BGP accept-own-nexthop community attribute
draft-agrewal-idr-accept-own-nexthop-00
Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Ashutosh Grewal , Nischal Sheth , Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | ||
Last updated | 2018-04-22 (Latest revision 2017-10-19) | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
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
Nischal Sheth
Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)