BGP Neighbor Autodiscovery
draft-xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery-08

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (idr WG)
Last updated 2018-07-14 (latest revision 2018-05-15)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Candidate for WG Adoption
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
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