Equal-Cost Multipath Considerations for BGP
draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations-07
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Petr Lapukhov , Jeff Tantsura | ||
| Last updated | 2022-01-01 (Latest revision 2021-06-30) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) [RFC4271] employs tie-breaking logic to select a single best path among multiple paths available, known as BGP best path selection. At the same time, it has become a common practice to allow for "equal-cost multipath" (ECMP) selection and programming of multiple next-hops in routing tables. This document summarizes some common considerations for the ECMP logic when BGP is used as the routing protocol, with the intent of providing common reference for otherwise unstandardized set of features.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)