New definition of ISP internal eBGP border using BGP Roles

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-11-15
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                                          A. Azimov
Internet-Draft                                              E. Bogomazov
Intended status: Standards Track                             Qrator Labs
Expires: May 19, 2018                                            R. Bush
                                               Internet Initiative Japan
                                                                K. Patel
                                                            Arrcus, Inc.
                                                               K. Sriram
                                                                 US NIST
                                                       November 15, 2017

       New definition of ISP internal eBGP border using BGP Roles


   This document proposes a new definition of ISP borders using BGP
   Roles.  It may be used to improve the BGP best path selection
   algorithm for better support of hot-potato routing between different
   internal ASNs of an ISP.  It may also be used to enable transmission
   of local attributes between different internal ASNs of an ISP.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] only when they
   appear in all upper case.  They may also appear in lower or mixed
   case as English words, without normative meaning.

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

   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 May 19, 2018.

Azimov, et al.            Expires May 19, 2018                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Network border definition          November 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
   ( 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.  Changes in BGP decision process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Local Attributes Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

1.  Introduction

   The BGP best path selection algorithm (Section of [RFC4271])
   has a very clear definition of a network border: different ASNs -
   different networks.  It differs from some real world situations when
   two networks become one business entity and want to operate as one

   Today BGP does not provide any robust or automated support for such
   merging networks:

   o  There is no support for carrying local attributes through this

   o  Hot-potato routing, implemented by eBGP being preferred to iBGP,
      does not work, and

   o  Route Leak prevention inside such a united network can not be
      easily automated.

   In [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy] BGP Roles were introduced - a
   configuration option that strongly enforces agreement on real-world
   peering relations between two BGP speakers.  This configuration
   option can accept values of: Peering, Customer, Provider and

Azimov, et al.            Expires May 19, 2018                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          Network border definition          November 2017

   Internal.  These values could be used in a new ISP border definition:
   Internal vs. External.  With this definition of network borders, it
   becomes easy to allow robust propagation of local attributes between
   different ASNs of one ISP.  It could be also used to improve the hot-
   potato routing mechanism: where routes learned from External BGP
Show full document text