BGP Neighbor Autodiscovery
draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery-01
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-03-12
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group X. Xu
Internet-Draft K. Bi
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: September 13, 2017 J. Tantsura
Individual
March 12, 2017
BGP Neighbor Autodiscovery
draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery-01
Abstract
BGP has been used as the routing protocol in many hyper-scale data
centers. This document proposes a BGP neighbor autodiscovery
mechanism which can be used to simplify the BGP deployment greatly.
This mechanism is very useful for those hyper-scale data centers
where BGP is used as the routing protocol.
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 http://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 September 13, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Xu, et al. Expires September 13, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft March 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. BGP Hello Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Hello Message Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. HELLO Message Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. BGP Hello Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. TLVs of BGP Hello Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
BGP has been used as the routing protocol instead of IGP in many
hyper-scale data centers [RFC7938]. Furthermore, there is an attempt
to leverages BGP Link-State distribution and the Shortest Path First
algorithm similar to Internal Gateway Protocols (IGPs) such as OSPF
[I-D.keyupate-idr-bgp-spf]. In a word, there is a strong motivation
to replace IGP by BGP in hyper-scale data centers.
However, BGP is not good as IGP from the perspective of deployment
automation and simplicity. For instance, the IP address and
Autonomous System Number (ASN) of each BGP neighbor have to be
manually configured on BGP routers although these BGP peers are
directly connected. In addition, for those directly connected BGP
routers, it's usually not ideal to establish BGP sessions over their
directly connected interface addresses due to the following reasons:
1) it's not convient to do trouble-shooting; 2) the BGP update volume
is unnecessarily increased when there are multiple physical links
between them and those links couldn't be configured as a Link
Aggregtion Group (LAG) due to whatever reason (e.g., diffferent link
type or speed). As a result, it's more common that loopback
Show full document text