[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02                                                      
Network Working Group                                  N. Dubois
                                                     B. Decraene
                                                   B. Fondeviole
                                                  France Telecom
Internet Draft                                          Z. Ahmad
Document: draft-dubois-bgp-pm-reqs-02.txt              July 2005
Expiration Date: January 2006

          Requirements for planned maintenance of BGP sessions


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have
   been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its Areas, and its Working Groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet Drafts.

   Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
   other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working
   draft" or "work in progress".

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   To ease the maintenance of BGP [BGP] sessions and limit the amount
   of traffic that is lost during planned maintenance operations on
   routers, a solution is required in order to gracefully shutdown a
   router or a session.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                  [Page 1]

Internet Draft    BGP planned maintenance requirements         July 2005

   Table of Contents

   1. Introduction.........................................2
   2. Problem Statement....................................2
   3. Terminology..........................................3
   4. Goals and Requirements...............................3
   5. Scope................................................5
   6. Example..............................................5
   7. Reference Topologies.................................7
   8. Security Considerations..............................9
   7. Intellectual Property Statement......................9
   8. Security Considerations..............................10
   9. Intellectual Property Considerations.................10
   12.Authors' Addresses:..................................11

 1. Introduction

   The BGP protocol is heavily used in Service Provider networks. For
   resiliency purposes, most of the IP network operators deploy
   redundant routers and BGP sessions to minimize the risk of BGP
   session breakdown towards their customers or peers.
   In a context where a Service Provider wants to upgrade or remove a
   particular router that maintains one or several BGP sessions, our
   requirement is to avoid customer or peer traffic loss as much as
   possible. It should be made possible to reroute the customer or peer
   traffic before the maintenance operation occurs and BGP session is
   torn down.

   Currently, the BGP specification does not include any operation to
   prevent traffic loss in case of planned maintenance.

   A successful approach of such mechanism should indeed minimize the
   loss of traffic in most foreseen maintenance situations.  It should
   be easily deployable and if possible, provide backward

 2. Problem Statement

   Currently, when one (or many) BGP session needs to be shut down, a
   BGP NOTIFICATION message is sent to the peer and the session is then
   closed. A protocol convergence is then triggered both in the local
   router and in the peer. Alternate routes to the destination are
   selected, if available.

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                  [Page 2]

Internet Draft    BGP planned maintenance requirements         July 2005

   This behavior is not satisfactory in a maintenance situation because
   customer's (or peerÆs) traffic that was directed towards the removed
   next-hops is lost until the end of BGP convergence. As it is a
   planned operation, a make before break solution should be made

   As maintenance operations are frequent in large networks, the global
   availability of the network is significantly impaired by the BGP
   maintenance issues.

 3. Terminology

   Maintained router: The router undergoing maintenance, closing (a)
                      BGP session(s) and causing the rerouting.

   Peer routers: Routers which have a BGP peering session with the
                 Maintained router.

   Impacted routers: Routers which use the Maintained router as a BGP
                     Next Hop.

 4. Goals and Requirements

   When some or all BGP sessions of a Maintained router need to be
   administratively shut down, instead of sending a BGP NOTIFICATION
   message and/or tearing the TCP session down, our goal is to achieve
   the following behavior:

   First problem : session stops

   Step 1:
   A mechanism is implemented on the Maintained router in order to
   gracefully reroute packets towards and from the BGP next-hop that is
   going to be unavailable.
   By doing so, packets are rerouted before the maintenance operation
   and no packet is lost for all the destination prefixes for which an
   alternate route is available. The proposed solution MAY be designed
   in order to avoid transient routing loops.

   Step 2:
   Once traffic is correctly rerouted BGP sessions are shutdown.

   Second problem: session starts

   Step 3:
   Once maintenance operation has been completed, a mechanism may be
   implemented to gracefully restore traffic to the original path
   avoiding transient routing loops.

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                  [Page 3]

Internet Draft    BGP planned maintenance requirements         July 2005


   As a result, if another router provides an alternate path towards a
   set of destination prefixes, the packets are rerouted before the BGP
   session termination and no packet is lost during BGP convergence
   process, since both the forwarding and the Loc-RIB tables are kept
   while the peers are re-computing their forwarding tables.

   From the above goals we can derive the following requirements:

   a/ A mechanism to advertise the maintenance action to all Impacted
   routers is REQUIRED. Such mechanism may be either implicit or
   Note that Impacted routers can be located in adjacent ASes. The
   proposed solution MAY be designed in order to avoid transient
   routing loops.

   b/ It is REQUIRED that the Maintained router implements a mechanism
   to keep the forwarding for the NLRI undergoing maintenance until all
   reroutable packets has been rerouted.

   c/ A mechanism may be needed to indicate the end of the graceful
   maintenance operation. The proposed solution MAY be designed in
   order to avoid transient routing loops.

   d/ An Internet wide convergence is NOT REQUIRED. However the local
   AS and its directly connected peersÆ ASes MUST be able to gracefully
   converge before the service interruption.

   e/ The proposed solution SHOULD be applicable to all kinds of BGP
   sessions (e-BGP/MP-eBGP, i-BGP/MP-iBGP and i-BGP/MP-iBGP route
   reflector client) and any address family. Depending on the session
   type, there may be some variation in the proposed solution in order
   to fit the requirement. If the BGP implementation allows closing a
   sub-set of AFIs carried in a MP-BGP session, this mechanism is
   applicable to this sub-set of AFI identifiers. However the following
   cases should be handled first:
      - The maintenance of one particular e-BGP/MP-eBGP session.
      - The reload of one AS border router.
      - The shutdown of PE <-> CE links (Static & eBGP) in a MPLS-VPN

   f/ The proposed solution SHOULD not change the BGP convergence
   behavior for the ASes exterior to the maintenance process. An
   incremental deployment on a per AS basis MUST be made possible. It
   means that the proposed solution SHOULD be interoperable with the
   current BGP implementation and SHOULD improve the maintenance
   process even when one of the two ASes does not support graceful
   maintenance. In particular, large BGP/MPLS VPN Service Providers may
   not be able to upgrade all of the deployed CEs. The solution SHOULD

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                  [Page 4]

Internet Draft    BGP planned maintenance requirements         July 2005

   improve the behavior during planned maintenance even with Vanilla

   g/ If possible, redistribution of static IP routes into iBGP/MP-iBGP
   SHOULD also be covered. Indeed, static routes are often used between
   PE and CE in a BGP/MPLS VPN environment.

 5. Scope

   The purpose of this requirement is neither to solve all the
   convergence issues that may arise within the Internet nor to modify
   the convergence properties of the BGP protocol.

   The Example section illustrates typical and important cases where
   this requirement should be applicable and tries to make it more

   In addition a Reference Topologies section presents some BGP
   topologies (both i-BGP and e-BGP) and confronts them to the
   requirement. These topologies SHOULD be used to test the proper
   behavior of proposed solutions.

 6. Example

   Purpose of this section is to give one typical example. It should
   help the reader to understand how graceful maintenance will enhance
   the availability of the inter provider BGP connections.

   Let us consider the following example (Figure 1 below) where one
   customer router (denoted as "CUST" in the figure) is dual-homed to
   two SP routers, denoted as "ASBR1" and "ASBR2". ASBR1 and ASBR2 are
   in the same AS and owned by the same service provider.

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                  [Page 5]

Internet Draft    BGP planned maintenance requirements         July 2005

                       AS1   '      AS2

                      /                      |
                     /                       |
                 CUST                        |
                     \                       |
              X.Y/16  \                      |

                       AS1   '      AS2

                   Figure 1: Redundant peering example.

   Packets are normally conveyed by the CUST-ASBR1 link. Let's assume
   the service provider wants to shutdown ASBR1 for maintenance

   The behavior as defined in [BGP] is:
   1. ASBR1 tears down all of its BGP sessions.
   2. As a result, it removes all the BGP routes from its RIB and FIB
   3. Peers routers remove all the routes that were announced by the
   shutting down peer and advertise the failure to all their BGP peers.
   These peers are likely Impacted routers.
   4. Impacted routers, receive BGP update messages, perform a BGP
   selection process and update their RIB and FIB accordingly.

   During Impacted routers' convergence:
        - CUST continues to send packets to ASBR1. ASBR1 drops these
          packets because it has no route to destination.
        - P1 and possibly P2 continue to send traffic to ASBR1. ASBR1
          drops this traffic because it has no route to CUST (X.Y/16).

   From the customer's point of view, packets are lost during the BGP
   convergence time.

   With the required behavior defined in section 4 [Goals and
        - On all of its BGP sessions, ASBR1 signals a maintenance
          according to the requirement defined in section 4-a.

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                  [Page 6]

Internet Draft    BGP planned maintenance requirements         July 2005

        - During the BGP convergence of all Impacted routers, ASBR1
          keeps forwarding customer traffic in both directions.
        - Once traffic has been rerouted, ASBR1 closes its BGP sessions
          with its peers. No packet is lost.

 7. Reference Topologies

   In order to  benchmark the proposed solutions, some typical BGP
   topologies are detailed. Solutions SHOULD be applicable to all
   topologies described below.
   A solution draft should study the applicability of its solution for
   each of these 9 (3 E-BGP * 3 I-BGP) possible topologies.

   Terminology used in this section is inspired from RFC 2547. We use
   PE (provider edge router) and CE (customer edge router). However the
   scope of applicability is broader and can be transposed to any inter
   ûAS BGP peering solution.

   7.1. E-BGP/MP-eBGP topologies

   Topology 1CE <-> 2PE:

             AS1   '      AS2
            /      '
           /       '
        Router11   '
           \       '
            \      '
         AS1       '      AS2

   In this topology we have an asymmetric protection scheme between AS
   1 and AS 2:
        - On AS 2 side, two different routers have been used to connect
          to AS 1.
        - On AS 1 side, one single router with two BGP sessions is

   The requirement of section 4 should be applicable to:
        - Maintenance of one of the routers of AS2.
        - Maintenance of the router of AS1.
        - Maintenance of one of the two sessions between AS1 and AS2.

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                  [Page 7]

Internet Draft    BGP planned maintenance requirements         July 2005

   Topology 2CE <-> 2PE:

                 AS1   '      AS2
             AS1       '      AS2

   In this topology we have a symmetric protection scheme between AS1
   and AS2: On both sides, two different routers have been used to
   connect AS1 to AS2.

   The requirement of section 4 should be applicable to:
        - Maintenance of any of the routers (in AS1 or AS2).
        - Maintenance of one of the two sessions between AS1 and AS2.

   Topology 2CE <-> 2ISP:

                 AS1   '      AS2
             |         '
             |         '
             |         '
             |         '
             AS3       '      AS2

   In this topology the protection scheme between AS1 and AS2 is not as
   symmetric as in the two previous topologies. Depending on which
   routes are exchanged between the 3 ASes, some protection for some of
   the traffic may be possible.

   The requirement of section 4 does not translate as easily as in the
   two previous topologies because we do not require propagating the
   maintenance advertisement in the Internet.
   For instance if Router22 requires a maintenance impacting Router31,
   then Router31 will be notified. However we do not require for
   Router11 to be notified.

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                  [Page 8]

Internet Draft    BGP planned maintenance requirements         July 2005

   7.2. I-BGP/MP-iBGP topologies

   We describe here some frequent i-BGP topologies.
   Indeed maintenance of an e-BGP session needs to be propagated within
   the AS so the solution may depend on the specific i-BGP/MP-iBGP

   Topology "Full-Mesh":

   It is a full iBGP mesh topology as represented below.

           P1 -------- P2
           |\         /|
           |  \     /  |
           |    \ /    |     AS1
           |    / \    |
           |  /     \  |
            \          /
             \        /
               \    /
                \  /         AS2

   When the session between CE and ASBR1 undergoes maintenance, it is
   required that all i-BGP peers of ASBR1 reroute traffic to ASBR2
   before the session between ASBR1 and CE is shut down.

   Topology "RR":

           P1 RR----- P2 RR
           |\         /|
           |  \     /  |
           |    \ /    |     AS1
           |    / \    |
           |  /     \  |
          ASBR1      ASBR2
            \          /
             \        /
               \    /
                \  /         AS2

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                  [Page 9]

Internet Draft    BGP planned maintenance requirements         July 2005

   In this topology, route reflectors are used to limit the number of
   i-BGP sessions.

   When the session between CE and ASBR1 undergoes maintenance, it is
   required that all BGP routers of AS1 reroute traffic to ASBR2 before
   the session between ASBR1 and CE is shut down.

   Topology "hierarchical RR":

   In this topology, hierarchical route reflectors are used to limit
   the number of i-BGP sessions.

        P1/hRR --------  P2/hRR
           |               |
           |               |
           |               |   AS1
           |               |
           |               |

         P1/RR --------  P2/RR
           |               |
           |               |
           |               |   AS1
           |               |
           |               |
          ASBR1           ASBR2
            \             /
             \           /
               \       /
                \     /        AS2

 8. Security Considerations

   Security consideration MUST be addressed by the proposed solutions.

 9. Intellectual Property Considerations

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to per-
   tain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
   document or the extent to which any license under such rights might

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                 [Page 10]

Internet Draft    BGP planned maintenance requirements         July 2005

   or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made
   any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's
   procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
   related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of
   rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses
   to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a
   general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights
   by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from
   the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive

 10. Acknowledgments

   Authors would like to thank Christian Jacquenet, Olivier
   Bonaventure, Steve Uhlig, Xavier Vinet, Vincent Gillet and Jean-
   Louis le Roux for the useful discussions on this subject, their
   review and comments.

 11. References

     [BGP] Y. Rekhter, T. Li,
           "A Border Gateway protocol 4 (BGP)", RFC 1771, March 1995.

     [MP-BGP] T. Bates, Y. Rekhter, R. Chandra, D. Katz,
           "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858 June 2000.

 12. Author's Addresses

   Nicolas Dubois
   France Telecom
   24, rue du G‰n‰ral Bertrand
   75007 Paris
   Email: nicolas.dubois@francetelecom.com

   Bruno Decraene
   France Telecom
   38-40 rue de general Leclerc
   92794 Issy Moulineaux cedex 9
   Email: bruno.decraene@francetelecom.com

   Benoit Fondeviole
   France Telecom
   38-40 rue de general Leclerc

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                 [Page 11]

Internet Draft    BGP planned maintenance requirements         July 2005

   92794 Issy Moulineaux cedex 9
   Email: benoit.fondeviole@francetelecom.com

   Zubair Ahmad
   13775 McLearen Road, Oak Hill VA 20171
   Email: zubair.ahmad@equant.com

   Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Dubois                    Expires January 2006                 [Page 12]