In this document, we introduce a new BGP capability termed "Long-
lived Graceful Restart Capability" so that stale routes can be
retained for a longer time upon session failure than is provided for
by BGP Graceful Restart (RFC 4724). A well-known BGP community
"LLGR_STALE" is introduced for marking stale routes retained for a
longer time. A second well-known BGP community, "NO_LLGR", is
introduced to mark routes for which these procedures should not be
applied. We also specify that such long-lived stale routes be
treated as the least-preferred, and their advertisements be limited
to BGP speakers that have advertised the new capability. Use of this
extension is not advisable in all cases, and we provide guidelines to
help determine if it is.
We update RFC 6368 by specifying that the LLGR_STALE community must
be propagated into, or out of, the path attributes exchanged between
PE and CE.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
While technical feedback from the working group was limited, there was broad consensus from the working group and no dissent on this document.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
Review, on what date was the request posted?
The document is an extension of a long-deployed extension, and all issues raised have been addressed by the authors.
There are also multiple implementations of this specific draft.
The Document Shepherd for this document is Jeffrey Haas. The Responsible
Area Director is Andrew Alston.