@techreport{agrewal-idr-accept-own-nexthop-00, number = {draft-agrewal-idr-accept-own-nexthop-00}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-agrewal-idr-accept-own-nexthop/00/}, author = {Ashutosh Grewal and Nischal Sheth and Kaliraj Vairavakkalai}, title = {{BGP accept-own-nexthop community attribute}}, pagetotal = 7, year = 2017, month = oct, day = 19, 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.}, }