BGP FLEX
draft-bgp-flex-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | ZOUNDI Bonaventure | ||
| Last updated | 2026-02-12 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-bgp-flex-00
Internet Engineering Task Force ZB. ZOUNDI, Ed.
Internet-Draft 12 February 2026
Intended status: Informational
Expires: 16 August 2026
BGP FLEX
draft-bgp-flex-00
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is a very important protocol in the
Internet to exchange routing information between network domains.
BGP populates the routing table with valid routes, sometimes the
routes populated by BGP are not the best choices specially when a ISP
provides IP Transit service to an other ISP, and the two ISP are
peering at an Internet Exchange Point.
Let us assume that ISP A provides IP Transit to ISP B, and the two
are peering at an Internet Exchange Point.
The return traffic from Internet to ISP B via ISP A will be routed
over the Internet Exchange Point instead of the IP Transit link
between the two ISP, because of BGP Local preference which has
usually a higher value on Internet Exchange links.
This will lead to an issue because the return traffic IP Transit
service is now passing over the Internet Exchange link.
An other issue faced in Internet Exchange Point, is the sub-optimal
routing caused by the advertisment of the most specific routes over
Internet by ISP.
Let us assume that ISP A wants to advertise most specific routes to
Internet for traffic Engineering, the peers of ISP A at the Internet
Exchange Point could also receive the most specific routes over
Internet .
This will mean that traffic from the peers of ISP A towards ISP A
will now go through Internet because of most specific routes which is
not suppposed to be the case.
To solve that ISP A will have to send the same specific routes over
the Internet Exchange Point which will increase complexity.
This document provides aletrnative solutions that can be used to
solve the above problems
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
ZOUNDI Expires 16 August 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title February 2026
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 16 August 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. BGP Flex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. BGP Flex Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. BGP Local Source IP (BLSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. BGP Remote Source IP (BRSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. BGP Remote Peer IP (BRPI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.4. Source IP Router Advertiser (SIRA) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Routing mode in BGP Flex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
ZOUNDI Expires 16 August 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title February 2026
1. Introduction
In the past years BGP has been operating by relying on the same route
table for Internet Exchange and Internet prefixes.
As explained above there are issues caused by this BGP behaviour.
To solve these issues, we would like to propose protocol based on BGP
called BGP Flex. BGP Flex will create two different routing tables
like VRF concepts.
One route table will be populated with prefixes received over
Internet Exchange links and the other one with prefixes received over
Internet. The decision to use a particular route table will depend
on some criterias that will be discussed in this document.
2. Terminology
2.1. Acronyms
1. IX : Internet Exchange
2. IXP : Internet Exchange Point
3. BLSI : BGP Local Source IP
4. BRSI : BGP Remote Source IP
5. SIRA : Source IP Router Advertiser
6. BRPI : BGP Remote Peer IP
7. CISP : Customer ISP refers the ISP buying service from an other
ISP
8. SISP : Seller ISP refers to the ISP selling service to customer
ISP
3. BGP Flex
As explained in the introduction, the routing issues mentionned there
can be solved by BGP Flex.
BGP Flex is an extension of BGP that will create a dedicated IX route
table different from the default routing table.
When BGP will advertise the routes over the IX, these routes will be
marked as IX routes on the receiving router and will be inserted into
the IX route table.
The decision to choose a particular routing table will depend on the
classification of the packet.
This has been explained in the section 5 of this document.
ZOUNDI Expires 16 August 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title February 2026
The fact that IX route table is separated from Internet route table
will solve routing issues and the sub-optimal routing described in
abstract section, because each route table is independant of the
other.
In the next section, we will define the key concepts of BGP Flex
4. BGP Flex Concepts
4.1. BGP Local Source IP (BLSI)
The BLSI refer to the public IP owned by the ISP.
These IP are important as they determine how the packet will be
routed, the ISP should explicitily define the BLSI on at least one
router.
4.2. BGP Remote Source IP (BRSI)
In some situations the ISP announces other ISP public IP over the
IXP, in this situation, the main ISP needs to declare the other ISP
block as BGP Remote Source IP (BRSI).
This will make a difference between ISP own blocks and other ISP
public IP.
There are two ways to define the BRSI as stated below :
1. Static mode defined locally on the router from the SISP side
2. Dynamic mode by receiving via the IP routes from CISP via BGP
In the static mode, the BRSI are mapped to CISP BGP ASN.
In the dynamic mode, when the SISP receives the routes from CISP, the
SISP will flag the received routes as BRSI and maps the routes with
CISP BGP ASN.
4.3. BGP Remote Peer IP (BRPI)
These are the IP received from other peers at the IXP.
4.4. Source IP Router Advertiser (SIRA)
Up to now, we have seen how to define the BLSI and BRSI, but what if
they more routers in ISP core backbone ?
This is where the Source IP Router Advertiser (SIRA) plays a role,
the BLSI and BRSI will be configured on the SIRA which will advertise
the BLSI and BRSI to other routers in the ISP core backbone.
It is advisable to define at least two nodes as SIRA for redundancy
purpose.
ZOUNDI Expires 16 August 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title February 2026
BGP will be extended to support the advertisement of BLSI and BRSI.
Note that routes received by SIRA are not used for routing, they are
only used to identify the BLSI and BRSI required by BGP Flex for
routing.
5. Routing mode in BGP Flex
In this section, we will discuss how to classify a packet received by
a router.
For BGP Flex to know how to route the packets, BGP needs to classify
the packets.
There are two main categories : IX packets and Internet packets.
The IX packets refer to the IP packet with source IP from BLSI, BRSI
or BRPI described in the BGP Flex concepts section.
Any other packets will be treated as Internet packets.
If the packet is classified as IX then IX route table will be checked
first, if there is a match the packet is forwarded using the IX
routing table otherwise the packet will be routed based on the
Internet table .
If the packet is not classified as IX then the packet will be routed
based on the Internet route table, in this case only the Internet
routing table is checked.
To summarize if the packet is classified as IX packet, the routes
tables will be checked following an order (IX routing table first,
then Internet rouing table).
If the packet is not IX packet it is an Internet packet, in this case
only Internet routing table is used.
6. IANA Considerations
BGP Flex supports both IPv4 and IPV6, it will require two SAFI
1. specific SAFI to identify the Network Layer Reachability
Information (NLRI) exchanged via IX
2. specific SAFI to identify the BLSI and BRSI advertised by SIRA
7. Security Considerations
BGP Flex is an extension of BGP, so all security considerations for
BGP can be applied.
It also advisable to apply all best practices at an Internet Exchange
Point
8. References
8.1. Normative References
ZOUNDI Expires 16 August 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title February 2026
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
Author's Address
ZOUNDI Bonaventure (editor)
Abidjan
Côte d'Ivoire
Phone: +2250586757570
Email: zoundibona@yahoo.fr
ZOUNDI Expires 16 August 2026 [Page 6]