BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-10

 
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (idr WG)
Last updated 2015-07-02
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd Susan Hares
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com.>
IDR Working Group                                              R. Raszuk
Internet-Draft                                             Mirantis Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                               C. Cassar
Expires: January 3, 2016                                   Cisco Systems
                                                                 E. Aman
                                                             TeliaSonera
                                                             B. Decraene
                                                            S. Litkowski
                                                                  Orange
                                                            July 2, 2015

                 BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)
             draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-10

Abstract

   This document proposes a solution for BGP route reflectors to
   facilitate the application of closest exit point policy (hot potato
   routing) without requiring further state or any new features to be
   placed on the RR clients.  This solution is primarily applicable in
   deployments using centralized route reflectors.

   The solution relies upon all route reflectors learning all paths
   which are eligible for consideration for hot potato routing.  Best
   path selection is performed in each route reflector based on a
   configured virtual location in the IGP.  The location can be the same
   for all clients or different per peer/update group or per neighbour.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   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 http://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 January 3, 2016.

Raszuk, et al.           Expires January 3, 2016                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        bgp-optimal-route-reflection             July 2015

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.2.  Existing/Alternative Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  CPU and Memory Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Advantages and Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   There are three types of BGP deployments within Autonomous Systems
   today: full mesh, confederations and route reflection.  BGP route
   reflection [RFC4456] is the most popular way to distribute BGP routes
   between BGP speakers belonging to the same Autonomous System.  In
   some situations, this method suffers from non-optimal path selection.

1.1.  Problem Statement

   [RFC4456] asserts that, because the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
   cost to a given point in the network will vary across routers, "the
   route reflection approach may not yield the same route selection
   result as that of the full IBGP mesh approach."  One practical
   implication of this assertion is that the deployment of route
Show full document text