[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-varlashkin-bgp-nh-cost) 00 01 02

Internet Engineering Task Force                            I. Varlashkin
Internet-Draft                                                    Google
Intended status: Standards Track                               R. Raszuk
Expires: November 16, 2015                                 Mirantis Inc.
                                                                K. Patel
                                                             M. Bhardwaj
                                                            S. Bayraktar
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            May 15, 2015


               Carrying next-hop cost information in BGP
                     draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost-02

Abstract

   BGPLS provides a mechanism by which Link state and traffic
   engineering information can be collected from internal networks and
   shared with external network routers using BGP.  BGPLS defines a new
   Address Family to exchange this information using BGP.

   BGP Optimal Route Reflection (ORR) provides a mechanism for a
   centralized BGP Route Reflector to acheive requirements of a Hot
   Potato Routing as described in Section 11 of [RFC4456].  Optimal
   Route Reflection requires BGP ORR to overwrite the default IGP
   location placement of the route reflector; which is used for
   determining cost to the nexthop contained in the path.

   This draft augments BGPLS and defines a new extensions to exchange
   cost information to next-hops for the purpose of calculating best
   path from a peer perspective rather than local BGP speaker own
   perspective.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."




Varlashkin, et al.      Expires November 16, 2015               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost               May 2015


   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 16, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  NEXT-HOP INFORMATION BASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  BGP Bestpath Selection Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  BGPLS Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  RIB Metrics Prefix Descriptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  RIB Protocol ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.3.  Information Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.4.  Termination of the session carrying next-hop cost . . . .   5
     4.5.  Graceful Restart and Route-Refresh  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Appendix A.  USAGE SCENARIOS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     A.1.  Trivial case  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     A.2.  Non-IGP based cost  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     A.3.  Multiple route-reflectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     A.4.  Inter-AS MPLS VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     A.5.  Corner case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   In a certain situation, route-reflector clients may not get optimum
   path to certain destinations.  ADDPATH solves this problem by letting
   route-reflector to advertise multiple paths for a given prefix.  If
   number of advertised paths are sufficiently big, route-reflector



Varlashkin, et al.      Expires November 16, 2015               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost               May 2015


   clients can choose same route as they would in case of full-mesh.
   This approach however places an additional burden on the control
   plane.  Solutions proposed by [BGP-ORR] use different approach -
   instead of calculating best path from the local speaker's own
   perspective the calculations are done using cost from the client to
   the next-hops.  Although they eliminate need for transmitting
   redundant routing information between peers, there are scenarios
   where cost to the next-hop cannot be obtained accurately using these
   methods.  For example, if next-hop information itself has been
   learned via BGP then simple SPF run on link-state database won't be
   sufficient to obtain cost information.  There are also scenarios
   where while a Route Reflector can reach its clients, the client to
   client connectivity MAY be down.

   BGPLS [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-orr] provides a mechanism by which Link state
   and traffic engineering information can be collected from internal
   networks and shared with external network routers using BGP.  BGPLS
   defines a new Address Family to exchange this information using BGP.

   To address such scenarios, this draft defines extensions to BGPLS to
   carry cost information of the next-hops.  In particular, this draft
   defines a new Protocol ID to announce a Router's IGP routes, and a
   Prefix Descriptor to carry the cost information of the IGP routes
   used towards resolving next-hops.

2.  NEXT-HOP INFORMATION BASE

   To facilitate further description of the proposed solution we
   introduce a new table for all known next-hops and costs to it from
   various routers on the network.

   Next-Hop Information Base (NHIB) stores cost to reach next-hop from
   an arbitrary router on the network.  This information is essential
   for choosing best path from a peer perspective rather than BGP-
   speaker own perspective.  In canonical form NHIB entry is triplet
   (router, next-hop, cost), however this specification does not impose
   any restriction on how BGP implementations store that information
   internally.  The cost in NHIB is does not have to be an IGP cost, but
   all costs in NHIB MUST be comparable with each other.

   NHIB can be populated from various sources including static routing
   and dynamic routing.  However, this document focuses on populating
   NHIB using BGP.

   An implementation implementing the BGP extension described in this
   draft MAY provide an operator-controlled configuration knob
   significant to an individual BGP speaker that treats next-hop cost
   information received from two or more clients as equivalent.  For



Varlashkin, et al.      Expires November 16, 2015               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost               May 2015


   example a route-reflector could receive next-hop cost only from R1
   but it will use it while calculating best-path also for R2, R3, Rn
   because it has been instructed to do so by locally-significant
   configuration.  Multiple sources can be used for redundancy purpose.

3.  BGP Bestpath Selection Modification

   This section applies regardless of method used to populate NHIB.

   When BGP speaker conforming to this specification selects routes to
   be advertised to a peer it SHOULD use cost information from NHIB
   rather than its own IGP cost to the next-hop after step (d) of
   9.1.2.2 in [RFC4271].

4.  BGPLS Extensions

4.1.  RIB Metrics Prefix Descriptor

   This draft defines a new Prefix Descriptor known as a Cost Prefix
   Descriptor with a TLV code point value to be assigned by IANA.  The
   Cost descriptor looks like:


   +--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+
   |   TLV Code   | Description           |  Length  | Value defined   |
   |    Point     |                       |          | in:             |
   +--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+
   |     TBD      | Cost                  | 4 bytes  | Cost Value      |
   +--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+

      Cost Value is a 4 byte Metric value computed by a Router's
      local RIB.


   The Cost value is a cost associated with a prefix by a Router.  The
   cost is typically computed by the routing procotols that owns a
   route.

4.2.  RIB Protocol ID

   This draft defines a new protocol ID for IPv4 and IPv6 Topology
   Prefix NLRI known as a RIB Protocol ID.  The RIB Protocol ID has a
   value to be assigned by IANA.  The Prefix NLRI with RIB Protocol ID
   is used to announce all the local and IGP computated routes that are
   installed in the RIB along with its Cost value.






Varlashkin, et al.      Expires November 16, 2015               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost               May 2015


4.3.  Information Exchange

   Typically BGPLS sessions will be established between route-reflectors
   and its internal peers (both clients and non-clients).  As soon as
   the BGPLS session is ESTABLISHED, all the RIB routes used to resolve
   next-hop cost and information about next-hop costs MAY be sent
   immediately by clients to its route-reflector.  Implementations are
   advised to announce BGP updates for this SAFI before any other SAFIs
   to facilitate faster convergence of other SAFIs on Route Reflectors.

   Each internal neighbor of a route-reflector announces its IGP RIB
   Prefix information and its RIB metrics to the Route Reflector using a
   BGPLS session and a new NLRI Protocol ID and RIB metric Prefix
   Descriptor.  Each neighbor updates Route Reflector with its IGP
   prefix cost everytime a cost to an IGP route changes.

   Upon a receipt of a BGPLS route and its associated cost, a Route
   Reflector stores the prefix, cost, and neighbor information in its
   local NHRIB database.  It then uses the received cost towards
   calculation of bestpath from the respective clients perpective as
   opposed to its own IGP cost.

4.4.  Termination of the session carrying next-hop cost

   When the BGPLS session carrying next-hop cost terminates (for
   whatever reason), the BGP speaker SHOULD invalidate all the next-hop
   cost information (i.e same treatment that applies to the next-hop
   cost as to any other BGP learned information).

4.5.  Graceful Restart and Route-Refresh

   BGPLS sessions carrying next-hop cost could use Graceful Restart
   [RFC4724] and Route Refresh [RFC7313] mechanisms in the same way as
   it's used for IPv4 and IPv6 unicast.

5.  Security considerations

   This document does not introduce new security considerations above
   and beyond those already specified in [RFC4271], [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-
   orr] and [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls].

6.  IANA Considerations

   This draft defines a new protocol id value for RIB Protocol ID.  This
   draft requests IANA to allocate a value for a RIB Protocol ID from
   BGPLS Protocol ID Registry.





Varlashkin, et al.      Expires November 16, 2015               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost               May 2015


   This draft defines a new RIB Metrics Prefix Descriptor value.  This
   draft request IANA to allocate a TLV code value for the new
   descriptor from the Prefix Descriptor registry.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge David Ward, Anton Elita,
   Nagendra Kumar and Burjiz Pithawala for their critical reviews and
   feedback.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection]
              Raszuk, R., Cassar, C., Aman, E., Decraene, B., and S.
              Litkowski, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)",
              draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-09 (work in
              progress), April 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
              Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
              Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
              Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10
              (work in progress), January 2015.

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

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

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

   [RFC4456]  Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
              Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
              (IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006.

   [RFC4724]  Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
              Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
              January 2007.

   [RFC4760]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January
              2007.

   [RFC7313]  Patel, K., Chen, E., and B. Venkatachalapathy, "Enhanced
              Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 7313, July 2014.



Varlashkin, et al.      Expires November 16, 2015               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost               May 2015


8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2918]  Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918,
              September 2000.

Appendix A.  USAGE SCENARIOS

A.1.  Trivial case

        --+---NetA---+--
          |          |
         r1          r2
          |          |
          R1--RR-----R2
          | \        |
          |  +------R4
          R3

   In this scenario r1 and r3 along with NetA are part of AS1; and R1-R4
   along with RR are in AS2.

   If RR implements non-optimized route-reflection, then it will choose
   path to NetA via R1 and advertise it to both R3 and R4.  Such choice
   is good from R3 perspective, but it results in suboptimal traffic
   flow from R4 to NetA.

   Using the proposed BGPLS extensions, the route-reflector will learn
   that cost from R4 to R1 is 8 whereas to R2 it's only 1.  RR will
   announce NetA to R4 with next-hop set to R2, while its announce to R3
   will still have R1 as next-hop.  Both R3 and R4 now will send traffic
   to NetA via closest exit, achieving same behaviour as if full iBGP
   mesh would have been configured.

A.2.  Non-IGP based cost

   When it's desirable to direct traffic over an exit other than the one
   with smallest IGP cost, BGPLS extensions can be used to convey cost
   which is not based on IGP.  For example, network operator may arrange
   exit points in order of administrative preference and configure
   routers to send this instead of IGP cost.  Route reflector then will
   then calculate best path based on administrative preference rather
   than IGP metrics.

   Network operators should excercise care to ensure that all routers up
   to and including exit point do not devert packets on to a different
   path, otherwise routing loops may occur.  One way to achieve this is
   to have consistent administrative preference among all routers.
   Another option is to use a tunneling mechanism (e.g.  MPLS-TE tunnel)



Varlashkin, et al.      Expires November 16, 2015               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost               May 2015


   between source and the exit point, provided that the router serving
   as exit point will send packets out of the network rather than
   diverting them to another exit point.

A.3.  Multiple route-reflectors

   This example demonstrates that BGPLS extensions are necessary only
   between routers that already exchange other AFI/SAFI.

                              |
   R1----R3---------R5----R7--+
         |           |        |
        RR1          |       NetA
         |          RR2       |
         |           |        |
   R2----R4---------R6----R8--+
                              |

   In the above network the routers R1-R4 are clients of RR1, and R5-R8
   are clients of RR2.  RR1 and RR2 also peer with each other and use
   ADDPATH.

   RR2 learns about NetA from R7 and R8.  Since it sends not just best-
   path but all prefixes to RR1, there is no need for RR2 to learn cost
   information from R1 and R2 towards R7 and R8.  On the other hand RR1
   does exchange cost information using BGPLS with R1 and R2 so that
   each of them can receive routes, which are best from their
   perspective.

   As addition to ADDPATH a mechanism could be devised that would allow
   RR2 to learn how many alternative routes does it need to send to RR1.
   For example, if NetA would also be connected to R9 (not shown) but
   all clients of RR1 prefer R7 as exit point and R9 as next-best, then
   there is no need for RR2 to send NetA routes with next-hop R8 to RR1.

   Discussion: authors would like to solicit discussion whether there is
   sufficient interest in such mechanism.

A.4.  Inter-AS MPLS VPN

   Previous example could be transposed to Inter-AS MPLS VPN Option C
   scenario.  In this case route reflectors RR1 and RR2 can be from
   different autonomous system.  Essentially the behaviour of routers
   remains as already described.







Varlashkin, et al.      Expires November 16, 2015               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost               May 2015


A.5.  Corner case

      --+---NetA--+--
        |         |
   RR---R1        R2
          \      /
           R3---R4

   In the above network cost from R3 to R1 is 10, all other costs are 1.
   If RR advertises NetA to R3 based on cost information received from
   R3, but uses its own cost when advertising NetA to R4, there will be
   a loop formed.  This is the reason why section "BGP best path
   selection modification" requires RR to have next-hop cost information
   for every next-hop and every peer.

   Note that the problem is the same as if RR would not use extensions
   described in this document and R3 would peer directly with R1 and R2,
   while R4 would peer only with RR.

Authors' Addresses

   Ilya Varlashkin
   Google

   Email: ilya@nobulus.com


   Robert Raszuk
   Mirantis Inc.
   615 National Ave. #100
   Mt View, CA  94043
   USA

   Email: robert@raszuk.net


   Keyur Patel
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95124  95134
   USA

   Email: keyupate@cisco.com








Varlashkin, et al.      Expires November 16, 2015               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost               May 2015


   Manish Bhardwaj
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95124  95134
   USA

   Email: manbhard@cisco.com


   Serpil Bayraktar
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95124  95134
   USA

   Email: serpil@cisco.com



































Varlashkin, et al.      Expires November 16, 2015              [Page 10]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/