BGP accept-own-nexthop community attribute
draft-agrewal-idr-accept-own-nexthop-00

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-04-22 (latest revision 2017-10-19)
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-agrewal-idr-accept-own-nexthop-00.txt

Abstract

Various Service chain techniques utilize a Controller to inject Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Virtual Private Network (VPN) routes to help steer traffic through a given path. The Controller does so by controlling how these VPN routes are imported into various Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) tables at routers along the desired path. A couple of such approaches are specified in [I-D.ietf-bess-service-chaining]. These approaches rely on the Controller modifying the Route Target (RT) list and next-hop of a VPN route received from a downstream router and redistributing these modified routes to upstream routers. This is done such that - o routes originated by an ingress VRF at the downstream router are imported into the egress VRF at the immediately preceding upstream router and o next-hop advertised to the upstream router is the address of the immediately succeeding downstream router. This forces the traffic to flow through a sequence of network functions creating a service chain. This works fine as long as the VRF importing the route received from the Controller is on a different router than the VRF that originally exported the route to the Controller. This is because BGP protocol [RFC4271] specifies that a router reject routes received with its own next-hop. This document proposes a new community the reception of which relaxes this particular rule in the BGP protocol standard and describes at least one way of how next-hops of such routes could be resolved.

Authors

Ashutosh Grewal (agrewal@juniper.net)
Nischal Sheth (nsheth@juniper.net)
Kaliraj Vairavakkalai (kaliraj@juniper.net)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)