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

Versions: (draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd) 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                            R. Bush
Internet-Draft                                 Internet Initiative Japan
Intended status: Standards Track                                 J. Haas
Expires: September 12, 2017                                   J. Scudder
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                               A. Nipper
                                                            T. King, Ed.
                                                  DE-CIX Management GmbH
                                                          March 11, 2017


        Making Route Servers Aware of Data Link Failures at IXPs
                        draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02

Abstract

   When route servers are used, the data plane is not congruent with the
   control plane.  Therefore, the peers on the Internet exchange can
   lose data connectivity without the control plane being aware of it,
   and packets are dropped on the floor.  This document proposes the use
   of BFD between the two peering routers to detect a data plane
   failure, and then uses a newly defined BGP SAFI to signal the state
   of the data link to the route server(s).

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to
   be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] only when they appear in all
   upper case.  They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English
   words, without normative meaning.

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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2017.



Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Mutual Discovery of Route Server Client Next-Hops . . . .   3
     2.2.  Tracking Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Advertising Client Router Connectivity to the Route Server  .   5
   4.  Advertising NHIB state in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Using the RS-Reachable SAFI to carry NHIB state . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Specific Procedures for Route Server Clients  . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  The RS-Reachable Control Extended Community . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Processing NHIB State Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Route Server Client Procedures for NHIB Changes . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Route Server Procedures for NHIB Changes  . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Utilizing Next Hop Unreachability Information at Client
       Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Recommendations for Using BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Bootstrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Other Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Summary of Adj-NHIB-In state . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix B.  Summary of Document Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   In configurations (typically Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)) where
   EBGP routing information is exchanged between client routers through
   the agency of a route server [RFC7947], but traffic is exchanged



Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


   directly, operational issues can arise when partial data plane
   connectivity exists among the route server client routers.  Since the
   data plane is not congruent with the control plane, the client
   routers on the IXP can lose data connectivity without the control
   plane - the route server - being aware of it, resulting in
   significant data loss.

   To remedy this, two basic problems need to be solved:

   1.  Client routers must have a means of verifying connectivity
       amongst themselves, and
   2.  Client routers must have a means of communicating the knowledge
       of the failure back to the route server.

   The first can be solved by application of Bidirectional Forwarding
   Detection [RFC5880].  The second can be solved by exchanging BGP
   routes which use the RS-Reachable SAFI defined in this document.

   Throughout this document, we generally assume that the route server
   being discussed is able to represent different RIBs towards different
   clients, as discussed in section 2.3.2.1.  [RFC7947].  These
   procedures (other than the use of BFD to track next hop reachability)
   have limited value if this is not the case.

2.  Operation

   Below, we detail procedures where a route server tells its client
   routers about other client nexthops by sending it RS-Reachable
   routes, the client router verifies connectivity to those other client
   routers using BFD and communicates its findings back to the route
   server using RS-Reachable routes.  The route server uses the received
   routes with RS-Reachable SAFI as input to the route selection process
   it performs on behalf of the client.

2.1.  Mutual Discovery of Route Server Client Next-Hops

   Strictly speaking, a route server client does not need to know of
   other control-plane clients.  For validation purposes, it only needs
   to know the set of next hops the route server might choose to send to
   it; i.e., to know all potential forwarding plane relationships.

   This requirement amounts to knowing the BGP next hops the route
   server is aware of for the particular per-client Loc-RIB (see section
   2.3.2.1.  [RFC7947]).  We introduce a new table for each client to
   store known next hops, their compatibility with this proposed
   solution and their learned reachability.  We call these tables per-
   client Next Hop Information Base (NHIB).  The NHIB is communicated to
   the Route Server using RS-Reachable routes.



Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


   +--------------------------------------------------------+
   |                     +------------+                     |
   |                     |    Per-    |                     |
   |          .---------->   Client   |----------.          |
   |          |          |    NHIB    |          |          |
   |          |          +------------+          |          |
   |   +------+-----+                      +-----v------+   |
   |   |Adj-NHIB-In |                      |Adj-NHIB-Out|   |
   |   +------^-----+     Route Server     +-----+------+   |
   +----------|----------------------------------|----------+
              |                                  |
              |                                  |
              |                                  |
              |                                  |
   +----------|----------------------------------|----------+
   |   +------+-----+       RS Client      +-----v------+   |
   |   |Adj-NHIB-Out|                      |Adj-NHIB-In |   |
   |   +------^-----+                      +-----+------+   |
   |          |          +------------+          |          |
   |          |          |            |          |          |
   |          `----------+    NHIB    <----------'          |
   |                     |            |                     |
   |                     +------------+                     |
   +--------------------------------------------------------+

      Figure 1: Route Server, RS Client, and NHIBs with In/Out Queues

   The NHIB is not large; the set of routers in the ASs the client has
   asked the RS to maintain in its view.

   At the route server, the Adj-NHIB-Out for each client is populated
   with the next hops from its Loc-RIB.  If the BGP capabilities learned
   during BGP session setup identify a next hop as compatible with this
   proposal, this is reflected in the NHIB.  Initially, it is assumed
   that the client router is able to reach its next hops which is stored
   in the NHIB.  If a next hop is added to the NHIB for a particular
   client, a route SHOULD be added to the router server's Adj-NHIB-Out.

   A route server client SHOULD use BFD [RFC5880] (or other means beyond
   the scope of this document) to track forwarding plane connectivity to
   each next hop in its NHIB as received from the RS's Adj-NHIB-Out.

2.2.  Tracking Connectivity

   For each next hop in the NHIB received from the route server (called
   Adj-NHIB-In), the client router SHOULD use some means to confirm that
   data plane connectivity exists to that next hop.  Here we assume BFD.




Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


   The client router maintains its own NHIB in order to keep track of
   its (potential) next hops and their reachability.  The NHIB is
   updated according to the Adj-NHIB-In and client routers own tests to
   verify connectivity to next hops.

   For each next hop in the Adj-NHIB-In received from the route server,
   the client router SHOULD attempt to establish a BFD session if one is
   not already established, and track the reachability of this next hop.

   For each nexthop that is determined to be reachable, an entry should
   be added in the client router's Adj-NHIB-Out to be advertised to the
   route server.  Similarly, when that nexthop is determined to no
   longer be reachable, the entry should be removed from the client
   router's Adj-NHIB-Out.  This may also be done as a result of policy
   even if connectivity exists.

   If the client can not establish a BFD session with an entry in its
   NHIB, the next hop is put it in the Adj-NHIB-Out for backward
   compatibility.

   If the test of connectivity between one client router and another
   client router fails, the client router detecting this failure should
   perform the connectivity test for a configurable amount of time,
   preferably 24 hours.  If during this time no connectivity can be
   restored no more testing is performed until manually changed or the
   client router is rebooted.

3.  Advertising Client Router Connectivity to the Route Server

   As discussed above, a client router will advertise its Adj-NHIB-Out
   to the route server.  The route server SHOULD update the reachability
   information of next hops in the client's NHIB table accordingly.
   Furthermore, the route server SHOULD use reachability information
   from the NHIB as input to its own decision process when computing the
   Adj-RIB-Out for this client.  This client-dependent Adj-RIB-Out is
   then advertised to this client.  In particular, the route server MUST
   exclude any routes whose next hops the client has declared to be not
   reachable.

4.  Advertising NHIB state in BGP

   Two distinct pieces of per-peer state have been identified in the
   sections above:

   o  The set of next-hops for BGP routes received from the BGP speaker,
      the Adj-NHIB-In.
   o  The set of next-hops the BGP speaker is advertising as reachable,
      i.e., has potential connectivity to, the Adj-NHIB-Out.



Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


4.1.  Using the RS-Reachable SAFI to carry NHIB state

   A new BGP SAFI, the RS-Reachable SAFI, is defined in this document.
   It has been assigned a value TBD.  A route server or a route server
   client using the procedures in this document negotiate the RS-
   Reachable SAFI for the IPv4 and/or IPv6 AFIs to carry NHIB entries.

   NHIB entries are exchanged as host routes using the NLRI format
   described in [RFC4271], section 4.3.  If a NHIB entry for a given AFI
   is received with an inappropriate prefix length, that NLRI MUST BE
   ignored.

   NHIB entries MUST NOT be propagated from one BGP peering session to
   another; the routes are not transitive.  To help enforce this
   expected behavior, RS-Reachable routes MUST carry the NO_ADVERTISE
   community [RFC1997].  RS-Reachable routes not carrying this community
   MUST BE ignored.

   If a NHIB entry is received from a BGP speaker and that entry is not
   part of the sub-network for that BGP session, that NLRI MUST BE
   ignored.  This prevents erroneous BFD peering session being
   provisioned outside of the IXP network.

4.2.  Specific Procedures for Route Server Clients

   A route server SHALL always create an entry in its Adj-NHIB-Out for
   its clients that are peering with each other through the route
   server, even if a next hop has not been received for this client.
   This self-originated entry permits BFD sessions at the clients to be
   provisioned even if the route exchange via the route server is
   asymmetric and one router sends routes to the second router in the
   route server view but not vice versa.

   Route server clients are considered to be peering with each other if
   the configuration of the route server permits routes from a given
   pair of peers to be mutually exchanged through the route server.

4.3.  The RS-Reachable Control Extended Community

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      0x43     | Sub-Type TBD1 |    Reserved (Must be Zero)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Reserved (Must be Zero)   |            Flags            |F|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


   The RS-Reachable Control Extended Community is used to signal
   additional information in RS-Reachable NLRI.  Currently, a two-octet
   flag field is utilized for Flags.  The remainder of the extended
   community is currently reserved and its contents MUST be set to zero
   when originated and SHOULD be ignored upon receipt.

   A single flag is currently reserved in this proposal:

      F: Flush received NHIB state.

5.  Processing NHIB State Changes

5.1.  Route Server Client Procedures for NHIB Changes

   When entries are added to the a route server client's Adj-NHIB-In for
   a route server peering session, it will then attempt to verify
   connectivity to the BGP nexthop for that entry.  The procedure
   described in this specification utilizes BFD; other mechanisms are
   permitted but are out of scope of this document.

   If no existing BFD session exists to this nexthop, a BFD session is
   provisioned to that IP address and the Adj-NHIB-In (In?)  Reachable
   state is set to Unknown.  Since this session requires the remote BFD
   session to also be provisioned, it may stay in the Down/AdminDown
   state for a period of time.

   If the client can not establish a BFD session with an entry in its
   NHIB, the next hop is put it in the Adj-NHIB-Out as Reachable for
   backward compatibility.

   Once the BFD session moves to the Up state, the Adj-NHIB-In Reachable
   state is set to Up.  This NHIB entry is now eligible to be placed in
   Adj-NHIB-Out table and distributed according to the procedures above.
   Additionally, local BGP route selection may be impacted by this
   state.  See Section 6.

   When the BFD session transitions out of the Up state to the Down
   state, the Adj-NHIB-In Reachable state is set to Down.  The NHIB
   entry MUST be removed from the Adj-NHIB-Out table.  This informs the
   route server that the next hop is no longer reachable.

   If the BFD session transitions out of the Up state to the AdminDown
   state, the Adj-NHIB-In Reachable state is set to AdminDown.  During
   this transition, the NHIB entry is not be removed from the Adj-NHIB-
   Out table.  Instead, the RS-Reachable Extended Community is added to
   the route with the F (flush) bit set.  This signals the route server
   should remove cached state for this entry.




Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


   The motivation for this behavior is that AdminDown could imply one of
   two possible circumstances:

   o  The local BFD session has been deconfigured and BFD validation is
      no longer possible.  While the nexthop may still be usable, it is
      no longer able to be determined using BFD whether that can happen.
      Removing the entry from the Adj-NHIB-Out will inform the route
      server that the next hop is no longer reachable and may adversely
      impact the route server's view supplied to that route server
      client.
   o  The remote BFD session has been deconfigured with similar impact.

   An implementation of these procedures MUST provide an administrative
   mechanism to clear such AdminDown entries from the Adj-NHIB-Out
   table.

   When entries are removed from the route server client's Adj-NHIB-In
   for a route server peering session, the client MAY delay de-
   provisioning the BFD peering session.  If the client delays de-
   provisioning the session, it should remove it if the BFD session
   transitions to the Down or AdminDown states.  The client should
   remove the entry from its Adj-NHIB-Out table regardless of the state
   of the BFD session.

5.2.  Route Server Procedures for NHIB Changes

   A route server is tracking two distinct types of next hop state for
   its clients:

   o  The BGP next hops received from those clients' BGP routes.
   o  The Adj-NHIB-Out state from each client representing next hops to
      which the clients believe they have connectivity.

   The route-server will place the collection of received BGP next hops
   from its clients into its per client Adj-NHIB-Out tables when at
   least one of the route server peers that supports this procedure has
   negotiated the RS-Reachable SAFI.  It will then advertise them per
   the procedures above.  This informs the route server clients of the
   available BGP nexthops visible to the route server supporting this
   feature.

   In the event that a given client that supports this feature does not
   provide any routes containing BGP next hops that would be used to
   populate an Adj-NHIB-Out entry, the route server SHOULD advertise an
   entry for such a router using the provided self-originated entry.
   This permits the provisioning of BFD peering sessions for continuity
   check when route exchange via the route server is asymmetric and one
   client has routes from a second client, but not vice-versa.



Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


   A route server will not generally delete NHIB entries learned in its
   per client Adj-NHIB-In table when processing a withdraw from the
   route server client.  It derives the following information from the
   presence and state, or absence, of an entry:

   o  When an NHIB entry is present, it means that the route server
      client has noted the BGP next hop from the route server and has
      validated connectivity to it.  Such an entry has the Received
      state of Active.
   o  When an entry is withdrawn but was previously present, it means
      that the route server client previously had validated connectivity
      to that next hop and NO LONGER has connectivity to it.  Such an
      entry has the Received state of Cached.  The route server may
      choose to adjust what routes are present in that client's view
      (Adj-Rib-Out) based on that information according to local
      capability and configuration.
   o  When an entry is missing, i.e. never has been seen, the route
      server can't derive any information about the reachability of a
      given next hop from the perspective of the route server client.
      The route server SHOULD NOT negatively bias the client's view
      according to this information.

   However, if the route server receives an NHIB entry with the F
   (flush) bit set the RS-Reachable Control Extended Community, it will
   remove the entry from the Adj-NHIB-In table for that peer.
   Similarly, if the entry is being removed because the peering session
   with the client has closed, entries will also be removed.

6.  Utilizing Next Hop Unreachability Information at Client Routers

   A client router detecting an unreachable next hop signals this
   information to the route server as described above.  Also, it treats
   the routes as unresolvable as per section 9.1.2.1 [RFC4271] and
   proceeds with route selection as normal.

   Changes in nexthop reachability via the above should apply mechanisms
   to avoid unnecessary route flapping.  Such mechanisms exist in IGP
   implementations which should be applied to this scenario.

7.  Recommendations for Using BFD

   The RECOMMENDED way a client router can confirm the data plane
   connectivity to its next hops is available, is the use of BFD in
   asynchronous mode.  Echo mode MAY be used if both client routers
   running a BFD session support this.  The use of authentication in BFD
   is OPTIONAL as there is a certain level of trust between the
   operators of the client routers at a particular IXP.  If trust cannot
   be assumed, it is recommended to use pair-wise keys (how this can be



Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


   achieved is outside the scope of this document).  The ttl/hop limit
   values as described in section 5 [RFC5881] MUST be obeyed in order to
   shield BFD sessions against packets coming from outside the IXP.

   There is interdependence between the functions described in this
   document and BFD from an administrative point of view.  To streamline
   behaviour of different implementations the following are RECOMMENDED:

   o  If BFD is administratively shut down by the administrator of a
      client router then the functions described in this document MUST
      also be administratively shut down.
   o  If the administrator enables the functions described in this
      document on a client router then BFD MUST be automatically
      enabled.

   The following values of the BFD configuration of client routers (see
   section 6.8.1 [RFC5880]) are RECOMMENDED in order to allow fast
   detection of lost data plane connectivity:

   o  DesiredMinTxInterval: 1,000,000 (microseconds)
   o  RequiredMinRxInterval: 1,000,000 (microseconds)
   o  DetectMult: 3

   The configuration values above are a trade-off between fast detection
   of data plane connectivity and the load client routers must handle
   keeping up the BFD communication.  Selecting smaller
   DesiredMinTxInterval and RequiredMinRxInterval values generates
   excessive BFD packets, especially at larger IXPs with many hundreds
   of client routers.

   The configuration values above were chosen to accept brief
   interruptions in the data plane.  Otherwise, if a BFD session detects
   a brief data plane interruption to a particular client router, it
   will signal to the route server that it should remove routes from
   this client router and shortly thereafter to add the routes again.
   This is disruptive and computationally expensive on the route server.

   The configuration values above are also partially impacted by BGP
   advertisement time in reaction to events from BFD.  If the
   configuration values are selected so that BFD detects data plane
   interruptions faster than the BGP advertisement time, a data plane
   connectivity flap could be detected by BFD but the route server is
   not informed about it because BGP is not able to transport this
   information quickly enough.

   As discussed, finding good configuration values is hard, so a client
   router administrator MAY select more appropriate values to meet the
   special needs of a particular deployment.



Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


8.  Bootstrapping

   During route server start-up, it does not know anything about
   connectivity states between client routers.  So, the route server
   assumes optimistically that all client routers are able to reach each
   other unless told otherwise.

9.  Other Considerations

   For purposes of routing stability, implementations may wish to apply
   hysteresis ("holddown") to next hops that have transitioned from
   reachable to unreachable and back.

10.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate a value from the Subsequent Address
   Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters registry for this proposal.  Its
   Description in that registry shall bgp RS-Reachable with a Reference
   of this RFC.

   IANA is request to allocate a value from the Non-Transitive Opaque
   Extended Community Sub-Types registry.  Its Name will be "RS-
   Reachable Control Extended Community" with a Reference of this RFC.

11.  Security Considerations

   The mechanism in this document permits route server clients to
   influence the contents of the route server's Adj-Ribs-Out through its
   reports of NHIB state using the Rs-Reachable SAFI.  Since this state
   is per-client, if a route server client is able to inject Rs-
   Reachable routes for another route server's BGP session to a client,
   it can cause the route server to select different forwarding than
   otherwise expected.  This issue may be mitigated using transport
   security on its BGP session to route server clients.  See [RFC4272].

   Should route server clients provision the RS-Reachable SAFI amongst
   themselves, it would be an error but would have no undesired impact
   on forwarding.  It is incorrect provisioning for an IXP client which
   is using a Route Server to have a BGP session with another IXP
   client.  Should they negotiate the RS-Reachable SAFI and send RS-
   Reachable routes, this only serves to signal that BGP Speaker, when
   not operating as a route server, to attempt to set verify
   connectivity with the hosts in the received NLRI.  While this may
   potentially request a large number of sessions, the default BFD
   timers prevent excess packets from being sent from inappropriately
   provisioned sessions.





Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


   The reachability tests between route server clients themselves may be
   a target for attack.  Such attacks may include forcing a BFD session
   Down through injecting false BFD state.  A less likely attack
   includes forcing a BFD session to stay Up when its real state is
   Down.  These attacks may be mitigated using the BFD security
   mechanisms defined in [RFC5880].

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1997]  Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
              Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.

   [RFC5881]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5881, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5881>.

   [RFC7947]  Jasinska, E., Hilliard, N., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker,
              "Internet Exchange BGP Route Server", RFC 7947,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7947, September 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7947>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4272]  Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
              RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.







Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


Appendix A.  Summary of Adj-NHIB-In state

   The Adj-NHIB-In state is maintained per BGP peering session.  It
   consists of per-peer state and per-peer, per-nexthop state.

    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------+
    | Client Role                       | (Route-Server |            |
    |                                   |  Route-Server-Client       |
    +-----------------------------------+----------------------------+
                Fig. 1  Per-peer Adj-NHIB-In Table State


   +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
   | NextHop                   | <IPv4 Address | IPv6 Address         |
   +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
   | Reachable                 | (Unknown | Up | Down | AdminDown)    |
   +---------------------------+--------------------------------------+
                 Fig. 2  Per-peer, per-nexthop  Adj-NHIB-In State


Appendix B.  Summary of Document Changes

   idr-01 to idr-02:  Move from BGP-LS to RS-Reachable SAFI.  Lots of
     editorial changes.
   idr-00 to idr-01:  Add BGP Capability.  Move from NH-Cost to BGP-LS.
   ymbk-01 to idr-00:  No technical changes; adopted by IDR.
   ymbk-00 to ymbk-01:  Clarifications to BFD procedures.  Use BFD state
     as an input to BGP route selection.

Authors' Addresses

   Randy Bush
   Internet Initiative Japan
   5147 Crystal Springs
   Bainbridge Island, Washington  98110
   US

   Email: randy@psg.com


   Jeffrey Haas
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1133 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: jhaas@juniper.net




Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft Making RSes aware of IXP Data Link Failures    March 2017


   John G. Scudder
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1133 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: jgs@juniper.net


   Arnold Nipper
   DE-CIX Management GmbH
   Lichtstrasse 43i
   Cologne  50825
   Germany

   Email: arnold.nipper@de-cix.net


   Thomas King (editor)
   DE-CIX Management GmbH
   Lichtstrasse 43i
   Cologne  50825
   Germany

   Email: thomas.king@de-cix.net


























Bush, et al.           Expires September 12, 2017              [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/