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

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-l3vpn-ibgp

Network Working Group                                            Marques
Internet-Draft                                                    Raszuk
Intended status: Experimental                                      Patel
Expires: September 4, 2010                                 Cisco Systems
                                                                  Kumaki
                                                                Yamagata
                                                        KDDI Corporation
                                                           March 3, 2010


                     Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol
                      draft-marques-l3vpn-ibgp-02

Abstract

   This document defines protocol extensions and procedures for BGP
   PE-CE router iteration in BGP/MPLS IP VPN [RFC4364] networks.  These
   have the objective of making the usage of the BGP/MPLS IP VPN
   transparent to the customer network, as far as routing information is
   concerned.

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   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 September 4, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


   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 BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  IP VPN network as a Route Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Path attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Carrying internal BGP routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Next-hop handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Exchanging routes between different VPN customer networks  . .  9
   7.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15



























Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


1.  Introduction

   In current deployments, when BGP is used as the PE-CE routing
   protocol, these peering sessions are typically configured as an
   external peering between the VPN provider AS and the customer network
   AS.  At each External BGP boundary, Path Attributes [RFC4271] are
   modified as per standard BGP rules.  This includes prepending the
   AS_PATH attribute with the autonomous system of the originating
   customer CE and the automomous system(s) of the provider edge
   router(s).

   In order for such routes not to be rejected by AS_PATH loop
   detection, a PE router advertising a route received from a remote PE,
   often remaps the customer network autonomous-system number to its
   own.  Otherwise the customer network can use different autonomous-
   system numbers at different sites or configure their CE routers to
   accept routes containing their own AS number.

   While this technique works well in situations where there are no BGP
   routing exchanges between the client network and other networks, it
   does have drawbacks for customer networks that use BGP internally for
   purposes other than interaction between CE and PE routers.

   In order to make the usage of BGP/MPLS VPN services as transparent as
   possible to any external interaction, it is desirable to define a
   mechanism by which PE-CE routers can exchange BGP routes by means
   other than external BGP.

   One can consider a BGP/MPLS VPN as a provider-managed backbone
   service interconnecting several customer-managed sites.  While this
   model is not universal it does constitute a good starting point.

   Independently of the presence of VPN service, networks which use an
   hierarchical design are typically modeled such that the top-level
   core or backbone participates in a full iBGP mesh which distributes
   routing information between sites via BGP route reflection [RFC4456]
   or confederations [RFC5065].  This will be our service model
   definition.













Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


2.  IP VPN network as a Route Server

   In a typical backbone/area hierarchical design, routers that attach
   an area (or site) to the core, use BGP route reflection (or
   confederations) to distribute routes between the top-level core iBGP
   mesh and the local area iBGP cluster.

   To provide equivalent functionality in a network using a provider
   provisioned backbone, one can consider the VPN network as the
   equivalent of an Internal BGP Route Server which multiplexes
   information from _N_ VPN attachment points.

   A route learned by any of the PEs in the IP VPN network, is available
   to all other PEs that import the Route Target used to identify the
   customer network.  This is conceptually equivalent to a centralized
   route server.

   In a PE router, PE received routes are not advertised back to other
   PEs.  It is this split horizon technique that prevents routing loops
   in an IP VPN environment.  This is also consistent with the behavior
   of a top level mesh of RRs.

   In order to complete the Route Server model, is necessary to be able
   to transparently carry the Internal BGP PATH attributes of customer
   network routes through the BGP/MPLS VPN core.  This is achieved by
   using a new BGP path attribute described bellow that allows the
   customer network attributes to be saved and restored at the BGP/MPLS
   VPN boundaries.

   When a route is advertised from PE to CE, if it is advertised as an
   iBGP route, the CE will not advertise it further unless it is itself
   configured as a Route Reflector (or has an external BGP session).
   This is a consequence of the default BGP behavior of not advertising
   iBGP routes back to iBGP peers.  This behavior is not modified.

   On a BGP/MPLS VPN PE, a CE-received route MUST be advertised to other
   VPN PEs that import the Route Targets which are associated with the
   route.  This is independent of whether the CE route has been received
   as an external or internal route.  However, a CE received route is
   not readvertised back to other CEs unless Route Reflection is
   explicitly configured.  This is the equivalent of disabling client to
   client reflection in BGP RR implementations.

   When reflection is configured on the PE router, with local CE routers
   as clients, there is no need to internally mesh multiple CEs that may
   exist in the site.

   This Route Server model can also be used to support a confederation



Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


   style abstraction to CE devices.  We choose not to describe in detail
   the procedures for that mode of operation, at this point.
   Confederations are considered to be less common than route reflection
   in enterprise environments.















































Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


3.  Path attributes

               --> push path attributes --> vrf-export --> 2547
     VRF route                                             PE-PE route
                                                           advertisement
              <--  pop path attributes <--  vrf-import <--

   The diagram above shows the BGP path attribute stack processing in
   relation to existing 2547 route processing procedures.  BGP path
   attributes received from a customer network are pushed into the
   stack, before adding the Export Route Targets to the BGP path
   attributes.  Conversely, the stack is poped after the Import Target
   processing step that identifies the VRF table in which a PE received
   route is accepted.

   When a PE received route is imported into a VRF, its IGP metric, as
   far as BGP path selection is concerned, should be the metric to the
   remote PE address, expressed in terms of the service provider metric
   domain.

   For the purposes of VRF route selection performed at the PE, between
   routes received from local CEs and remote PEs, VPN network IGP
   metrics should always be considered higher (thus least preferred)
   than local site metrics.

   When backdoor links are present, this would tend to direct the
   traffic between two sites through the backdoor link for BGP routes
   originated by a remote site.  However BGP already has policy
   mechanisms to address this type of situations such as the LOCAL_PREF
   attribute.

   When a given CE is connected to more than one PE, it will not
   advertise the route that it receives from a PE to another PE unless
   configured as a route reflector, due to the standard BGP route
   advertisement rules.

   When a CE reflects a PE received route to another PE, the fact that
   the original attributes of a route are preserved across the VPN
   network prevents the formation of routing loops due to mutual
   redistribution between the two networks.











Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


4.  Carrying internal BGP routes

   In order to carry the original BGP attributes of a route received
   from a CE, this document defines a new BGP path attribute:

      ATTR_SET (type code 128)

         ATTR_SET is an optional transitive attribute that carries a set
         of BGP path attributes.  An attribute set (ATTR_SET) can
         include any BGP attribute that can occur in a BGP UPDATE
         message, except the MP_REACH and MP_UNREACH attributes.

   This attribute is used by a PE router to store the original set of
   BGP attributes it receives from a CE.  When a PE router advertises a
   PE-received route to a CE, it will use the path attributes carried in
   the ATTR_SET attribute.

   In other words, the BGP Path Attributes are "pushed" into this stack
   like attribute when the route is received by the VPN network and
   "popped" when the route is advertised in the PE to CE direction.

   Using this mechanism isolates the customer network from the
   attributes used in the VPN network and vice versa.  Attributes as the
   route reflection cluster list attribute are segregated such that
   customer network cluster identifiers won't be considered by the VPN
   network route reflectors and vice-versa.

   The autonomous system number present in the ATTR_SET attribute is
   designed to prevent a route originating in a given autonomous-system
   iBGP to be leaked into a different autonomous-system, without proper
   AS_PATH manipulation.  It should contain the autonomous system of the
   customer network that originates the given set of attributes.

   The NEXT_HOP attribute SHOULD NOT be included in an ATTR_SET.

















Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


5.  Next-hop handling

   When BGP/MPLS VPNs are not in use, the NEXT_HOP attribute in iBGP
   routes carries the address of the border router advertising the route
   into the domain.

   An important component of BGP route selection is the IGP distance to
   the NEXT_HOP of the route.

   When a BGP/MPLS VPN service is used to provide interconnection
   between different sites, since the VPN network runs a different IGP
   domain, metrics between the VPN and customer networks are not
   comparable.

   However, the most important component of a metric is the inter-area
   metric, which is known to the VPN network.  The intra-area metric is
   typically negligible.

   The use of route reflection, for instance, requires metrics to be
   configured so that inter-cluster/area metrics are always greater than
   intra-cluster metrics.

   The approach taken by this document is to rewrite the NEXT_HOP
   attribute at the PE-CE boundary.  PE routers take into account the
   PE-PE IGP distance calculated by the VPN network IGP, when selecting
   between routes advertised from different PEs.

   An advantage of the proposed method is that the customer network can
   run independent IGPs at each site.






















Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


6.  Exchanging routes between different VPN customer networks

   A given VPN customer network SHOULD use internal or external BGP
   sessions consistently for peering sessions where the same autonomous
   system is used.

   In scenarios such as what is commonly referred to an "extranet" VPN,
   routes MAY be advertised to both internal and external VPN
   attachments, belonging to different autonomous systems.


                          +-----+                 +-----+
                          | PE1 |-----------------| PE2 |
                          +-----+                 +-----+
                         /       \                   |
                  +-----+         +-----+         +-----+
                  | CE1 |         | CE2 |         | CE3 |
                  +-----+         +-----+         +-----+
                    AS 1            AS 2            AS 1

   Consider the example given above where (PE1, CE1) and (PE2, CE3)
   sessions are iBGP.  In RFC2547 VPNs, a route received from CE1 above
   may be distributed to the VRFs corresponding to the attachment points
   for CEs 2 and 3.

   The desired result, in such a scenario is to present the internal
   peer (CE3) with a BGP advertisement that contains the same BGP Path
   Attributes received from CE1 and to the external peer (CE 2) a BGP
   advertisement that would correspond to a situation where AS 1 and 2
   have a external BGP session between them.

   It order to achieve this goal the following set of rules apply:

      When advertising an iBGP originated route to iBGP, a PE router
      MUST check that the autonomous-system contained in the ATTR_SET
      attribute matches the autonomous system of the CE to which the
      route is being advertised.

      In case the autonomous-systems do match, the route is advertised
      with the attributes contained in the ATTR_SET attribute.
      Otherwise, in the case of an autonomous-system mismatch, the set
      of attributes to be advertised to the CE in question shall be
      constructed as follows:

      1.  The path attributes are set to the attributes contained in the
          ATTR_SET attribute.





Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


      2.  Internal BGP specific attributes are discarded (LOCAL_PREF,
          ORIGINATOR, CLUSTER_LIST, etc).

      3.  The autonomous-system contained in the ATTR_SET attribute is
          prepended to the as-path following the rules that would apply
          to an external BGP peering between the source and destination
          ASes.

      4.  Internal BGP specific attributes corresponding to the
          configuration of destination AS (LOCAL_PREF) are added.

      When advertising an iBGP originated route to eBGP, a PE router
      shall apply steps 1 to 3 defined above and subsequently prepend
      its own autonomous-system number to the AS_PATH attribute (i.e.
      both the originator and VPN network as numbers are prepended).

      When advertising an eBGP originated route to iBGP, a PE router
      MUST prepend its own as number before adding iBGP only as-path
      attributes (LOCAL_PREF).

   In all cases where an iBGP originating route is processed, attributes
   present on the VPN route other than the NEXT_HOP attribute are
   ignored, both from the point of view of route selection in the VRF
   Adj-RIB-in and route advertisement to a CE router.



























Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


7.  Contributors


















































Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


8.  Security considerations

   It is worthwhile to consider the security implications of this
   proposal from two independent perspectives: the IP VPN provider and
   the IP VPN customer.

   From a IP VPN provider perspective, this mechanism will assure
   separation between the BGP path attributes advertised by the customer
   CE router and the BGP attributes used within the provider network,
   thus potentially improving security.

   Although this behavior is largely implementation dependent, currently
   it is possible for a CE device to inject BGP attributes (extended
   communities, for example) that have semantics on the IP VPN provider
   network, unless explicitly disabled by configuration in the PE.

   With the rules specified for the ATTR_SET path attribute, any
   attribute that has been received from a CE is pushed into the stack
   before the route is advertised out to other PEs.

   From the perspective of the VPN customer network, it is our opinion
   that there is no change to the security profile of PE-CE interaction.
   While having an iBGP session allows the PE to specify additional
   attributes not allowed on an eBGP session (e.g. local-pref), this
   does not significantly change the fact that the VPN customer must
   trust its service provider to provide it correct routing information.

























Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


9.  IANA considerations

   This document defines a new BGP path attribute which is part of a
   registry space managed by IANA.  We request that IANA update its
   registry with the value specified above (128) for the ATTR_SET path
   attribute.













































Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


10.  Normative References

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

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

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

   [RFC5065]  Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous
              System Confederations for BGP", RFC 5065, August 2007.





































Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol           March 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Pedro Marques
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Dr
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   Email: roque@cisco.com


   Robert Raszuk
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Dr
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   Email: raszuk@cisco.com


   Keyur Patel
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Dr
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   Email: keyupate@cisco.com


   Kenji Kumaki
   KDDI Corporation
   Garden Air Tower
   Iidabashi
   Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo  102-8460
   JAPAN

   Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com


   Tomohiro Yamagata
   KDDI Corporation
   Garden Air Tower
   Iidabashi
   Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo  102-8460
   JAPAN

   Email: to-yamagata@kddi.com




Marques, et al.         Expires September 4, 2010              [Page 15]


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