BGP/MPLS Traffic Blackhole Avoidance
draft-asati-bgp-mpls-blackhole-avoidance-00
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Rajiv Asati | ||
| Last updated | 2007-02-26 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-asati-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria | |
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
In any BGP based MPLS network such as MPLS VPN [RFC4364], an ingress PE router would continue to attract traffic from the CE router by advertising the prefix reachability, even though the Label Switched Path (LSP) from the ingress PE router to the egress PE router may be broken. This causes the VPN traffic to be dropped inside the MPLS VPN network. This document proposes a framework to make BGP consider the MPLS path availability to the "NEXT_HOP" (i.e. egress PE router) during the BGP bestpath candidate selection process. This document also defines a local database for storing the MPLS path health information for one or more IP prefixes and its interaction with BGP.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)