BGP Neighbor Autodiscovery
draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery-08
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2018-05-15
|
|
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 Alibaba Inc
Intended status: Standards Track K. Bi
Expires: November 16, 2018 Huawei
J. Tantsura
Nuage Networks
N. Triantafillis
LinkedIn
K. Talaulikar
Cisco
May 15, 2018
BGP Neighbor Autodiscovery
draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery-08
Abstract
BGP has been used as the underlay routing protocol in many hyper-
scale data centers. This document proposes a BGP neighbor
autodiscovery mechanism that greatly simplifies BGP deployments.
This mechanism is very useful for those hyper-scale data centers
where BGP is used as the underlay routing protocol.
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 November 16, 2018.
Xu, et al. Expires November 16, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft May 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. BGP Hello Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Hello Message Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. BGP Hello Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. TLVs of BGP Hello Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
BGP has been used as the underlay routing protocol instead of IGP in
many hyper-scale data centers [RFC7938]. Furthermore, there is an
ongoing effort to leverage BGP link-state distribution mechanism to
achieve BGP-SPF [I-D.keyupate-lsvr-bgp-spf]. However, BGP is not
good as an IGP from the perspective of deployment automation and
simplicity. For instance, the IP address and the Autonomous System
Number (ASN) of each and every BGP neighbor have to be manually
configured on BGP routers although these BGP peers are directly
connected. Furthermore, for those BGP routers with multiple physical
links being connected, it's usually not ideal to establish BGP
sessions over their directly connected interface addresses because
the BGP update volume would be unnecessarily increased, meanwhile, it
may not be suitable to configure those links as a Link Aggregation
Show full document text