BGP Prefix Independent Convergence
draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-11

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (rtgwg WG)
Last updated 2020-02-10
Replaces draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd Yingzhen Qu
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh>, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra@cisco.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>
Network Working Group                                  A. Bashandy, Ed.
Internet Draft                                   Individual Contributor
Intended status: Informational                              C. Filsfils
Expires: August 2020                                      Cisco Systems
                                                           P. Mohapatra
                                                       Sproute Networks
                                                      February 10, 2020

                    BGP Prefix Independent Convergence
                      draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-11.txt

Abstract

In the network comprising thousands of iBGP peers exchanging millions
of routes, many routes are reachable via more than one next-hop.
Given the large scaling targets, it is desirable to restore traffic
after failure in a time period that does not depend on the number of
BGP prefixes. In this document we proposed an architecture by which
traffic can be re-routed to ECMP or pre-calculated backup paths in a
timeframe that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. The
objective is achieved through organizing the forwarding data
structures in a hierarchical manner and sharing forwarding elements
among the maximum possible number of routes. The proposed technique
achieves prefix independent convergence while ensuring incremental
deployment, complete automation, and zero management and provisioning
effort. It is noteworthy to mention that the benefits of BGP-PIC are
hinged on the existence of more than one path whether as ECMP or
primary-backup.

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), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

Bashandy              Expires August 10, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    BGP Prefix Independent Convergence      February 2020

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 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
   (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...................................................3
      1.1. Terminology...............................................3
   2. Overview.......................................................5
      2.1. Dependency................................................6
         2.1.1. Hierarchical Hardware FIB............................6
         2.1.2. Availability of more than one BGP next-hops..........6
      2.2. BGP-PIC Illustration......................................7
   3. Constructing the Shared Hierarchical Forwarding Chain..........9
      3.1. Constructing the BGP-PIC forwarding Chain.................9
      3.2. Example: Primary-Backup Path Scenario....................10
   4. Forwarding Behavior...........................................11
   5. Handling Platforms with Limited Levels of Hierarchy...........12
      5.1. Flattening the Forwarding Chain..........................12
      5.2. Example: Flattening a forwarding chain...................14
   6. Forwarding Chain Adjustment at a Failure......................21
      6.1. BGP-PIC core.............................................22
      6.2. BGP-PIC edge.............................................23
         6.2.1. Adjusting forwarding Chain in egress node failure...23
         6.2.2. Adjusting Forwarding Chain on PE-CE link Failure....23
      6.3. Handling Failures for Flattened Forwarding Chains........24
   7. Properties....................................................25
      7.1. Coverage.................................................25
         7.1.1. A remote failure on the path to a BGP next-hop......25
         7.1.2. A local failure on the path to a BGP next-hop.......25
Show full document text