Skip to main content

BGP Shortest Path Routing Extension Implementation Report
draft-psarkar-lsvr-bgp-spf-impl-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Pushpasis Sarkar , Keyur Patel , Santosh Pallagatti , sajibasil@gmail.com
Last updated 2024-09-23
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-psarkar-lsvr-bgp-spf-impl-02
Network Working Group                                     P. Sarkar, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              VMWare, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                                  K. Patel
Expires: 28 March 2025                                      Arrcus, Inc.
                                                           S. Pallagatti
                                                  Individual Contributor
                                                                 B. Saji
                                                         Arista Networks
                                                       24 September 2024

       BGP Shortest Path Routing Extension Implementation Report
                   draft-psarkar-lsvr-bgp-spf-impl-02

Abstract

   This document is an implementation report for the BGP Link-State
   Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing.  The authors did not verify the
   accuracy of the information provided by respondents.  The respondents
   are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their
   responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for
   which their responses represent.  The respondents were asked to only
   use the "YES" answer if the feature had at least been tested in the
   lab.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 https://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 28 March 2025.

Sarkar, et al.            Expires 28 March 2025                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        BGP SPF Implementation Report       September 2024

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Implementation Forms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  BGP-LS-SPF Peering Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Extensions to BGP-LS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Support for Simplified Decision Process . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] describes an alternative solution which
   leverages BGP-LS [RFC9552] and the Shortest Path First algorithm
   similar to Internal Gateway Protocols (IGPs) such as OSPF [RFC2328].
   The solution introduces an new BGP-LS-SPF AFI-SAFI and replaces the
   Phase 1 and 2 decision functions of the Decision Process specifed by
   [RFC4271] with the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm also known as
   the Dijkstra algorithm.  This solution avails the benefits of both
   BGP and SPF-based IGPs that include TCP based flow-control, no
   periodic link-state refresh, and completely incremental NLRI
   advertisements.  These advantages can reduce the overhead in MSDCs
   where there is a high degree of Equal Cost Multi- Path (ECMPs) and
   the topology is very stable.  Additionally, using an SPF-based
   computation can support fast convergence and the computation of Loop-
   Free Alternatives (LFAs) [RFC5286] in the event of link failures.

Sarkar, et al.            Expires 28 March 2025                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        BGP SPF Implementation Report       September 2024

   This document provides an implementation report of the Shortest Path
   Routing extensions to BGP protocol as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf].

   The authors did not verify the accuracy of the information provided
   by respondents or by any alternative means.  The respondents are
   experts with the implementations they reported on, and their
   responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for
   which their responses represent.  Respondents were asked to only use
   the "YES" answer if the feature had at least been tested in the lab.

2.  Implementation Forms

   Contact and implementation information for person filling out this
   form:

       ArcOS
           Name: Pushpasis Sarkar
           Email: pushpasis@arrcus.com
           Vendor: Arrcus, Inc.
           Release: ArcOS
           Protocol Role: Route Reflector and Client

       FRR
           Name: Basil Saji
           Email: sajibasil@gmail.com
           Vendor: FRR
           Release:
           Protocol Role: Route Reflector

           Name: Santosh P K
           Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
           Vendor: FRR
           Release:
           Protocol Role: Route Reflector

                                  Figure 1

3.  BGP-LS-SPF Peering Models

   Does the implementation support the following BGP-LS-SPF Peering
   Models as specified in Section 2 of [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]?

   *  2.1 -- BGP Single-Hop Peering on Network Node Connections

   *  2.2 -- BGP Peering Between Directly Connected Network Nodes

Sarkar, et al.            Expires 28 March 2025                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft        BGP SPF Implementation Report       September 2024

   *  2.3 -- BGP Peering in Route-Reflector or Controller Topology

   +==========+=====+=====+============================+
   | Reelease | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3                        |
   +==========+=====+=====+============================+
   | ArcOS    | Yes | Yes | Yes (Route Reflector only) |
   +----------+-----+-----+----------------------------+
   | FRR      | Yes | Yes | Yes                        |
   +----------+-----+-----+----------------------------+

               Table 1: Peering Model Support

4.  Extensions to BGP-LS

   Does the implementation support the following BGP-LS-SPF TLVs as
   described in Section 4 and sub-sections of [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]??

   *  T1 -- Node NLRI Attribute SPF Capability TLV

   *  T2 -- Node/Link/Prefix NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV

   *  T3 -- Link NLRI Attribute IPv4 Prefix-Length TLV

   *  T4 -- Link NLRI Attribute IPv6 Prefix-Length TLV

   *  T5 -- Attribute Sequence-Number TLV

   +=========+=============+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+
   | Release | Send / Recv | T1  | T2  | T3  | T4  | T5  |
   +=========+=============+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+
   | ArcOS   | Send        | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
   +---------+-------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
   |         | Recv        | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
   +---------+-------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
   | FRR     | Send        | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
   +---------+-------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
   |         | Recv        | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
   +---------+-------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

            Table 2: BGP-LS Extension TLVs Support

5.  Support for Simplified Decision Process

   Does the implementation support the following Best Path Decision
   processes as described in Section 5 and sub-sections of
   [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]?

   *  P1 -- Phase-1 BGP NLRI Selection

Sarkar, et al.            Expires 28 March 2025                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft        BGP SPF Implementation Report       September 2024

   *  P2 -- Dual Stack Support

   *  P3 -- SPF Calculation based on BGP-LS NLRI

   +=========+=====+=====+=====+
   | Release | P1  | P2  | P3  |
   +=========+=====+=====+=====+
   | ArcOS   | Yes | Yes | Yes |
   +---------+-----+-----+-----+
   | TBA     | --- | --- | --- |
   +---------+-----+-----+-----+

     Table 3: Decision Process
              Support

6.  Acknowledgements

   TBA

7.  IANA Considerations

   N/A. - No protocol changes are proposed in this document.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any change in any of the protocol
   specifications.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

Sarkar, et al.            Expires 28 March 2025                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft        BGP SPF Implementation Report       September 2024

   [RFC5286]  Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
              IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.

   [RFC9552]  Talaulikar, K., Ed., "Distribution of Link-State and
              Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP", RFC 9552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9552, December 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9552>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]
              Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and W. Henderickx, "BGP
              Link-State Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-33, 25
              July 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
              ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-33>.

Authors' Addresses

   Pushpasis Sarkar (editor)
   VMWare, Inc.
   Bangalore 562125
   KA
   India
   Email: pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com

   Keyur Patel
   Arrcus, Inc.
   Email: keyur@arrcus.com

   Santosh
   Individual Contributor
   Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com

   Basil
   Arista Networks
   Email: sajibasil@gmail.com

Sarkar, et al.            Expires 28 March 2025                 [Page 6]