tree, i.e.
 there is only one route propagation path between any two clusters,
 otherwise routing loops may result.  For detection and pruning of
 routing loops in a hierarchical cluster topology, it is advisable to
 include the "RCID Path" attribute (see 4.3.4) in all routing updates
 sent between route servers. This attribute lists IDs of all clusters
 in the route propagation path.  When a duplicate ID is detected in this
 attribute an offending route needs to be discarded.

 The diagram below which illustrates the hierarchical approach is
 created from the diagram above by removing the route exchange link
 between clusters 2 and 3.

         BR11   BR12   BR1n     BR21  BR22  BR2n
           |     |  ... |        |     | ...  |
          -----------------     ------------------
          !  RS11  RS12   ! --- !  RS21    RS22  !
          -----------------     ------------------
               <RSC#1>  \                <RSC#2>
                         \
                       -----------------
                       !  RS31  RS32   !   <RSC#3>
                       -----------------
                         |     | ... |
                        BR31  BR32  BR3n


Expires September 1995                                       [Page 5]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




 It seems that the only disadvantage of the hierarchical model, is the
 management headache of avoiding routing loops and redundant information
 flow by insuring that inter-cluster links always form a tree.  But more
 study is needed to fully evaluate the comparative merits of the
 full-mesh and hierarchical models.

 Since RSs in the same cluster maintain routing sessions with the same
 set of clients, it may seem that there is no need to exchange routing
 information between RSs in the same cluster. Nevertheless, such a route
 exchange may help to maintain identical routing databases in the
 servers during client acquisition periods and when a partial failure
 may affect some routing sessions.

 Route servers in the same RS cluster exchange control messages in
 attempt to subdivide the responsibilities of providing routing
 information to their clients.  In order to simplify the RS design, the
 RS messaging is implemented on top of exterior protocol which is used
 by route servers for the routing information exchange.



4 Operation


4.1 ADVERTISER Path Attribute
------------------------------

 Route servers act as concentrators for routes acquired by border
 routers so that the border routers need to maintain routing
 connections with only one or two designated route servers.  Route
 Servers distribute routing information that is provided to them by
 the border routers to all their client.

 If routing information were relayed to RS clients in UPDATE messages
 with only those path attribute that are currently defined in the
 BGP-4/IDRP specification, the RS clients would not be able to associate
 external routes they receive with the border routers which submitted
 that routes to route servers. Such an association is necessary for
 making a correct route selection decision. Therefore, the new path
 attribute, ADVERTISER, is defined.

 The ADVERTISER is an optional non-transitive attribute that
 defines the identifying address of the border router which exported
 the route to other RS clients. Type Code of the ADVERTISER
 attribute is 255.  This attribute must be included in every UPDATE
 message that is relayed by route servers and must be recognized by RS
 clients.



Expires September 1995                                       [Page 6]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




4.2 Route Client Operation
--------------------------

 An RS client establishes an BGP/IDRP connection to every route server
 in the RS cluster to which the route client is assigned.

 RS clients must be able to recognize the ADVERTISER path
 attribute that is included in all UPDATE messages received from route
 servers.  Routes received in UPDATE messages from route servers are
 processed as if they were received directly from the border routers
 specified in the ADVERTISER attributes of the respective updates.

 If an RS client receives a route from a Intra-Domain Route Server,
 is assumed that the border router identified in the ADVERTISER
 attribute is located in the receiving client's own routing domain.

 If an RS client receives a route from a Inter-Domain Route Server,
 the locality of the border router identified in the ADVERTISER
 attribute can be determined from the BGP's AS_PATH attribute or
 IDRP's RD_PATH attribute respectively.

 If no ADVERTISER attribute was included in an UPDATE message from
 a route server it is assumed that the route server itself is the
 exporter of the corresponding route.

 If the NEXT_HOP path attribute of an UPDATE message lists an address of
 the receiving router itself, the route that is carried in such an
 update message must be declared unreachable.

 In addition, it is highly desirable, albeit not required,  to slightly
 modify the "standard" BGP/IDRP operation when acquiring routes from
 RSs:

    when a route is received from an RS and a route with the completely
    identical attributes has been previously acquired from another RS
    in the same cluster,  the previously acquired route should be
    replaced with the newly acquired route.  Such a route replacement
    should not trigger any route advertisement action on behalf of the
    route.

 RSs are designed to operate in such a way that eliminates the need to
 keep multiple copies of the same route by RS clients and minimizes the
 possibility of a route flap when the BGP/IDRP connection to one of the
 redundant route servers is lost.

 It is attempted to subdivide the route dissemination load between route
 servers such that only one RS provides routing updates to a given



Expires September 1995                                       [Page 7]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




 client.  But since, for avoiding an excessive complexity, the
 reconciliation algorithm does not eliminate completely the possibility
 of races, it is still possible that a client may receive updates from
 more than one route server.  Therefore, the client's ability to discard
 duplicate routes may reduce the need for a bigger routing database.



4.3 Route Server Operation
--------------------------

 A Route Server maintains BGP-4/IDRP sessions with its clients according
 to the respective BGP-4/IDRP specification with exception of protocol
 modifications outlined in this document.

 UPDATE messages sent by route servers have the same format and
 semantics as it respective BGP-4/IDRP counterparts but also carry the
 ADVERTISER path attribute which specifies the BGP Identifier of the
 border router that exported the route advertised in the UPDATE message.
 In addition, if the hierarchical model is deployed to interconnect
 Route Server clusters, it is advisable to include the "RCID Path"
 attribute in all routing updates sent between route servers as
 described in 4.3.4.

 When route servers exchange OPEN messages they include the Route Server
 protocol version (current version is 1) as well as Cluster IDs of their
 respective clusters in an Optional Parameter of the OPEN message. The
 value of Parameter Type for this parameter is 255. The length of the
 parameter data is 3 octets. The format of parameter data is shown
 below:

    +-----------------------+------------------------------------+
    | Version = 1 (1 octet) |      Cluster ID (2 octets)         |
    +-----------------------+------------------------------------+


 Also, route servers that belong to the same cluster send to each other
 LIST messages with lists of clients to which they're providing routing
 information.  In the LIST message an RS specifies the Router Identifier
 of each client to which that RS is providing routing updates. Since
 LIST messages are relatively small there is no need to add a processing
 complexity of generating incremental updates when a list changes;
 instead the complete list is sent when RSs need to be informed of the
 changes.  The format of the LIST message is presented in 4.3.1.






Expires September 1995                                       [Page 8]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




 4.3.1 LIST Message Format
 -------------------------

 The LIST message contains the fixed BGP/IDRP header that is followed
 with the fields shown below.  The type code in the fixed header of
 the LIST message is 255.

     +----------+----------+----------+----------+
     |        Client Identifying Address         | Repeated for each
     +-------------------------------------------+ informed client


 The number of Client Identifying Address" fields is not encoded
 explicitly,  but can be calculated as:

     (<LIST message Length> - <Header Length>) / <Address Length>,

 where <LIST message Length> is the value encoded in the fixed
 BGP/IDRP header, <Header Length> is the length of that header, and
 <Address Length> is 4 for IPv4 and 16 for IPv6.


 4.3.2 External Route Acquisition And Advertisement
 ----------------------------------------------------

  A route server acquires external routes from RS clients that are also
  border routers.  A RS also may acquire external routes from other RSs.
  Route servers relay all acquired routes unaltered to their clients.
  No route selection is performed for purpose of route re-advertisement
  to RS clients.

  While route servers receive and store routing data from all their
  client,  Routing Servers in the same cluster coordinate their route
  advertisement in the attempt to ensure that only one RS provides
  routing updates to a given client.  If an RS fails,  other Route
  Servers in the cluster take over the responsibility of providing
  routing updates to the clients that were previously served by the
  failed RS.  A route flap that can result from such switch-over can be
  eliminated by the configuring client's "Hold Time" of their BGP-4/IDRP
  sessions with the route servers to be larger than the switch-over
  time.  The switch-over time is determined by the Hold Time of
  BGP-4/IDRP sessions between the route servers in the cluster and the
  period that is needed for that route servers to reconcile their route
  advertisement responsibilities.  The reconciliation protocol is
  described in 4.3.3.





Expires September 1995                                       [Page 9]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




  The BGP-4/IDRP operations of route servers differs from the "standard"
  operation in the following ways:

   -    when receiving routes from another RS, the RS Client mode of
        operation is assumed, i.e., when a route with completely
        identical attributes has been previously acquired from an RS
        belonging to the same cluster as the RS that advertises the new
        route, the previously acquired route should be discarded and
        the newly acquired route should be accepted.  Such a route
        replacement should not trigger any route advertisement action
        on behalf of the route.

   -    all acquired routes are advertised to a client router except
        routes which were acquired from that client (no route echoing);

   -    if the hierarchical model of inter-cluster route exchange is
        used,  all acquired routes are advertised to an RS in another
        RSC except routes that are acquired from that RSC.  In the
        full-mesh model, only routes which are acquired from border
        routers are advertised to route servers in other clusters;

   -    if route servers in the same RS cluster are configured to
        exchange routing information,  only external routes that are
        acquired from border routers are advertised to route servers in
        the local cluster;

   -    the ADVERTISER path attribute is included in every UPDATE
        messages that is generated by RS.  This attribute must
        specify the identifying address of the border router from which
        information provided in UPDATE has been acquired.  All other
        routing attributes should be relayed to RS's peers unaltered.

   -    when a route advertised by to an RS by a client becomes
        unreachable such a route needs to be declared unreachable to
        all other clients.  In order to withdraw a route,  the route
        server sends an UPDATE for that route to each client (except
        the client that this route was originally acquired) with the
        NEXT_HOP path attribute set to the address of the client to
        which this UPDATE is sent to.  The the ADVERTISER path attribute
        with the identifying address of the border router that
        originally advertised the withdrawn route must be also included
        in such an update message.

   -    if the hierarchical model is deployed to interconnect Route
        Server clusters,  it is advisable to include the RCID_PATH
        attribute in all routing updates sent between route servers as
        described in 4.3.4.  The RCID_PATH attribute is never included
        in UPDATE messages sent to border routers.


Expires September 1995                                       [Page 10]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




 4.3.3 Intra-Cluster Coordination
 --------------------------------

  In order to coordinate route advertisement activities,  route servers
  which are members of the same RS cluster establish and maintain
  BGP/IDRP connections between themselves forming a full-mesh
  connectivity.  Normally, there is no need for more than two-three
  route servers in one cluster.

  Route servers belonging to the same cluster send to each other LIST
  messages with lists of clients to which they're providing routing
  information;  let's call such clients "informed clients".

  Each RS maintains a separate "informed client" list for each RS in
  the local cluster including itself.  All such lists are linked in
  an ascending order that is determined by the number of clients in
  each list; the order among the lists with the same number of clients
  is determined by comparing the identifying addresses of the
  corresponding RSs -- an RS in such a "same number of clients" subset
  is positioned after all RSs with the lower address.

  An RS can be in one of two RS coordination states: 'Initiation' and
  'Active'.


  4.3.3.1 Initiation State
  ------------------------

   This is the initial state of route server that is entered upon RS
   startup.  When the Initiation state is entered the 'InitiationTimer'
   is started.  The Initiation state transits to the Active state upon
   expiration of the 'InitiationTimer' or as soon as all configured
   BGP/IDRP connections to other route servers in the local RS Cluster
   are established and LIST messages from that route servers are
   received.

   In the Initiation state an RS:

    o   tries to establish connections with other RSs in the local and
        remote clusters.

    o   accepts BGP/IDRP connections from client routers.

    o   receives and process BGP/IDRP updates but doesn't send any
        routing updates.





Expires September 1995                                      [Page 11]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




    o   stores "informed client" lists received from other RSs in the
        local cluster - a newly received list replaces the existing list
        for the same RS. If a LIST message is received from the route
        server in another RS cluster, it should be silently ignored.

    o   initializes an empty "informed client" list for its own clients.
    o   as soon as a BGP/IDRP connection to an RS in the same RS Cluster
        is established, transmits an empty LIST message to such an RS.


  4.3.3.2 Active State
  --------------------

   This state is entered upon expiration of the 'InitiationTimer' or as
   soon as all configured BGP/IDRP connections to other route servers in
   the local RS Cluster are established and LIST messages from that
   route servers are received.

   In the Active state an RS:

    o   continues attempts to establish connections with other route
        servers in the local and remote clusters;

    o   accepts new BGP/IDRP connections;

    o   transmits a LIST message to an RS in the local cluster as soon
        as an BGP/IDRP session with the RS is established and then
        whenever the local "informed client" list changes;

    o   receives and process BGP/IDRP updates;

    o   receives and processes "informed client" lists as described
        below:

        a) If a LIST message is received from the route server in
           another RS cluster, it should be silently ignored.

        b) If a LIST message is received from a route server that
           belongs to the same RS Cluster,  the differences between
           the old and the new list are determined and the old "informed
           client" list for that RS is replaced by the list from the new
           message.  For each client that was in the old list but not in
           the new list it is checked whether the server has
           an established BGP/IDRP connection to that client and
           the client is not in any of the other "informed client"
           lists.  If both conditions are met,  the processing described
           for a new client takes place (see 4.3.3.3).



Expires September 1995                                      [Page 12]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




    o   for each new BGP/IDRP client (including connections established
        in Initiation state),  decides if that client should become an
        "informed client", i.e. whether routing updates are to be sent
        to the client or that client has been already taken care by
        another RS in the local cluster.  The decision process is
        described in the next section.


  4.3.3.3 New Client Processing
  -----------------------------

   Whenever an RS acquires a new BGP/IDRP peer it scans through all
   "informed client" lists in order to determine if this peer has
   already been receiving routing updates from another RS in the local
   RS cluster.  If the identifying address of the peer is found in one
   of the list,  no routing updates are sent to that peer.

   If the peer's Router Id is not found,  the route server initiates
   a 'DelayTimer' timer for that peer and the decision is postponed
   until that timer expires.  The delay value is calculated as followed:

     the RS determines the relative position of its own "informed
     client" list in the linked list of all "informed client" lists.
     If such position is expressed with a number, say N,  in the 1 to
     "maximum number of lists" range, then the delay value is set to
     (N-1)*<DelayGranularity>.

   Upon expiration of the DelayTimer,  the "informed client" lists are
   scanned once again to see if the corresponding peer has already been
   receiving routing updates from another RS in the local RS cluster.
   If the Router Id of the peer is found in one of the lists as
   a result of receiving a new LIST message, no routing updates are
   sent to that peer.  Otherwise,  the peer's Router ID is entered in
   the "informed client" list that belongs to the RS,  the transmission
   of the updated LIST message is immediately scheduled, and routing
   updates are sent to the client.

   The rational for the delay is to minimize races in the decision as
   which RS among route servers in the same RSC is going to provide
   routing information to a given client.  The RS with least number of
   "informed clients" would have a shortest delay and is the most
   probable to win the race.  This helps to equalize the number of
   "informed clients" between RSc in a cluster.

   After an BGP/IDRP peer is placed in the "informed client" list, it is
   only removed from the list when the BGP/IDRP connection to this peer
   is lost.  While an RS client is in the list it is accurately updated
   with all routing changes.


September 1995                                              [Page 13]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




  4.3.3.5 Inter-RS Connection Failure
  -----------------------------------

   If a route server loses a routing session with a route server in
   the same cluster,  it must consider taking the responsibilities
   of route advertisement to the clients that are in the "informed
   client" list of the remote route server of the failed session.

   For each such client it is checked whether the server has an
   established BGP/IDRP connection to that client and the client is not
   in any of the "informed client" lists of active RS.  If both
   conditions are true,  the processing described for a new client takes
   place (see 4.3.3.3).

   After advertisement responsibilities are reconciled the "informed
   client" list associated with the failed session should be discarded.


 4.3.4 RCID_PATH Attribute
 -------------------------

 The RCID_PATH is an optional non-transitive attribute that is composed
 of a sequence of RS Cluster Identifiers (RCID) that identifies the
 RS Cluster through which routing information carried in the UPDATE
 message has passed.  Type Code of the RCID_PATH attribute is 254.
 The attribute value field contains one or more RS Cluster Identifiers,
 each encoded as a 2-octets long field.

 When a route server propagates a route which has been learned from
 another Route Server's UPDATE message, the following is performed
 with respect to the the RCID_PATH attribute:

  -     if the destination of the route is a border route, the RCID_PATH
        Attribute is excluded from the UPDATE message sent to that
        border router.

  -     if the destination of the route is another route server that is
        located in the advertising server's own RS cluster,  the
        RCID_PATH attribute is sent unmodified.

  -     if the destination of the route is a route server in a different
        RS cluster,  the advertising route server shall verify that the
        RCID of the destination speaker's cluster is not present in
        the RCID_PATH attribute associated with route.  If it does,
        the route shall not be advertised and an event indicating
        that a route loop was detected should be logged, otherwise




Expires September 1995                                      [Page 14]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




        the advertising router shall prepend its own RCID to the RCID
        sequence in the RCID_PATH attribute (put it in the leftmost
        position).

 When a route server propagates a route which has been learned from
 a border router to another route server then:

  -     if the destination of the route is a route server that is
        located in the advertising router's own RS cluster,  an empty
        RCID_PATH attribute shall be included in the UPDATE message
        (an empty RCID_PATH attribute is one whose length field contains
        the value zero).

  -     if the destination of the route is a route server in a different
        RS cluster,  the advertising route server shall include its own
        RCID in the RCID_PATH attribute.  In this case, the RCID of
        advertising route server will be the only entry in the AS_PATH
        attribute.


 4.3.5 NOTIFICATION Error Codes
 ------------------------------

 In addition to the error codes defined in the BGP-4/IDRP specification,
 the following error can be indicated in a NOTIFICATION message that is
 sent by a route server:

   255  LIST Message Error


 The following error subcodes can be associated with the LIST Message
 Error:

     1  - Bad Address.  This subcode indicates that a Client Identifying
          Address in the received LIST message does not represent
          a valid network layer address of a router interface.


 The following additional UPDATE error subcodes are also defined:

     255 - Invalid ADVERTISER Attribute.  This subcode indicates that
           a value of the ADVERTISER Attribute does not represent
           a valid network layer address of a router interface.







Expires September 1995                                      [Page 15]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




 4.3.7 Timers
 ------------

  The InitiationTimer value of 5 minutes is suggested.

  In order to avoid route flaps during an RS switch-over, a value of
  DelayGranularity should be such so the maximum possible value of
  the DelayTimer (see 4.3.3.3) combined with the Hold Time of inter-RS
  connections would be shorter than two-third of the smallest Hold Time
  interval of all BGP/IDRP connections between the route servers and
  their clients (including RSs in other clusters).  So in a cluster
  with three RSs and the respective Hold Times of 30 and 90 seconds
  the DelayGranularity of 15 seconds would be a recommended value.

  For the same reason it is recommended that the Hold Time of BGP/IDRP
  connections between route servers in the same cluster is set to
  one-third of the smallest Hold Time of all BGP/IDRP connections
  between the route servers and their clients (including RSs in other
  clusters).  So, if the smallest Hold Time of BGP/IDRP sessions with
  clients is 90 seconds,  the recommended  value of the Hold Time of
  BGP/IDRP connections between route servers in that cluster would be
  30 seconds.


5. Route Server Discovery

 This document does not propose any mechanism for the dynamic RS
 discovery by RS clients or/and by other route servers.  It is
 assumed that at minimum a manual configuration will be provided in
 participating routers to achieve the needed connectivity.


7. Security Considerations

 Security issues are not discussed in this document.















Expires September 1995                                      [Page 16]


Internet Draft                                             March 1995




8. Acknowledgment

   Some design concepts presented in this paper benefited from
   discussions with Tony Li (cisco Systems).

   Author likes to thank John Krawczyk (Bay Networks) and for his
   review and valuable comments.

   Also, author would like to thank Yakov Rekhter (IBM) for the review
   of the earlier version of this document and constructive comments.

   Special thanks to Ray Chang (Bay Networks) whose experience in
   implementing the concepts presented in this document helped to
   refine the route server design.


9. References

 [BGP4]         Y. Rekhter, T.Li        "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
                                         (BGP-4)", Internet Draft

 [IDRP]         Y. Rekhter, P. Traina   "IDRP for IPv6", Internet Draft


9. Author's Addresses


 Dimitry Haskin
 Bay Networks, Inc.
 2 Federal Street
 Billerica, MA 01821
 email: dhaskin@baynetworks.com



















Expires September 1995                                     [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/