draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-09.txt   draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-10.txt 
Network Working Group D. Walton Network Working Group D. Walton
Internet Draft A. Retana Internet-Draft Cumulus Networks
Intended Status: Standards Track E. Chen Intended status: Standards Track A. Retana
Expiration Date: April 17, 2014 Cisco Systems Expires: April 27, 2015 E. Chen
Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Scudder J. Scudder
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
October 16, 2013 October 24, 2014
Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP
draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-10
draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-09.txt Abstract
Status of this Memo In this document we propose a BGP extension that allows the
advertisement of multiple paths for the same address prefix without
the new paths implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of
the extension is that each path is identified by a path identifier in
addition to the address prefix.
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2015.
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract Table of Contents
In this document we propose a BGP extension that allows the 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
advertisement of multiple paths for the same address prefix without 1.1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
the new paths implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of 2. How to Identify a Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
the extension is that each path is identified by a path identifier in 3. Extended NLRI Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
addition to the address prefix. 4. ADD-PATH Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The BGP specification [RFC4271] defines an "Update-Send Process" to The BGP specification [RFC4271] defines an "Update-Send Process" to
advertise the routes chosen by the Decision Process to other BGP advertise the routes chosen by the Decision Process to other BGP
speakers. No provisions are made to allow the advertisement of speakers. No provisions are made to allow the advertisement of
multiple paths for the same address prefix, or Network Layer multiple paths for the same address prefix, or Network Layer
Reachability Information (NLRI). In fact, a route with the same NLRI Reachability Information (NLRI). In fact, a route with the same NLRI
as a previously advertised route implicitly replaces the previous as a previously advertised route implicitly replaces the previous
advertisement. advertisement.
In this document we propose a BGP extension that allows the In this document we propose a BGP extension that allows the
advertisement of multiple paths for the same address prefix without advertisement of multiple paths for the same address prefix without
the new paths implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of the new paths implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of
the extension is that each path is identified by a path identifier in the extension is that each path is identified by a path identifier in
addition to the address prefix. addition to the address prefix.
1.1. Specification of Requirements 1.1. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. How to Identify a Path 2. How to Identify a Path
As defined in [RFC4271], a path refers to the information reported in As defined in [RFC4271], a path refers to the information reported in
the path attribute field of an UPDATE message. As the procedures the path attribute field of an UPDATE message. As the procedures
specified in [RFC4271] allow only the advertisement of one path for a specified in [RFC4271] allow only the advertisement of one path for a
particular address prefix, a path for an address prefix from a BGP particular address prefix, a path for an address prefix from a BGP
peer can be keyed on the address prefix. peer can be keyed on the address prefix.
In order for a BGP speaker to advertise multiple paths for the same In order for a BGP speaker to advertise multiple paths for the same
address prefix, a new identifier (termed "Path Identifier" hereafter) address prefix, a new identifier (termed "Path Identifier" hereafter)
needs to be introduced so that a particular path for an address needs to be introduced so that a particular path for an address
skipping to change at page 3, line 29 skipping to change at page 3, line 29
The assignment of the Path Identifier for a path by a BGP speaker is The assignment of the Path Identifier for a path by a BGP speaker is
purely a local matter. However, the Path Identifier MUST be assigned purely a local matter. However, the Path Identifier MUST be assigned
in such a way that the BGP speaker is able to use the (prefix, path in such a way that the BGP speaker is able to use the (prefix, path
identifier) to uniquely identify a path advertised to a neighbor. A identifier) to uniquely identify a path advertised to a neighbor. A
BGP speaker that re-advertises a route MUST generate its own Path BGP speaker that re-advertises a route MUST generate its own Path
Identifier to be associated with the re-advertised route. A BGP Identifier to be associated with the re-advertised route. A BGP
speaker that receives a route SHOULD NOT assume that the identifier speaker that receives a route SHOULD NOT assume that the identifier
carries any particular semantics; it SHOULD be treated as an opaque carries any particular semantics; it SHOULD be treated as an opaque
value. value.
3. Extended NLRI Encodings 3. Extended NLRI Encodings
In order to carry the Path Identifier in an UPDATE message, the In order to carry the Path Identifier in an UPDATE message, the
existing NLRI encodings are extended by prepending the Path existing NLRI encodings are extended by prepending the Path
Identifier field, which is of four-octets. Identifier field, which is of four-octets.
For example, the NLRI encodings specified in [RFC4271, RFC4760] are For example, the NLRI encodings specified in [RFC4271] and [RFC4760]
extended as the following: are extended as the following:
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| Path Identifier (4 octets) | | Path Identifier (4 octets) |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| Length (1 octet) | | Length (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| Prefix (variable) | | Prefix (variable) |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
and the NLRI encoding specified in [RFC3107] is extended as the and the NLRI encoding specified in [RFC3107] is extended as the
following: following:
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| Path Identifier (4 octets) | | Path Identifier (4 octets) |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| Length (1 octet) | | Length (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| Label (3 octets) | | Label (3 octets) |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| ... | | ... |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| Prefix (variable) | | Prefix (variable) |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
The usage of the extended NLRI encodings is specified in the The usage of the extended NLRI encodings is specified in the
Operation section. Operation section.
4. ADD-PATH Capability 4. ADD-PATH Capability
The ADD-PATH Capability is a new BGP capability [RFC5492]. The The ADD-PATH Capability is a new BGP capability [RFC5492]. The
Capability Code for this capability is specified in the IANA Capability Code for this capability is specified in the IANA
Considerations section of this document. The Capability Length field Considerations section of this document. The Capability Length field
of this capability is variable. The Capability Value field consists of this capability is variable. The Capability Value field consists
of one or more of the following tuples: of one or more of the following tuples:
+------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------+
| Address Family Identifier (2 octets) | | Address Family Identifier (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------+
| Subsequent Address Family Identifier (1 octet) | | Subsequent Address Family Identifier (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------+
| Send/Receive (1 octet) | | Send/Receive (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------+
The meaning and use of the fields are as follows: The meaning and use of the fields are as follows:
Address Family Identifier (AFI): Address Family Identifier (AFI):
This field is the same as the one used in [RFC4760]. This field is the same as the one used in [RFC4760].
Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI): Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI):
This field is the same as the one used in [RFC4760]. This field is the same as the one used in [RFC4760].
Send/Receive: Send/Receive:
This field indicates whether the sender is (a) willing to This field indicates whether the sender is (a) able to receive
receive multiple paths from its peer (value 1), (b) would multiple paths from its peer (value 1), (b) able to send
like to send multiple paths to its peer (value 2), or (c) multiple paths to its peer (value 2), or (c) both (value 3) for
both (value 3) for the <AFI, SAFI>. the <AFI, SAFI>.
5. Operation 5. Operation
The Path Identifier specified in the previous section can be used to The Path Identifier specified in the previous section can be used to
advertise multiple paths for the same address prefix without advertise multiple paths for the same address prefix without
subsequent advertisements replacing the previous ones. Apart from subsequent advertisements replacing the previous ones. Apart from
the fact that this is now possible, the route advertisement rules of the fact that this is now possible, the route advertisement rules of
[RFC4271] are not changed. In particular, a new advertisement for a [RFC4271] are not changed. In particular, a new advertisement for a
given address prefix and a given path identifier replaces a previous given address prefix and a given path identifier replaces a previous
advertisement for the given address prefix and the given path advertisement for the same address prefix and path identifier. If a
identifier. BGP speaker receives a message to withdraw a prefix with a path
identifier not seen before, it SHOULD silently ignore it.
A BGP speaker that is willing to receive multiple paths from its For a BGP speaker to be able to send multiple paths to its peer, that
peer, or would like to send multiple paths to its peer, SHOULD BGP speaker MUST advertise the ADD-PATH capability with the Send/
advertise the ADD-PATH Capability to the peer using BGP Capabilities Receive field set to either 2 or 3, and MUST receive from its peer
advertisement [RFC5492]. the ADD-PATH capability with the Send/Receive field set to either 1
or 3, for the corresponding <AFI, SAFI>.
A BGP speaker MUST follow the existing procedures in generating an A BGP speaker MUST follow the existing procedures in generating an
UPDATE message for a particular <AFI, SAFI> to a peer unless the BGP UPDATE message for a particular <AFI, SAFI> to a peer unless the BGP
speaker advertises the ADD-PATH Capability to the peer indicating its speaker advertises the ADD-PATH Capability to the peer indicating its
desire to send multiple paths for the <AFI, SAFI>, and also receives ability to send multiple paths for the <AFI, SAFI>, and also receives
the ADD-PATH Capability from the peer indicating its willingness to the ADD-PATH Capability from the peer indicating its ability to
receive multiple paths for the <AFI, SAFI>, in which case the speaker receive multiple paths for the <AFI, SAFI>, in which case the speaker
MUST generate a route update for the <AFI, SAFI> based on the MUST generate a route update for the <AFI, SAFI> based on the
combination of the address prefix and the Path Identifier, and use combination of the address prefix and the Path Identifier, and use
the extended NLRI encodings specified in this document. The peer the extended NLRI encodings specified in this document. The peer
SHALL act accordingly in processing an UPDATE message related to a SHALL act accordingly in processing an UPDATE message related to a
particular <AFI, SAFI>. particular <AFI, SAFI>.
A BGP speaker SHOULD include the bestpath when more than one path are A BGP speaker SHOULD include the bestpath when more than one path are
advertised to a neighbor unless the bestpath is a path received from advertised to a neighbor unless the bestpath is a path received from
that neighbor. that neighbor.
When deployed as a provider edge router or a peering router that
interacts with external neighbors, a BGP speaker usually advertises
at most one path to the internal neighbors in a network. In the case
the speaker is configured to advertise multiple paths to the internal
neighbors, it should include the Edge_Discriminator attribute defined
in [FAST-CONV] in order to make the route selection consistent inside
the network.
As the Path Identifiers are locally assigned, and may or may not be As the Path Identifiers are locally assigned, and may or may not be
persistent across a control plane restart of a BGP speaker, an persistent across a control plane restart of a BGP speaker, an
implementation SHOULD take special care so that the underlying implementation SHOULD take special care so that the underlying
forwarding plane of a "Receiving Speaker" as described in [RFC4724] forwarding plane of a "Receiving Speaker" as described in [RFC4724]
is not affected during the graceful restart of a BGP session. is not affected during the graceful restart of a BGP session.
6. Applications 6. Applications
The BGP extension specified in this document can be used by a BGP The BGP extension specified in this document can be used by a BGP
speaker to advertise multiple paths in certain applications. The speaker to advertise multiple paths in certain applications. The
availability of the additional paths can help reduce or eliminate availability of the additional paths can help reduce or eliminate
persistent route oscillations [RFC3345]. It can also help with persistent route oscillations [RFC3345]. It can also help with
optimal routing and routing convergence in a network. The optimal routing and routing convergence in a network. The
applications are detailed in separate documents. applications are detailed in separate documents.
7. Deployment Considerations 7. Deployment Considerations
The extension proposed in this document provides a mechanism for a The extension proposed in this document provides a mechanism for a
BGP speaker to advertise multiple paths over a BGP session. Care BGP speaker to advertise multiple paths over a BGP session. Care
needs to be taken in its deployment to ensure consistent routing and needs to be taken in its deployment to ensure consistent routing and
forwarding in a network, the details of which will be described in forwarding in a network, the details of which will be described in
separate application documents. separate application documents.
8. IANA Considerations When deployed as a provider edge router or a peering router that
interacts with external neighbors, a BGP speaker usually advertises
at most one path to the internal neighbors in a network. In the case
the speaker is configured to advertise multiple paths to the internal
neighbors, and additional information is needed for the application,
the speaker could use attributes such as the Edge_Discriminator
attribute [I-D.pmohapat-idr-fast-conn-restore]. The use of that type
of additional information is outside the scope of this document.
8. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned capability number 69 for the ADD-PATH Capability IANA has assigned capability number 69 for the ADD-PATH Capability
described in this document. This registration is in the BGP described in this document. This registration is in the BGP
Capability Codes registry. Capability Codes registry.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security concerns to BGP or other This document introduces no new security concerns to BGP or other
specifications referenced in this document. specifications referenced in this document.
10. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank David Cook and Naiming Shen for their We would like to thank David Cook and Naiming Shen for their
contributions to the design and development of the extension. contributions to the design and development of the extension.
Many people have made valuable comments and suggestions, including Many people have made valuable comments and suggestions, including
Rex Fernando, Eugene Kim, Danny McPherson, Dave Meyer, Pradosh Rex Fernando, Eugene Kim, Danny McPherson, Dave Meyer, Pradosh
Mohapatra, Keyur Patel, Robert Raszuk, Eric Rosen, Srihari Sangli, Mohapatra, Keyur Patel, Robert Raszuk, Eric Rosen, Srihari Sangli,
Dan Tappan, and Mark Turner. Dan Tappan, Mark Turner, Jeff Haas and Jay Borkenhagen.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., T. Li, and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)," RFC 4271, January 2006. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement [RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009. BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Rekhter, Y., and D. Katz, [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January 2007. Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, R. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
BGP-4," RFC 3107, May 2001. "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January
2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009.
[RFC4724] Sangli, S., E. Chen, R. Fernando, J. Scudder, and Y. 11.2. Informative References
Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724, January
2007.
[FAST-CONV] Mohapatra, P., R. Fernando, C. Filsfils, R. Raszuk, "Fast [I-D.pmohapat-idr-fast-conn-restore]
Connectivity Restoration Using BGP Add-path", Work in Progress, March Mohapatra, P., Fernando, R., Filsfils, C., and R. Raszuk,
2011. "Fast Connectivity Restoration Using BGP Add-path", draft-
pmohapat-idr-fast-conn-restore-03 (work in progress),
January 2013.
11.2. Informative References [RFC3345] McPherson, D., Gill, V., Walton, D., and A. Retana,
"Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Persistent Route
Oscillation Condition", RFC 3345, August 2002.
[RFC3345] McPherson, D., V. Gill, D. Walton, and A. Retana, "Border [RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
Gateway Protocol (BGP) Persistent Route Oscillation Condition", RFC Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
3345, August 2002. January 2007.
12. Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Daniel Walton Daniel Walton
Cumulus Networks
185 E. Dana Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
US
Email: dwalton76@gmail.com Email: dwalton@cumulusnetworks.com
Alvaro Retana Alvaro Retana
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Rd. Kit Creek Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Email: aretana@cisco.com US
Email: aretana@cisco.com
Enke Chen Enke Chen
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Dr. 170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: enkechen@cisco.com Email: enkechen@cisco.com
John Scudder John Scudder
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: jgs@juniper.net Email: jgs@juniper.net
 End of changes. 58 change blocks. 
121 lines changed or deleted 148 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/