Making Route Servers Aware of Data Link Failures at IXPs
draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (idr WG)
Last updated 2015-07-01
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                            R. Bush
Internet-Draft                                 Internet Initiative Japan
Intended status: Standards Track                                 J. Haas
Expires: January 2, 2016                                      J. Scudder
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                               A. Nipper
                                                            T. King, Ed.
                                                  DE-CIX Management GmbH
                                                            July 1, 2015

        Making Route Servers Aware of Data Link Failures at IXPs
                        draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-00

Abstract

   When route servers are used, the data plane is not congruent with the
   control plane.  Therefore, the peers on the Internet exchange can
   lose data connectivity without the control plane being aware of it,
   and packets are dropped on the floor.  This document proposes the use
   of BFD between the two peering routers to detect a data plane
   failure, and then uses BGP next hop cost to signal the state of the
   data link to the route server(s).

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to
   be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] only when they appear in all
   upper case.  They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English
   words, without normative meaning.

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 2, 2016.

Bush, et al.             Expires January 2, 2016                [Page 1]
Internet-DraMaking Route Servers Aware of Data Link Failures   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
   2.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Mutual Discovery of Route Server Client Routers . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Tracking Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Advertising Client Router Connectivity to the Route Server  .   4
   4.  Utilizing Next Hop Unreachability Information at Client
       Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Recommendations for Using BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Bootstrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Other Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   In configurations (typically Internet exchanges) where EBGP routing
   information is exchanged between client routers through the agency of
   a route server [I-D.ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server], but traffic is
   exchanged directly, operational issues can arise when partial data
   plane connectivity exists among the route server client routers.
   This is because, as the data plane is not congruent with the control
   plane, the client routers on the Internet exchange can lose data
   connectivity without the control plane - the route server - being
   aware of it, and packets are dropped on the floor.

   To remedy this, two basic problems need to be solved:

   1.  Client routers must have a means of verifying connectivity
   amongst themselves, and

Bush, et al.             Expires January 2, 2016                [Page 2]
Internet-DraMaking Route Servers Aware of Data Link Failures   July 2015

   2.  Client routers must have a means of communicating the knowledge
Show full document text