BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-21

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (idr WG)
Last updated 2020-06-16
Replaces draft-raszuk-bgp-optimal-route-reflection
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG, Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
Document shepherd Susan Hares
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2019-06-10)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
IDR Working Group                                         R. Raszuk, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              Bloomberg LP
Intended status: Standards Track                               C. Cassar
Expires: December 18, 2020                                         Tesla
                                                                 E. Aman
                                                           Telia Company
                                                        B. Decraene, Ed.
                                                                  Orange
                                                                 K. Wang
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                           June 16, 2020

                 BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)
             draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-21

Abstract

   This document defines an extension to BGP route reflectors.  On route
   reflectors, BGP route selection is modified in order to choose the
   best path for their clients standpoint, rather than from the route
   reflectors standpoint.  Multiple type of granularity are proposed,
   from a per client BGP route selection or to a per peer group,
   depending on the scaling and precision requirements on route
   selection.  This solution is particularly applicable in deployments
   using centralized route reflectors, where choosing the best route
   based on the Route Reflector IGP location is suboptimal.  This
   facilitates, for example, best exit point policy (hot potato
   routing).

   The solution relies upon all route reflectors learning all paths
   which are eligible for consideration.  Best path selection is
   performed in each route reflector based on the IGP cost from a
   selected location in the link state IGP.

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 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

Raszuk, et al.          Expires December 18, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        bgp-optimal-route-reflection             June 2020

   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 December 18, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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 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.  Definitions of Terms Used in This Memo  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Modifications to BGP Best Path selection  . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  IGP Based Best Path Selection from a different SPT root .   6
       3.1.1.  Restriction when BGP next hop is BGP prefix . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Best Path Selections granularity  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Solution Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  IGP and policy based optimal route refresh  . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Add-paths plus IGP and policy optimal route refresh . . .   8
     4.3.  Likely Deployments and need for backup  . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  CPU and Memory Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Advantages and Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Appendix: alternative solutions with limited
                applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
Show full document text