BGP best path next-hop selection enhancements
draft-vroonen-idr-bgp-bestpath-nh-selection-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Olivier Vroonen , Stephane Litkowski | ||
| Last updated | 2025-10-17 | ||
| RFC stream | (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-vroonen-idr-bgp-bestpath-nh-selection-00
Interdomain Working Group O. Vroonen, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Litkowski
Updates: 4271 (if approved) Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track 17 October 2025
Expires: 20 April 2026
BGP best path next-hop selection enhancements
draft-vroonen-idr-bgp-bestpath-nh-selection-00
Abstract
BGP [RFC4271] has originally been designed to carry IPv4 routing
information over the Internet. IP routing being “hop-by-hop” in
nature, [RFC4271] defines the NEXT_HOP attribute which purpose is to
carry the address of the next router to send the IP packet to. In
BGP, the next-hop may not be a directly connected router, hence, when
evaluating paths, BGP needs to figure out if the next-hop is
resolvable and, when needed, needs to figure out what is the internal
cost to reach this next-hop.
The incremental use of tunneling technologies to carry traffic
between routers (e.g.: GRE, MPLS, SR-MPLS, SRv6…) may violate the
assumption that the address carried in the NEXT_HOP attribute is
representative of the actual forwarding next-hop. These technologies
decouple the BGP control-plane's view of the next-hop from the data-
plane's actual forwarding endpoint. This document describes the
problems that arise from this decoupling. These problems include
sub-optimal path selection, incorrect resolvability tracking of the
forwarding path leading to traffic drop or misrouting, and others.
This document proposes some modification of BGP path selection
procedures to accommodate these use cases.
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."
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 April 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. MPLS path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Segment Routing Traffic Engineering Policy . . . . . . . 5
2.3. SRv6 services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Modification of the BGP route selection process . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Forwarding address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Resolution constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Route resolvability condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Internal cost determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Next hop and forwarding address tracking . . . . . . . . 12
4. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
BGP [RFC4271] is designed to exchange network reachability
information between routing domains. A BGP update typically contains
a prefix and a set of path attributes, including the well-known
mandatory NEXT_HOP attribute. The receiving router uses this next-
hop address to determine the egress point for traffic destined for
the advertised prefix. The assumption is the next hop address
represents the next router from a traffic forwarding point of view.
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
BGP NEXT_HOP attribute as defined in [RFC4271] and BGP NEXT_HOP field
in the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute as defined in [RFC4760] are referred
to as NEXT_HOP attribute in this document.
[RFC4271] Section 9.1.2.1 defines the route resolvability condition:
a BGP route is considered unresolvable if the BGP speaker’s routing
table has no route matching the BGP route next-hop address. As per
[RFC4271] Section 9.1.2.2 e), when comparing paths received via
internal BGP (IBGP), the Routing Table metric associated to the BGP
route next-hop address is used to figure out the best path.
AS 1
<--------------------------------->
+------+
P/m --| RTR1 |----------------+
+------+ (metric=1) |
|
+------+
| RTR3 |
+------+
|
+------+ (metric=2) |
P/m --| RTR2 |----------------+
+------+
Figure 1
In Figure 1, RTR3 receives prefix P/m from RTR1 and RTR2 (IBGP peers)
with NEXT_HOP N1 and N2. RTR3 resolves N1 with a cost of 1 and N2
with a cost of 2. Based on [RFC4271] procedures, RTR3 will select
the path with the lowest cost to the NEXT_HOP address, so RTR3 will
select the path received from RTR1. In this example, the path used
to resolve N1 and N2 reflects the actual forwarding path which makes
the best path decision done by RTR3 accurate.
This document describes cases where the NEXT_HOP attribute used in
the BGP update is not representative of the actual forwarding path.
In these cases, the resolvability condition may fail in its goal and
path selection may be done on inaccurate criteria leading to
suboptimal routing, network congestion, traffic drop or misrouting...
These use cases are not new and may have been partially addressed by
IETF standards or drafts, some references are provided below:
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
* [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria] addresses the case
of MPLS networks and proposes a modification of the route
resolvability condition to be performed using forwarding database
of a particular data plane protocol. It also proposes an optional
data path verification.
* [RFC9012] Section 7 improves the route resolvability condition by
verifying that there is a feasible tunnel. However, it doesn’t
take into account that the cost associated with the tunnel may be
different from the cost associated with the BGP next-hop.
* [RFC9252] defines SRv6 overlay services signaling using BGP. The
procedures involve the advertisement of an SRv6 Service TLV within
the BGP Prefix SID attribute to signal the SID to be used for
forwarding. RFC9252 highlights that ingress PE must perform a
resolvability check for the SRv6 SID in addition to the
resolvability check done on the NEXT_HOP attribute. However, it
doesn’t take into account that the cost associated with the tunnel
may be different from the cost associated with the BGP next-hop.
This document defines generic modifications to the BGP decision
process that can apply to all the use cases.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Use cases
2.1. MPLS path
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
[D=6] [D=6]
+-----+ (M=1) +----+ (M=1)
P/m -- | PE1 |-------| P1 |--------+
+-----+ +----+ |
(M=1) \ / |
[D=14] \ / |
\ / +-----+
X | PE3 |
/ \ +-----+
(M=5) / \ |
[D=14] / \ |
+-----+ +----+ |
P/m -- | PE2 |-------| P2 |---------+
+-----+ (M=5) +----+ (M=5)
[D=2] [D=2]
Figure 2: Next hop attribute not used for forwarding
In Figure 2, a BGP MPLS VPN (as defined in [RFC4364]) is deployed
over PEs. Let's assume PE3 receives prefix P/m from PE1 and PE2 with
NEXT_HOP N1 and N2. The existence of a route in PE3's IPv4 routing
table to reach N1 or N2 (defined in [RFC4271]) is not sufficient to
ensure that traffic can be carried from PE3 to PE1 or PE2. PE3 needs
to ensure that there is a tunnel available to reach PE1 or PE2 that
can carry MPLS traffic (e.g.: an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP)). By
checking only for the existence of a route in its routing table, PE3
could create a traffic drop or misrouting if there is no tunnel to
carry the MPLS VPN traffic.
2.2. Segment Routing Traffic Engineering Policy
When using SR Policies [RFC9256], the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute may not
accurately represent the actual forwarding path.
In Figure 2, a BGP VPN service (as defined in [RFC4364]) is deployed
between the PEs. Let's assume PE3 receives prefix P/m from PE1 and
PE2 with NEXT_HOP N1, N2 and color C1. On PE3, SR Policies (C1, N1)
and (C1, N2) are configured to use the low latency path.
* Costs M in parentheses represents cost of IGP.
* Costs D in brackets represents cost of latency-based metric
If PE3 performs the next-hop resolution solely based on the BGP
NEXT_HOP attribute, it will not verify that an SR policy (C1, Nx)
exists and is up before using it. It may also pick the wrong best
path by considering the cost to the NEXT_HOP address instead of the
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
cost of the SR policy. The best path considering SR-policy (C1, Nx)
cost is via PE2, while the best path considering IGP metric is via
PE1.
+========+==========+======+
| Prefix | Next hop | Cost |
+========+==========+======+
| N1 | P1 | 2 |
+--------+----------+------+
| N2 | P1 | 6 |
+--------+----------+------+
Table 1: IPv4 routing
table of PE3
+===========+==========+======+=======+
| SR Policy | Next hop | Cost | State |
+===========+==========+======+=======+
| (C1, N1) | P1 | 12 | Up |
+-----------+----------+------+-------+
| (C1, N2) | P2 | 4 | Up |
+-----------+----------+------+-------+
Table 2: SR Policies of PE3
Considering that PE3 may take into account the cost of the SR policy
and then picks up the path from PE2 as best. If the SR Policy (C1,
N2) is down or not present, and considering that color C1 is using
CO-flag equal to 00 ([RFC9246] Section 8.8.1), path from PE2 is
authorized to use IGP path to next-hop N2 (fallback to IGP path via
P1 with cost=6) as there is no policy (C1, N2) available. This
situation has multiple drawbacks:
* Cost of the two BGP paths are not comparable which makes the
comparison inaccurate: PE1 path uses a cost based on latency while
cost of path from PE2 uses IGP metric.
* Using a path without an SR-policy may violate the intent of the
service, especially if there is an alternate path (from PE1) that
fulfills the intent.
It may be desirable for PE3 to prefer the path from PE1 that
satisfies color C1 or even exclude any path that does not meet the
color C1 requirement.
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
2.3. SRv6 services
When using SRv6 services as defined in [RFC9252], the BGP NEXT_HOP
attribute may not be representative of the actual forwarding path.
Considering Figure 2, an SRv6-based BGP VPN is deployed between the
PEs. PE1 uses locator L1 for algorithm 0 and L1_FA for flexible
algorithm 128 ([RFC9350]) optimized for low-latency. Similarly, PE2
uses locator L2 for algorithm 0 and L2_FA for flexible algorithm 128.
Let's assume PE3 receives prefix P/m from PE1 and PE2 with NEXT_HOP
N1, N2 and SRv6 SID S1 and S2. SID S1 and S2 are allocated
respectively from L1_FA and L2_FA.
* Costs M in parentheses represents cost of algorithm 0 (as defined
in [RFC8665] Section 8.5).
* Costs D in brackets represents cost of flexible algorithm
[RFC9350] 129 which is using low-latency metric.
The IPv6 routing table of PE3 contains the following entries:
+========+==========+======+
| Prefix | Next hop | Cost |
+========+==========+======+
| N1 | P1 | 2 |
+--------+----------+------+
| N2 | P1 | 6 |
+--------+----------+------+
| L1 | P1 | 2 |
+--------+----------+------+
| L2 | P1 | 6 |
+--------+----------+------+
| L1_FA | P1 | 12 |
+--------+----------+------+
| L2_FA | P2 | 4 |
+--------+----------+------+
Table 3: IPv6 routing
table of PE3
Based on [RFC4271] procedures, PE3 verifies that NEXT_HOP address of
each path is resolvable. Based on [RFC9252] procedures, PE3 verifies
that S1 and S2 addresses are resolvable. PE3 will then select the
path with the lowest cost to the NEXT_HOP address according to
[RFC4271] . Cost to N1 is lower than cost to N2, so PE3 will select
the path received from PE1. However, from a latency perspective,
path to PE2 is the best one.
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
The problem of path suboptimality may also happen with algorithm 0,
if for instance SRv6 traffic for algorithm 0 needs to be offloaded
from PE1, operator may increase the metric of the locator (while not
changing the metric of the next-hop) on PE1. In the example above,
if L1 is advertised by PE1 with an offset of 1M, then PE3 will have
to cost to L1 of 1000002 but N1 will still be reachable with a cost
of 2. The cost to reach the SID must also be taken into account in
this scenario to ensure that the traffic offload works properly.
3. Modification of the BGP route selection process
3.1. Forwarding address
This document defines the forwarding address as the IP address of the
next router to which packets are sent. The forwarding address may
come from the NEXT_HOP or a different address which has been signaled
in a different attribute along with the path.
The following data already defined in BGP standards SHOULD be
considered as forwarding addresses:
* The Tunnel Egress Endpoint Sub-TLV contained in Tunnel
Encapsulation attribute defined in [RFC9012]
* SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV contained within L3 or L2 SRv6 SID
defined in [RFC9252]
Unless a BGP update contains another type of forwarding address, the
BGP NEXT_HOP attribute is considered as the forwarding address.
The forwarding address MAY be complemented by a forwarding context.
The forwarding context characterizes more the forwarding path to be
used. The following attributes defined in BGP standards are examples
of forwarding context:
* The Tunnel Encapsulation attribute defined in [RFC9012]
* The Color extended community defined in [RFC9012]
* The SRv6 Sub-TLV and Sub-sub-TLV contained within L3 or L2 SRv6
SID TLV as defined in [RFC9252] other than the SID itself
Each new BGP extension SHOULD specify if an address carried by the
extension must be considered as a forwarding address. The procedures
defined in the next section SHOULD apply for any new forwarding
address defined without having to redefine them.
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
3.2. Resolution constraints
When the forwarding address and its context are identified for a BGP
route, the implementation may know the required characteristics of
the route to be used to resolve the forwarding address. Depending on
the type of forwarding address and context, the implementation may
need to ensure that the forwarding address is resolved through a
specific type of route in a specific table. This resolution
constraint may come from the forwarding context and/or may be
configured locally.
In some cases, operator may want to enforce that the forwarding
address is resolved through a specific type of route. This can be
achieved by configuring a local resolution constraint. Reusing the
example defined in Section 2.1, if we consider an IPv4 unicast BGP
service carried over a BGP free-core, the BGP NEXT_HOP must be
reachable through a tunnel to allow the end-to-end packet delivery.
Such a case cannot be derived from the BGP update context and BGP
must be configured to resolve the NEXT_HOP only through tunnels (of
any or specific types). Similarly, when aggregate routes are present
in the routing table, user may want to prevent the forwarding address
(which is a specific route) to be resolved over the aggregate routes.
A resolution constraint based on prefix/mask can be done to avoid
such resolution to be valid. An implementation MAY provide a set of
configuration options for resolution constraints.
3.3. Route resolvability condition
This document updates [RFC4271] Section 9.1.2.1 as follows:
* The route resolvability check for the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute MUST
continue to be done.
* In addition, the route resolvability criteria SHOULD be performed
based on the forwarding address.
* When resolving the forwarding address, look up SHOULD be performed
by applying the resolution constraints defined in Section 3.2.
The resolvability check based on the forwarding address MAY be
enabled through a configuration knob.
3.4. Internal cost determination
For a prefix P/m, different BGP paths may use different forwarding
addresses and contexts of various types.
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
P/m
Path1: NH=10.0.0.1 Color: 200
Path2: NH=2001::2 SRv6-SID: cafe:0:2:e002::
Path3: NH=10.0.0.3 Tunnel-encap(L2TPv3, endpoint: 10.0.0.3)
Path4: NH=2001::4 SRv6-SID: cafe:0:4:e002::
Figure 3
Costs retrieved from different types of forwarding addresses or
contexts may not be comparable because they are based on different
sets of rules. For instance, path1 may leverage an SR policy (color
200, endpoint R1) optimizing for latency, so the cost of path1 will
reflect the latency to R1. Path2 may use the IGP cost to R2. Path3
may have no cost. These values are not directly comparable.
In order to compare the paths, this document introduces the concept
of forwarding address preference. The preference is a local
numerical value. An implementation SHOULD pick the lowest value as
the most preferred.
This document updates [RFC4271] Section 9.1.2.2 e) as follows:
* Remove from consideration any routes with an highest forwarding
address preference value. This preference MAY be retrieved from
the resolution lookup of the forwarding address or MAY be
configured locally.
* For remaining paths, the interior cost of a route is determined by
the metric of the resolving route to the forwarding address
applying the resolution constraints defined in Section 3.2. If
the forwarding address for a route is reachable, but no cost can
be determined, the cost SHOULD be set by default to the maximum
allowed cost.
Using forwarding preference and forwarding address-based cost SHOULD
be enabled through a configuration knob.
With the example above and the internal tables defined below, and
considering lowest preference value as the most preferred one, BGP
would select Path2 as best. Path2 and Path4 have the lowest
preference (10), then Path2 has the lowest internal cost (12).
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
P/m
Path1: NH=10.0.0.1 Color: 200,
preference 100 (from table), cost 1001
Path2: NH=2001::2 SRv6-SID: cafe:0:2:e002::,
preference 10 (from BGP), cost 12
Path3: NH=10.0.0.3
Tunnel-encap(L2TPv3, endpoint: 10.0.0.3, sessID: 1),
preference 1000 (from BGP), cost max
Path4: NH=2001::4 SRv6-SID: cafe:0:4:e002::,
preference 10 (from BGP), cost 14
Figure 4
+===============+============+========+========================+
| Prefix, Color | Preference | Metric | Forwarding data |
+===============+============+========+========================+
| 10.0.0.1, 200 | 10 | 1001 | interface IF1, label |
| | | | stack {L1, L2, L3} |
+===============+============+========+========================+
| 10.0.0.2, 200 | 10 | 1002 | interface IF2, label |
| | | | stack {L4, L5} |
+===============+============+========+========================+
| 10.0.0.3, 200 | 10 | 1003 | interface IF1, label |
| | | | stack {L6, L7, L8, L9} |
+===============+============+========+========================+
Table 4: IPv4 Color routing table
+===============+============+========+========================+
| Prefix | Preference | Metric | Forwarding data |
+===============+============+========+========================+
| cafe:0:1::/48 | 5 | 11 | interface IF1, label |
| | | | stack {L1, L2, L3} |
+===============+============+========+========================+
| cafe:0:2::/48 | 5 | 12 | interface IF2, label |
| | | | stack {L4, L5} |
+===============+============+========+========================+
| cafe:0:3::/48 | 5 | 13 | interface IF1, label |
| | | | stack {L6, L7, L8, L9} |
+===============+============+========+========================+
| cafe:0:4::/48 | 5 | 14 | interface IF1, label |
| | | | stack {L10, L11, L12} |
+===============+============+========+========================+
Table 5: IPv6 routing table
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
+=============+============+========+
| Destination | Session ID | Status |
+=============+============+========+
| 10.0.0.3 | 1 | up |
+=============+============+========+
Table 6: L2TP session table
+==========================+==================================+
| Type | Preference |
+==========================+==================================+
| MPLS LSP (any signaling) | 100 |
+==========================+==================================+
| MPLS RSVP-TE LSP | 50 |
+==========================+==================================+
| SRv6 SID | 10 |
+==========================+==================================+
| Default | use value from table lookup, use |
| | 1000 if table provided no value |
+==========================+==================================+
Table 7: BGP forwarding address preference configuration
3.5. Next hop and forwarding address tracking
A BGP speaker SHOULD track the resolvability of both the NEXT_HOP
attribute and the forwarding address. If either the NEXT_HOP or the
forwarding address becomes unresolvable or if the cost to reach
either the NEXT_HOP or the forwarding address changes, the BGP
speaker MUST re-evaluate the best path selection for all prefixes
using the affected NEXT_HOP or forwarding address. This tracking
MUST be done for all paths, including the best path and non-best
paths.
4. Example
The example below illustrates the logic of forwarding address
preference and cost comparison.
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
+-----+ (M=5)
P/m -- | PE1 |----------------+
+-----+ |
|
|
+-----+ (M=10) +----+ (M=5) +-----+
P/m -- | PE2 |--------------| P1 |--------------| PE4 |
+-----+ +----+ +-----+
|
|
+-----+ (M=15) |
P/m -- | PE3 |----------------+
+-----+
Figure 5
In Figure 5, a prefix P/m is reachable by PE4 from PE1, PE2, PE3
(with respectively NEXT_HOP N1, N2 and N3). Considering that the
network is a BGP free core, traffic must be tunneled between edge
devices. Traffic destined to P/m is of high bandwidth and requires
traffic-engineering to spread the traffic across the available links
of the core. RSVP-TE is used to provide traffic-engineering MPLS
tunnels. SR-MPLS is also used to provide best-effort reachability.
BGP is configured to use the route preference (or administrative
distance) from table lookup as forwarding address preference. RSVP-
TE is given a better route preference than SR-MPLS. RSVP-TE tunnel
to PE3 cannot be established.
+========+==========+============+======+
| Prefix | Protocol | Preference | Cost |
+========+==========+============+======+
| N1 | IS-IS | 100 | 10 |
+--------+----------+------------+------+
| N2 | IS-IS | 100 | 15 |
+--------+----------+------------+------+
| N3 | IS-IS | 100 | 20 |
+--------+----------+------------+------+
Table 8: IPv4 routing table of PE4
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
+========+==========+============+======+
| Prefix | Protocol | Preference | Cost |
+========+==========+============+======+
| N1 | IS-IS SR | 110 | 10 |
+--------+----------+------------+------+
| N1 | RSVP-TE | 250 | 1000 |
+--------+----------+------------+------+
| N2 | IS-IS SR | 110 | 15 |
+--------+----------+------------+------+
| N2 | RSVP-TE | 250 | 100 |
+--------+----------+------------+------+
| N3 | IS-IS SR | 110 | 20 |
+--------+----------+------------+------+
Table 9: MPLS ingress tunnel table of PE4
As mentioned in Section 3.2, the case of BGP free-core requires BGP
on PE4 to be configured to allow the resolution the NEXT_HOP address
through tunnels (of any type). Considering that PE4 maintains a
separate table for MPLS ingress tunnels, PE4 will look up for N1, N2,
N3 addresses only in this table. PE4 will first check the
resolvability of N1, N2 and N3. All are resolvable in the MPLS
ingress tunnel table. PE4 will end-up with the following information
from the MPLS ingress tunnel table to compare the path:
P/m
Path1:
from PE1, NH=N1
cost 1000, forwarding address preference 250
Path2:
from PE2, NH=N2
cost 100, forwarding address preference 250
Path3:
from PE3, NH=NH3
cost 20, forwarding address preference 110
Figure 6
PE4 will check the forwarding address preference of the paths. PE4
will not consider the paths received from PE3 because the forwarding
address preference is lower than others. Finally, PE4 will compare
the internal costs between paths from PE1 and PE2 as they have the
same preference and path from PE2 will be elected as best because it
has the lowest cost.
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
As mentioned in Section 3.5, if the RSVP-TE tunnel to PE2 goes down,
PE4 will re-evaluate the best path selection and will select the path
from PE1 as best. This is also true if the cost of RSVP-TE LSP to
reach N1 changes and becomes lower than the cost of LSP to reach N2.
5. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations
This document modifies BGP route selection process by using data
other than the next-hop address to perform the resolvability check as
well as to compute the internal cost. This does not add any security
consideration compared to using the existing NEXT_HOP attribute
defined in [RFC4271].
7. References
7.1. 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>.
[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>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
[RFC9246] van Brandenburg, R., Leung, K., and P. Sorber, "URI
Signing for Content Delivery Network Interconnection
(CDNI)", RFC 9246, DOI 10.17487/RFC9246, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9246>.
[RFC9252] Dawra, G., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Raszuk, R., Decraene,
B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "BGP Overlay Services
Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9252, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9252>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
[RFC9350] Psenak, P., Ed., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K.,
and A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", RFC 9350,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9350, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9350>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria]
Asati, R., "BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhancement",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
bestpath-selection-criteria-12, 5 June 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
bestpath-selection-criteria-12>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Ketan Talaulikar, Serge Krier
and Shyam Sethuram for review and comments.
Authors' Addresses
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BGP nh selection enhancements October 2025
Olivier Vroonen (editor)
Cisco
Email: ovroonen@cisco.com
Stephane Litkowski
Cisco
Email: slitkows@cisco.com
Vroonen & Litkowski Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 17]