BGP Multipath in Inter-AS Option-B
draft-mohanty-bess-mutipath-interas-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | satyamoh@cisco.com , Arjun Sreekantiah , Dhananjaya Rao , Keyur Patel | ||
| Last updated | 2018-04-19 (Latest revision 2017-09-11) | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
By default, The Border Gateway Protocol, BGP only installs the best- path to the IP Routing Table. BGP multi-path is a well known feature that enables installation of multiple paths to the IP Routing Table. This is done to achieve load balancing while forwarding traffic. For a path to be eligible as a multi-path, certain criteria need to be fulfilled. Inter-AS VPNs are commonly deployed to span organizations across Service Provider boundaries. In this draft, we describe an issue relating to multi-path load balancing that can arise in an Option B Inter-AS Deployment. With the help of a representative topology, we illustrate the problem and then present two simple schemes as the solution to the problem. We also note as a matter of independent interest that the same underlying issue is applicable to deployments that employ next-hop-self behavior (implicit or explicit) downstream and the multi-path feature upstream.
Authors
satyamoh@cisco.com
Arjun Sreekantiah
Dhananjaya Rao
Keyur Patel
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)