IDR Working Group                                           Rajiv Asati
Internet Draft                                            Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational
Expires: Jan 2010
                                                         August 28, 2009




                      BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria
           draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-01.txt


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
   derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

   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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on Feb 28, 2010.






Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 1]

 
Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria      August 28, 2009


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.





Abstract

   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.

   This document defines enhances the "Route Resolvability Condition" to
   facilitate the next-hop to be resolved in the chosen data plane.



Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Specification Language.........................................3
   3. Route Resolvability Condition - Modification...................3
   4. Conclusions....................................................4
   5. Security Considerations........................................5
   6. IANA Considerations............................................5
   7. Acknowledgments................................................5
   8. Appendix.......................................................5
   9. References.....................................................8
   Author's Addresses................................................9








Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 2]

 
Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria      August 28, 2009


. 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#9.1.2.1 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 [RFC3031] etc. to forward the received traffic
   towards the 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.

   The goal is to enable BGP to select the bestpaths based on whether or
   not the corresponding nexthop can be resolved in the valid data
   plane.



. Specification Language

   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 [RFC2119].



. 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 (check) SHOULD be resolved in a
      forwarding database of a particular data plane protocol.



Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 3]

 
Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria      August 28, 2009


         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 forwarding database. 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 forwarding database. The latter example
         relates to 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. It is envisioned that the
   policy would exist for either per-neighbor or per-SAFI or both. A
   dynamic signaling such as BGP encapsulation SAFI (or tunnel encap
   attribute) [RFC5512] may be used to convey the data plane protocol
   chosen by the policy.

   This check is about 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 functional data plane
      path to the next-hop in a particular data plane protocol.

   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.



. Conclusions

   Both amendments discussed in section 2 provide further clarity and
   granularity to help the BGP speaker to either continue to advertise a


Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 4]

 
Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria      August 28, 2009


   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.

   The intention of this document is to help operators to build BGP
   networks that can avoid self-blackholing.



. Security Considerations

   This draft doesn't impose any additional security constraints.

. IANA Considerations

   None.

. 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 and Michael Benjamin, who made
   the case to revive this document and provided useful feedback. Also
   thanks to Keyur Patel for his feedback.

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



. Appendix

8.1. 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-
   hop).

   The following MPLS/VPN topology clarifies the problem -


Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 5]

 
Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria      August 28, 2009






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

        CE1~~~~~~~~~PE1~~~MPLS Network~~~PE2~~~~~~~~CE2~~
                                                        ^
                      ======PE1-PE2 LSP==>              ^
                                                        ^
                                                    a.b.c.d

                         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.



8.1.1. 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.













Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 6]

 
Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria      August 28, 2009



                      <------MP-BGP------>

        CE1~~~~~~~~~PE1~~~MPLS Network~~~PE2~~~~~~~~CE2~~
                             \                      /   ^
                              \~~~~~~~~~~PE3~~~~~~~/    ^
                                                        ^
                                                    a.b.c.d


                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.



8.1.2. 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).




                      <------MP-BGP------>

        CE1~~~~~~~~~PE1~~~MPLS Network~~~PE2~~~~~~~~CE2~~
          \                                         /   ^
           \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~backup path~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/    ^
                                                        ^
                                                    a.b.c.d

           Figure 3 MPLS VPN Network - CE1-CE2 Backup connection






Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 7]

 
Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria      August 28, 2009


   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
   PE.



8.1.3. 6PE or 6VPE

   This problem is very much applicable to the MPLS network that is
   providing either 6PE [RFC4978] or 6VPE [] service to transport IPv6
   packets over the MPLS network.



. References

9.1. 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



9.2. Informative References

   [RFC3031] Rosen, et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
             Architecture", RFC3031, Jan 2001.

   [RFC5512] Rosen, E., Mohapatra, P., "BGP Encapsulation SAFI and BGP
             Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC5512, April 2009.

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



Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 8]

 
Internet-Draft     BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria      August 28, 2009


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

   [RFC4978] De Clercq, et al., "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS
             Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers", RFC4978, Feb 2007.

   [RFC4659] De Clercq, et al., "BGP-MPLS IP VPN Extension for IPv6
             VPN", RFC4659, Sep 2006.





Author's Addresses

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





























Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 9]