BGP Neighbor Autodiscovery
draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-12-24
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text 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: June 27, 2017                                 December 24, 2016

                       BGP Neighbor Autodiscovery
                 draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery-00

Abstract

   BGP has been used as an underlay 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 an underlay 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 June 27, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Xu & Bi                   Expires June 27, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                                             December 2016

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
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   BGP has been used as an underlay 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
   interface addresses of those directly connected BGP peers are used
   for BGP session establishment.  To make those loopback addresses of
   directly connected BGP peers reachable from one another, either
   static routes have to be configured or some kind of IGP has to be
   enabled.  The former is not good from the automation perspective
   while the latter is in conflict with the original intention of using
   BGP as IGP.

   This draft specifies a BGP neighbor autodiscovery mechanism by
Show full document text