Loop prevention for route import between protocols
draft-li-idr-inter-protocol-anti-loop-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Wenyan Li , Lili Wang | ||
| Last updated | 2023-09-05 (Latest revision 2023-03-04) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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 and IGP are commonly used network protocols during network construction. At the beginning of BGP protocol design, EBGP and IBGP loop prevention are considered. Similarly, the IGP protocol has a loop prevention mechanism. In actual deployment, some or even all routes of the two protocols are imported to each other. Route import causes the loss of the anti-loop attribute of the protocol. As a result, the anti-loop fails. This document provides a feasible solution to the above problems. Attribute information is added when routes are imported between protocols. The added attribute information can be advertised to neighboring neighbors through BGP peers or IGP peers. How the new attributes are advertised using IGP peers is beyond the scope of this article.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)