Internet Engineering Task Force J. Uttaro
Internet-Draft AT&T
Updates: 6368 (if approved) E. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: March 8, 2020 B. Decraene
Orange
J. Scudder
Juniper Networks
September 5, 2019
Support for Long-lived BGP Graceful Restart
draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-00
Abstract
In this document we introduce a new BGP capability termed "Long-lived
Graceful Restart Capability" so that stale routes can be retained for
a longer time upon session failure. A well-known BGP community
"LLGR_STALE" is introduced for marking stale routes retained for a
longer time. A second well-known BGP community, "NO_LLGR", is
introduced to mark routes for which these procedures should not be
applied. We also specify that such long-lived stale routes be
treated as the least-preferred, and their advertisements be limited
to BGP speakers that have advertised the new capability. Use of this
extension is not advisable in all cases, and we provide guidelines to
help determine if it is.
We update RFC 6368 by specifying that the LLGR_STALE community must
be propagated into, or out of, the path attributes exchanged between
PE and CE.
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 March 8, 2020.
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Long-lived Graceful Restart Capability . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. LLGR_STALE Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. NO_LLGR Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Use of Graceful Restart Capability . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Session Resets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Processing LLGR_STALE Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Route Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5. Multicast VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6. Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7. Optional Partial Deployment Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.8. Procedures when BGP is the PE-CE Protocol in a VPN . . . 13
4.8.1. Procedures when EBGP is the PE-CE Protocol in a VPN . 13
4.8.2. Procedures when IBGP is the PE-CE Protocol in a VPN . 14
5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. When BGP is the PE-CE Protocol in a VPN . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. Risks of Depreferencing Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Examples of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
1. Introduction
Historically, routing protocols in general and BGP in particular have
been designed with a focus on correctness, where a key part of
"correctness" is for each network element's forwarding state to
converge toward the current state of the network as quickly as
possible. For this reason, the protocol was designed to remove state
advertised by routers which went down (from a BGP perspective) as
quickly as possible. Over time, this has been relaxed somewhat,
notably by BGP Graceful Restart [RFC4724]; however, the paradigm has
remained one of attempting to rapidly remove "stale" state from the
network.
Over time, two phenomena have arisen that call into question the
underlying assumptions of this paradigm. The first is the widespread
adoption of tunneled forwarding infrastructures, for example MPLS.
Such infrastructures eliminate the risk of some types of forwarding
loops that can arise in hop-by-hop forwarding, and thus reduce one of
the motivations for strong consistency between forwarding elements.
The second is the increasing use of BGP as a transport for data less
closely associated with packet forwarding than was originally the
case. Examples include the use of BGP for autodiscovery (VPLS
[RFC4761]) and filter programming (FLOWSPEC [RFC5575]). In these
cases, BGP data takes on a character more akin to configuration than
to traditional routing.
The observations above motivate a desire to offer network operators
the ability to choose to retain BGP data for a longer period than has
hitherto been possible when the BGP control plane fails for some
reason. Although the semantics of BGP Graceful Restart [RFC4724] are
close to those desired, several gaps exist, most notably in maximum
time for which "stale" information can be retained -- Graceful
Restart imposes a 4095 second upper bound.
In this document we introduce a new BGP capability termed "Long-lived
Graceful Restart Capability" so that stale information can be
retained for a longer time across a session reset. We also introduce
two new BGP well-known communities, "LLGR_STALE", to mark such
information, and "NO_LLGR", to indicate that these procedures should
not be applied to the marked route. Long-lived stale information is
to be treated as least-preferred, and its advertisement limited to
BGP speakers that support the new capability. Where possible, we
reference the semantics of BGP Graceful Restart [RFC4724] rather than
specifying similar semantics in this document.
The expected deployment model for this extension is that it will only
be invoked for certain address families. This is discussed in more
detail in the Deployment Considerations section (Section 5). When
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
used, its use may be combined with that of traditional Graceful
Restart, in which case it is invoked only after the traditional
Graceful Restart interval has elapsed, or it may be invoked
immediately. Apart from the potential to greatly extend the timer,
the most obvious difference between Long-Lived and traditional
Graceful Restart is that in the Long-Lived version, routes are
"depreferenced", that is, treated as least-preferred, whereas in the
traditional version, route preference is not affected. The design
choice to treat Long-Lived Stale routes as least-preferred was
informed by the expectation that they might be retained for a
(potentially) almost unbounded period of time, whereas in the
traditional Graceful Restart case, stale routes are retained for only
a brief interval. In the GR case, the tradeoff between advertising
new route status (at the cost of routing churn) and not advertising
it (at the cost of suboptimal or incorrect route selection) is
resolved in favor of not advertising, and in the LLGR case, it is
resolved in favor of advertising new state.
1.1. 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].
2. Definitions
Depreference, Depreferenced: A route is said to be depreferenced if
it has its route selection preference reduced in reaction to some
event.
GR: Abbreviation for "Graceful Restart" [RFC4724], also sometimes
referred to herein as "conventional Graceful Restart" or
"conventional GR" to distinguish it from the "Long-lived Graceful
Restart" defined by this document.
Helper: Or "helper router". During Graceful Restart or Long-lived
Graceful Restart, the router that detects a session failure and
applies the listed procedures. [RFC4724] refers to this as the
"receiving speaker".
LLGR: Abbreviation for "Long-lived Graceful Restart".
LLST: Abbreviation for "Long-lived Stale Time".
Route: We use "route" to mean any information encoded as a BGP NLRI
and set of path attributes. As discussed above, the connection
between such routes and installation of forwarding state may be
quite remote.
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
3. Protocol Extensions
A new BGP capability and two new BGP communities are introduced.
3.1. Long-lived Graceful Restart Capability
The "Long-lived Graceful Restart Capability", or "LLGR Capability"
(value: 71) is a new BGP capability [RFC5492] that can be used by a
BGP speaker to indicate its ability to preserve its state according
to the procedures of this document. This capability MUST be
advertised in conjunction with the Graceful Restart capability
[RFC4724], see the "Use of Graceful Restart Capability" section
(Section 4.1).
The capability value consists of zero or more tuples <AFI, SAFI,
Flags, Long-lived Stale Time> as follows:
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Address Family Identifier (16 bits) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Subsequent Address Family Identifier (8 bits) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Flags for Address Family (8 bits) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Long-lived Stale Time (24 bits) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| ... |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Address Family Identifier (16 bits) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Subsequent Address Family Identifier (8 bits) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Flags for Address Family (8 bits) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Long-lived Stale Time (24 bits) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
The meaning of the fields are as follows:
Address Family Identifier (AFI), Subsequent Address Family
Identifier (SAFI):
The AFI and SAFI, taken in combination, indicate that the BGP
speaker has the ability to preserve its forwarding state for
the address family during a subsequent BGP restart. Routes may
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
be explicitly associated with a particular AFI and SAFI using
the encoding of [RFC4760] or implicitly associated with
<AFI=IPv4, SAFI=Unicast> if using the encoding of [RFC4271].
Flags for Address Family:
This field contains bit flags relating to routes that were
advertised with the given AFI and SAFI.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The most significant bit is used to indicate whether the state
for routes that were advertised with the given AFI and SAFI has
indeed been preserved during the previous BGP restart. When
set (value 1), the bit indicates that the state has been
preserved. This bit is called the "F bit" since it was
historically used to indicate preservation of Forwarding State.
Use of the F bit is detailed in the Session Resets section
(Section 4.2).
The remaining bits are reserved and MUST be set to zero by the
sender and ignored by the receiver.
Long-lived Stale Time:
This time (in seconds) specifies how long stale information
(for the AFI/SAFI) may be retained (possibly in conjunction
with the period specified by the "Restart Time" in the Graceful
Restart Capability, if present).
3.2. LLGR_STALE Community
We introduce a well-known BGP community [RFC1997] "LLGR_STALE"
(value: 0xFFFF0006). It can be used to mark stale routes retained
for a longer period of time. Such long-lived stale routes are to be
handled according to the procedures specified in the Operation
section (Section 4).
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
An implementation MAY allow users to configure policies that accept,
reject, or modify routes based on the presence or absence of this
community.
3.3. NO_LLGR Community
We introduce a well-known BGP community "NO_LLGR" (value:
0xFFFF0007). It can be used to mark routes which a BGP speaker does
not want treated according to these procedures, as detailed in the
Operation section (Section 4).
An implementation MAY allow users to configure policies that accept,
reject, or modify routes based on the presence or absence of this
community.
4. Operation
A BGP speaker MAY use BGP Capabilities Advertisement [RFC5492] to
advertise the "Long-lived Graceful Restart Capability" to indicate
its ability to retain state and perform related procedures specified
in this document. The setting of the parameters for an AFI/SAFI
depends on the properties of the BGP speaker, network scale, and
local configuration.
In the presence of the "Long-lived Graceful Restart Capability", the
procedures specified in [RFC4724] and [RFC8538] continue to apply
unless explicitly revised by this document.
4.1. Use of Graceful Restart Capability
The Graceful Restart capability MUST be advertised in conjunction
with the LLGR capability. If it is not so advertised, the LLGR
capability MUST be disregarded. The purpose for mandating that both
be used in conjunction is to enable reuse of certain base mechanisms
that are common to both "flavors", notably origination, collection
and processing of EoR, as well as the finite state machine
modifications and connection reset logic introduced by GR.
We observe that if support for conventional Graceful Restart is not
desired for the session, the conventional GR phase can be skipped by
omitting all AFI/SAFI from the GR capability, advertising a Restart
Time of zero, or both. The Session Resets section (Section 4.2)
discusses the interaction of conventional and long-lived GR.
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
4.2. Session Resets
BGP Graceful Restart [RFC4724], updated by [RFC8538], defines
conditions under which a BGP session can reset and have its
associated routes retained. If such a reset occurs for a session for
which the LLGR Capability has also been exchanged, the following
procedures apply.
If the Graceful Restart Capability that was received does not list
all AFI/SAFI supported by the session, then for those non-listed AFI/
SAFI the GR "Restart Time" shall be deemed zero. Similarly, if the
received LLGR Capability does not list all AFI/SAFI supported by the
session, then for those non-listed AFI/SAFI the "Long-lived Stale
Time" shall be deemed zero.
The following text in Section 4.2 of the GR specification [RFC4724]
no longer applies:
If the session does not get re-established within the "Restart
Time" that the peer advertised previously, the Receiving Speaker
MUST delete all the stale routes from the peer that it is
retaining.
and the following procedures are specified instead:
After the session goes down and before the session is re-established,
the stale routes for an AFI/SAFI MUST be retained. The interval for
which they are retained is limited by the sum of the "Restart Time"
in the received Graceful Restart Capability and the "Long-lived Stale
Time" in the received Long-lived Graceful Restart Capability. These
timers MAY be modified by local configuration.
If the value of the "Restart Time" or the "Long-lived Stale Time" is
zero, the duration of the corresponding period would be zero seconds.
So, for example, if the "Restart Time" is zero and the "Long-lived
Stale Time" is nonzero, only the procedures particular to LLGR would
apply. Conversely, if the "Long-lived Stale Time" is zero and the
"Restart Time" is nonzero, only the procedures of GR would apply. If
both are zero, none of these procedures would apply, only those of
the base BGP specification (although EoR would still be used as
detailed in [RFC4724]). And finally, if both are nonzero, then the
procedures would be applied serially -- first those of GR, then those
of LLGR. We observe that during the first interval, while the
procedures of GR are in effect, route preference would not be
affected, while during the second interval, while LLGR procedures are
in effect, routes would be treated as least-preferred as specified
elsewhere in this document.
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
Once the "Restart Time" period ends (including the case that the
"Restart Time" is zero), the LLGR period is said to have begun and
the following procedures MUST be performed:
o The helper router MUST start a timer for the "Long-lived Stale
Time". If the timer for the "Long-lived Stale Time" expires
before the session is re-established, the helper MUST delete all
the stale routes from the neighbor that it is retaining.
o The helper router MUST attach the LLGR_STALE community for the
stale routes being retained. Note that this requirement implies
that the routes would need to be readvertised, to disseminate the
modified community.
o If any of the routes from the peer have been marked with the
NO_LLGR community, either as sent by the peer, or as the result of
a configured policy, they MUST NOT be retained, but MUST be
removed as per the normal operation of [RFC4271].
o The helper router MUST perform the procedures listed under
Section 4.3.
Once the session is re-established, the procedures specified in
[RFC4724] apply for the stale routes irrespective of whether the
stale routes are retained during the "Restart Time" period or the
"Long-lived Stale Time" period. However, in the case of consecutive
restarts (i.e, the session goes down before the EoR is received) the
previously marked stale routes MUST NOT be deleted before the timer
for the "Long-lived Stale Time" expires.
Similarly to [RFC4724], once the session is re-established, if the F
bit for a specific address family is not set in the newly received
LLGR Capability, or if a specific address family is not included in
the newly received LLGR Capability, or if the LLGR and accompanying
GR Capability are not received in the re-established session at all,
then the Helper MUST immediately remove all the stale routes from the
peer that it is retaining for that address family.
If a "Long-lived Stale Time" timer is running for a peer, it MUST NOT
be updated (other than by manual operator intervention) until the
peer has established and synchronized a new session. The session is
termed "synchronized" once the EoR has been received from the peer.
The value of the "Long-lived Stale Time" in the capability received
from a neighbor MAY be reduced by local configuration.
While the session is down, the expiration of the "Long-lived Stale
Time" timer is treated analogously to the expiration of the "Restart
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
Time" timer in Graceful Restart. However, the timer continues to run
once the session has re-established. The timer is not stopped, nor
updated, until EoR is received from the peer. If the timer expires
during synchronization with the peer, any stale routes that the peer
has not refreshed, are removed. If the session subsequently resets
prior to becoming synchronized, any remaining routes should be
removed immediately.
4.3. Processing LLGR_STALE Routes
A BGP speaker that has advertised the "Long-lived Graceful Restart
Capability" to a neighbor MUST perform the following upon receiving a
route from that neighbor with the "LLGR_STALE" community, or upon
attaching the "LLGR_STALE" community itself per Section 4.2:
o Treat the route as the least-preferred in route selection (see
below). See the Risks of Depreferencing Routes section
(Section 5.2) for a discussion of potential risks inherent in
doing this.
o The route SHOULD NOT be advertised to any neighbor from which the
Long-lived Graceful Restart Capability has not been received. The
exception is described in the Optional Partial Deployment
Procedure section (Section 4.7). Note that this requirement
implies that such routes should be withdrawn from any such
neighbor.
o The "LLGR_STALE" community MUST NOT be removed when the route is
further advertised.
4.4. Route Selection
In this document, when we refer to treating a route as least-
preferred, this means the route MUST be treated as less preferred
than any other route that is not so treated. When performing route
selection between two routes both of which are least-preferred,
normal tie-breaking applies. Note that this would only be expected
to happen if the only routes available for selection were least-
preferred -- in all other cases, such routes would have been
eliminated from consideration.
4.5. Multicast VPN
If LLGR is being used in a network that carries Multicast VPN (MVPN)
traffic ([RFC6513],[RFC6514]), special considerations apply.
[RFC6513] defines the notion of the "Upstream PE" and the "Upstream
Multicast Hop" (UMH) for a particular multicast flow. To determine
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
the Upstream PE and/or the UMH for a particular flow, a particular
set of comparable BGP routes (the "UMH-eligible" routes for that
flow, as defined in [RFC6513]) is considered, and the "best" one
(according to the BGP bestpath selection algorithm) is chosen. The
UMH-eligible routes are routes with AFI/SAFI 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, or 2/2.
When a router detects a change in the Upstream PE or UMH for a given
flow, the router may modify its data plane state for that flow. For
example, the router may begin to discard any packets of the flow that
it believes have arrived from the previously chosen Upstream PE or
UMH. The assumption is that the newly chosen Upstream PE and/or UMH
will make the corresponding changes, if necessary, to their own data
plane states. In addition, if a router detects a change in the
Uptream PE or UMH for a given flow, it may originate or readvertise
(with different attributes) certain of the BGP MCAST-VPN routes
(routes with SAFI 5) that are defined in [RFC6514]. The assumption
is that the MCAST-VPN routes will be properly distributed by BGP to
other routers that have data plane states for the given flow, i.e.,
that BGP will converge so that all routers handle the flow in a
consistent manner.
However, if detection of a change to the Upstream PE or UMH is based
entirely on stale routes, one cannot assume that BGP will converge;
rather one must assume that the UMH-eligible routes and the MCAST-VPN
routes are not being properly distributed. Since the purpose of the
LLGR procedures is to try to keep the data flowing (by "freezing" the
data plane states) when the control plane updates are not being
properly distributed, it does not seem appropriate to react to
changes that are based entirely on stale routes. Therefore, the
following rules MUST be applied when a router is computing or
recomputing the Upstream PE and/or the UMH for a given multicast
flow:
o STALE routes (i.e., UMH-eligible routes with the LLGR_STALE
attribute) are less preferable than non-STALE routes.
o If all the UMH-eligible routes for a given flow are STALE, then
the Upstream PE and/or UMH for that flow is considered to be
"stale".
o If the Upstream PE or UMH for a given multicast flow has already
been determined, and the result of a new computation yields a new
Upstream PE or UMH, but the Upstream PE or UMH is "stale" (as
defined just above), then the Upstream PE and/or UMH for that flow
MUST be left unchanged.
o If the Upstream PE or UMH for a given multicast flow has not
already been determined, but is now determined to be STALE, the
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
multicast flow is considered to have no reachable Upstream PE and/
or UMH.
[RFC6514] also defines a set of route types with SAFI 5 ("MCAST-VPN"
routes). LLGR can be applied to MCAST-VPN routes. However, the
following MCAST-VPN route types require special procedures, as
specified in this section:
o Leaf A-D routes
o C-multicast Shared Tree Join routes
o C-multicast Source Tree Join routes
Routes of these three types are always "targeted" to a particular
upstream router. Depending on the situation, the targeted router may
be the Upstream PE for a given flow or the UMH for a given flow.
Alternatively, the targeted router may be determined by choosing the
"best" route (according to the BGP bestpath algorithm) from among a
set of comparable Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes, or from among a set of
comparable Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes, or from among a set of
comparable S-PMSI A-D routes. (See [RFC6513], [RFC6514], [RFC6625],
and [RFC7524] for details.) Once the target is chosen, it is
identified in an IPv4-address-specific Route Target (RT) or an IPv6-
address-specific RT that is attached to the route before the route is
advertised. If the target for one of these routes changes, the value
of the attached RT will also change. This in turn may cause the
route to be advertised, readvertised, or withdrawn on specific BGP
sessions.
For cases where the targeted router is the Upstream PE or the UMH for
a particular flow, the rules given previously in this section apply.
For example, if a Leaf A-D route is targeted to a flow's UMH, and all
the relevant UMH-eligible routes are stale, the UMH is left
unchanged. Thus the Leaf A-D route is not readvertised with a new
RT.
In those cases where the targeted router for a given Leaf A-D route
is selected by comparing a set of S-PMSI A-D routes, or where the
targeted router for a given C-multicast Shared or Source Tree Join
route is selected by comparing a set of Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes,
the following rules MUST be applied:
o STALE routes (i.e., "I/S-PMSI A-D routes" with the LLGR_STALE
attribute) are less preferable than non-STALE routes.
o If all the routes being considered are STALE, then the targeted
router of the Leaf A-D route or C-multicast Shared or Source Tree
Join route MUST NOT be changed.
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
This prevents a Leaf A-D route or C-multicast route from being
targeted to a particular router if the relevant I/S-PMSI A-D routes
from that router are stale. Since those routes are stale, it is
likely that the Leaf A-D route or C-multicast route would not make it
to the targeted router, in which case it is better to maintain the
existing data plane states than to make changes that presuppose that
the MCAST-VPN routes will be properly distributed.
4.6. Errors
If the LLGR capability is received without an accompanying GR
capability, the LLGR capability MUST be ignored, that is, the
implementation MUST behave as though no LLGR capability had been
received.
4.7. Optional Partial Deployment Procedure
Ideally, all routers in an Autonomous System would support this
specification before it was enabled. However, to facilitate
incremental deployment, stale routes MAY be advertised to neighbors
that have not advertised the Long-lived Graceful Restart Capability
under the following conditions:
o The neighbors MUST be internal (IBGP or Confederation) neighbors.
o The NO_EXPORT community [RFC1997] MUST be attached to the stale
routes.
o The stale routes MUST have their LOCAL_PREF set to zero. See the
Risks of Depreferencing Routes section (Section 5.2) for a
discussion of potential risks inherent in doing this.
If this strategy for partial deployment is used, the network operator
should set LOCAL_PREF to zero for all LLGR routes throughout the
Autonomous System. This trades off a small reduction in flexibility
(ordering may not be preserved between competing LLGR routes) for
consistency between routers which do, and do not, support this
specification. Since consistency of route selection can be important
for preventing forwarding loops, the latter consideration dominates.
4.8. Procedures when BGP is the PE-CE Protocol in a VPN
4.8.1. Procedures when EBGP is the PE-CE Protocol in a VPN
In VPN deployments, for example [RFC4364], EBGP is often used as a
PE-CE protocol. It may be a practical necessity in such deployments
to accommodate interoperation with peer routers that cannot easily be
upgraded to support specifications such as this one. This leads to a
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
problem: in this specification, we take pains to ensure that "stale"
routing information will not leak beyond the perimeter of routers
that support these procedures, so that it can be depreferenced as
expected, and we provide a workaround (Section 4.7) for the case
where one or more IBGP routers are not upgraded. However, in the VPN
PE-CE case, the protocol in use is EBGP, and our workaround does not
work since it relies on the use of LOCAL_PREF, an IBGP-only path
attribute.
We observe that the principal motivation for restricting the
propagation of "stale" routing information is the desire to prevent
it from spreading without limit once it exits the "safe" perimeter.
We further observe that VPN deployments are typically topologically
constrained, making this concern moot. For this reason, an
implementation MAY advertise stale routes over a PE-CE session, when
explicitly configured to do so. That is, the second rule listed in
Section 4.3 MAY be disregarded in such cases. All other rules
continue to apply. Finally, if this exception is used, the
implementation SHOULD by default attach the NO_EXPORT community to
the routes in question, as an additional protection against stale
routes spreading without limit. Attachment of the NO_EXPORT
community MAY be disabled by explicit configuration, to accommodate
exceptional cases.
See further discussion of using explicitly configured policy to
mitigate this issue in Section 5.1.
4.8.2. Procedures when IBGP is the PE-CE Protocol in a VPN
If IBGP is used as the PE-CE protocol, following the procedures of
[RFC6368], then when a PE router imports a VPN route that contains
the ATTR_SET attribute into a destination VRF and subsequently
advertises that route to a CE router,
o If the CE router does support the procedures of this document (in
other words, if the CE router has advertised the LLGR Capability):
In addition to including in the advertised route the path
attributes derived from the ATTR_SET as per [RFC6368], the PE
router MUST also include the LLGR_STALE community if it is present
in the path attributes of the imported route, even if it is not
present in the ATTR_SET attribute.
o If the CE router does not support the procedures of this document,
then the optional procedures of Section 4.7 MAY be followed,
attaching the NO_EXPORT community and setting the value of
LOCAL_PREF to zero, overriding the value found in the ATTR_SET.
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
Similarly, when a PE router receives a route from a CE into its VRF
and subsequently exports that route to a VPN address family,
o If the PE router does support the procedures of this document (in
other words, if the PE router has advertised the LLGR Capability):
In addition to including in the VPN route the ATTR_SET derived
from the path attributes as per [RFC6368], the PE router MUST also
include the LLGR_STALE community in the VPN route if it is present
in the path attributes of the route as received from the CE.
o If the PE router does not support the procedures of this document,
there exists no ideal solution. The CE could advertise a route
with LLGR_STALE, with the understanding that the LLGR_STALE
marking will only be honored by the provider network if
appropriate policy configuration exists on the PE (see
Section 5.1). It is at least guaranteed that LLGR_STALE will be
propagated when the route is propagated beyond the provider
network. Or, the CE could refrain from advertising the LLGR_STALE
route to the incapable PE.
5. Deployment Considerations
The deployment considerations discussed in [RFC4724] apply to this
document. In addition, network operators are cautioned to carefully
consider the potential disadvantages of deploying these procedures
for a given AFI/SAFI. Most notably, if used for an AFI/SAFI that
conveys traditional reachability information, use of a long-lived
stale route could result in a loss of connectivity for the covered
prefix. This specification takes pains to mitigate this risk where
possible, by making such routes least-preferred and by restricting
the scope of such routes to routers that support these procedures
(or, optionally, a single Autonomous System, see "Optional Partial
Deployment Procedure", above). However, according to the normal
rules of IP forwarding a stale more-specific route, that has no non-
stale alternate paths available, will still be used instead of a non-
stale less-specific route. Networks in which the deployment of these
procedures would be especially concerning include those which do not
use "tunneled" forwarding (in other words, those using traditional
hop-by-hop forwarding).
Implementations MUST NOT enable these procedures by default. They
MUST require affirmative configuration per AFI/SAFI in order to
enable them.
The procedures of this document do not alter the route resolvability
requirement of [RFC4271] Section 9.1.2.1.. Because of this, it will
commonly be the case that "stale" IBGP routes will only continue to
be used if the router depicted in the next hop remains resolvable,
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
even if its BGP component is down. Details of IGP fault-tolerance
strategies are beyond the scope of this document. In addition to the
foregoing, it may be advisable to check the viability of the next hop
through other means, see for example
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria]. This may be
especially useful in cases where the next hop is known directly at
the network layer, notably EBGP.
As discussed in this document, after a BGP session goes down and
before the session is re-established, stale routes may be retained
for up to two consecutive periods, controlled by the "Restart Time"
and the "Long-lived Stale Time", respectively. During the first
period routing churn would be prevented but with potential
blackholing of traffic. During the second period potential
blackholing of traffic may be reduced but routing churn would be
visible throughout the network. The setting of the relevant
parameters for a particular application should take into account the
tradeoffs, the network dynamics and potential failure scenarios. If
needed, the first period can be bypassed either by local
configuration or by setting the "Restart Time" in the Graceful
Restart Capability to zero and/or not listing the AFI/SAFI in that
Capability.
The setting of the F bit (and the "Forwarding State" bit of the
accompanying GR capability) depends in part on deployment
considerations. The F bit can be understood as an indication that
the Helper should flush associated routes (if the bit is left clear).
As discussed in the Introduction, an important use case for LLGR is
for routes that are more akin to configuration than to traditional
routing. For such routes, it may make sense to always set the F bit,
regardless of other considerations. Likewise, for control-plane-only
entities such as dedicated route reflectors, that do not participate
in the forwarding plane, it makes sense to always set the F bit.
Overall, the rule of thumb is that if loss of state on the restarting
router can reasonably be expected to cause a forwarding loop or black
hole, the F bit should be set scrupulously according to whether state
has been retained. Specifics of when the F bit is, and is not, set
are implementation-dependent and may also be controlled by
configuration. Also, for every AFI/SAFI represented in the LLGR
capability that is also represented in the GR capability, there will
be two corresponding F bits -- the LLGR F bit and the GR F bit. If
the LLGR F bit is set, the corresponding GR F bit should also be set,
since to do otherwise would cause the state to be cleared on the
Receiving Router per the normal rules of GR, violating the intent of
the set LLGR bit.
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
5.1. When BGP is the PE-CE Protocol in a VPN
As discussed in Section 4.8, it may be necessary for a PE (or CE, in
the symmetric case) to advertise stale routes to a CE (or PE) in some
VPN deployments, even if the CE (PE) does not support this
specification. In that case, the operator configuring their PE (CE)
to advertise such routes should notify the operator of the CE (PE)
receiving the routes, and the CE (PE) should be configured to
depreference the routes. Typical BGP implementations will be able to
do this by matching on the LLGR_STALE community, and setting the
LOCAL_PREF for matching routes to zero, similar to the procedure
described in Section 4.7.
5.2. Risks of Depreferencing Routes
Depreferencing EBGP routes is considered safe, no different from the
common practice of applying a routing policy to an EBGP session.
However, the same is not always true of IBGP.
Consistent route selection is a fundamental tenet of IBGP correctness
and safe operation in hop-by-hop routed networks. When routers
within an AS apply different criteria in selecting routes, they can
arrive at inconsistent route selections, potentially with the
consequence of forming forwarding loops unless some form of tunneled
forwarding is used to prevent "core" routers from making a
(potentially inconsistent) forwarding decision based on the IP
header.
This specification uses the state of a peering session as an input to
the selection criteria, depreferencing routes that are associated
with a session that has gone down but have not yet aged out. Since
different routers within an AS might have different notions as to
whether their respective sessions with a given peer are up or down,
they might apply different selection criteria to routes from that
peer. This could result in a forwarding loop forming between such
routers.
For an example of such a forwarding loop, consider the following
simple topology:
A ---- B ---- C ------------------------- D
^ ^
| |
R1 R2
In this example, A - D are routers with a full mesh of IBGP sessions
between them. The short links have unit cost, the long link has cost
5. Routers A and D are AS border routers, each advertising some
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
route, R, into the AS -- these are denoted R1 and R2 in the diagram.
In ordinary operation, it can be seen that routers B and C will
select R1 for forwarding, and will forward toward A.
Suppose that the session between A and B goes down for some reason,
and stays down long enough for LLGR processing to be invoked on B.
Then on B, route R1 will be depreferenced, leading to the selection
of R2 by B. However, C will continue to prefer R1. It can be seen
that in this case, a forwarding loop for packets destined to R would
form between B and C. (We note that other forwarding loop scenarios
can be constructed for traditional GR, but are generally considered
less severe since GR can remain in effect for a much more limited
interval.)
The potential benefits of this specification can outweigh the risks
discussed above, as long as care is exercised in deployment. The
cardinal rule to be followed is, if a given set of routes are being
used within an AS for hop-by-hop forwarding, it is not recommended to
enable LLGR procedures. If tunneled forwarding (such as MPLS) is
used within the AS, or if routes are being used for purposes other
than hop-by-hop forwarding, less caution is needed, though the
operator should still carefully consider the consequences of enabling
LLGR.
6. Security Considerations
The security implications of the LLGR mechanism defined within in
this document are akin to those incurred by the maintenance of stale
routing information within a network. This is particularly relevant
when considering the maintenance of routing information that is
utilised for service segregation - such as MPLS label entries.
For MPLS VPN services, the effectiveness of the traffic isolation
between VPNs relies on the correctness of the MPLS labels between
ingress and egress PEs. In particular, when an egress PE withdraws a
label L1 allocated to a VPN1 route, this label MUST NOT be assigned
to a VPN route of a different VPN until all ingress PEs stop using
the old VPN1 route using L1.
Such a corner case may happen today, if the propagation of VPN routes
by BGP messages between PEs takes more time than the label re-
allocation delay on a PE. Given that we can generally bound worst
case BGP propagation time to a few minutes (for example 2-5), the
security breach will not occur if PEs are designed to not reallocate
a previous used and withdrawn label before a few minutes.
The problem is made worse with BGP GR between PEs as VPN routes can
be stalled for a longer period of time (for example 20 minutes).
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
This is further aggravated by the BGP LLGR extension proposed in this
document as VPN routes can be stalled for a much longer period of
time (for example 2 hours, 1 day).
Therefore, to avoid VPN breach, before enabling BGP LLGR, SPs need to
check how fast a given label can be reused by a PE, taking into
account:
o The load of the BGP route churn on a PE (in term of number of VPN
label advertised and churn rate).
o The label allocation policy on the PE (possibly depending upon the
size of pool of the VPN labels (which can be restricted by
hardware consideration or others MPLS usages), the label
allocation scheme (for example per route or per VRF/CE), the re-
allocation policy (for example least recently used label...)
Note that [RFC4781] which defines Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP
with MPLS is also applicable to BGP LLGR.
In addition to these considerations, the LLGR mechanism described
within this document is considered to be complex to exploit
maliciously - in order to inject packets into a topology, there is a
requirement to engineer a specific LLGR state between two PE devices,
whilst engineering label reallocation to occur in a manner that
results in the two topologies overlapping. Such allocation is
particularly difficult to engineer (since it is typically an internal
mechanism of an LSR).
7. Examples of Operation
For illustrative purposes, we present a few examples of how this
specification might be used in practice. These examples are neither
exhaustive nor normative.
Consider the following scenario: A border router, ASBR1, has an IBGP
peering with a route reflector, RR1, from which it learns routes. It
has an EBGP peering with an external peer, EXT, to which it
advertises those routes. The external peer has advertised the GR and
LLGR Capabilities to ASBR1. ASBR1 is configured to support GR and
LLGR on its session with RR1 and EXT. RR1 advertises a GR Restart
Time of 1 (second) and a LLST of 3600 (seconds):
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Time | Event |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| t | ASBR1's IBGP session with RR fails. ASBR1 retains RR's |
| | routes according to the rules of GR [RFC4724] |
| | |
| t+1 | GR Restart Time expires. ASBR1 transitions RR's routes |
| | to long-lived stale by attaching the LLGR_STALE |
| | community and depreferencing them. However, since it |
| | has no backup routes, it continues to make use of |
| | them. It re-announces them to EXT with the LLGR_STALE |
| | community attached. |
| | |
| t+1+3600 | LLST expires. ASBR1 removes RR's stale routes from its |
| | own RIB and sends BGP updates to withdraw them from |
| | EXT. |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
Next, imagine the same scenario but suppose RR1 advertised a GR
Restart Time of zero, effectively disabling GR. Equally, ASBR1 could
have used local configuration to override RR1's offered Restart Time,
setting it to a locally-configured value of zero:
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Time | Event |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| t | ASBR1's IBGP session with RR fails. ASBR1 transitions |
| | RR's routes to long-lived stale by attaching the |
| | LLGR_STALE community and depreferencing them. However, |
| | since it has no backup routes, it continues to make |
| | use of them. It re-announces them to EXT with the |
| | LLGR_STALE community attached. |
| | |
| t+0+3600 | LLST expires. ASBR1 removes RR's stale routes from its |
| | own RIB and sends BGP updates to withdraw them from |
| | EXT. |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
Next, imagine the original scenario, but consider that the ASBR1-RR1
session comes back up and becomes synchronized 180 seconds after the
failure was detected:
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
+---------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Time | Event |
+---------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| t | ASBR1's IBGP session with RR fails. ASBR1 retains RR's |
| | routes according to the rules of GR [RFC4724] |
| | |
| t+1 | GR Restart Time expires. ASBR1 transitions RR's routes |
| | to long-lived stale by attaching the LLGR_STALE |
| | community and depreferencing them. However, since it |
| | has no backup routes, it continues to make use of them. |
| | It re-announces them to EXT with the LLGR_STALE |
| | community attached. |
| | |
| t+1+179 | Session is reestablished and resynchronized. ASBR1 |
| | removes the LLGR_STALE community from RR1's routes and |
| | re-announces them to EXT with the LLGR_STALE community |
| | removed. |
+---------+---------------------------------------------------------+
Finally, imagine the original scenario, but consider that EXT has not
advertised the LLGR Capability to ASBR1:
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Time | Event |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| t | ASBR1's IBGP session with RR fails. ASBR1 retains RR's |
| | routes according to the rules of GR [RFC4724] |
| | |
| t+1 | GR Restart Time expires. ASBR1 transitions RR's routes |
| | to long-lived stale by attaching the LLGR_STALE |
| | community and depreferencing them. However, since it |
| | has no backup routes, it continues to make use of |
| | them. It withdraws them from EXT. |
| | |
| t+1+3600 | LLST expires. ASBR1 removes RR's stale routes from its |
| | own RIB. |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
8. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Nabil Bitar, Martin Djernaes, Roberto
Fragassi, Jeffrey Haas, Nicolai Leymann, Paul Mattes, John Medamana,
Pranav Mehta, Han Nguyen, Saikat Ray and Eric Rosen for their
valuable input and contributions to the discussion and solution.
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
9. Contributors
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
Brussels 1000
Belgium
Email: cf@cisco.com
Pradosh Mohapatra
Cumulus Networks
Email: pmohapat@cumulusnetworks.com
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks
Email: yakov@juniper.net
Eric Rosen
Cisco Systems
Email: erosen@cisco.com
Rob Shakir
BT
Email: rob.shakir@bt.com
Adam Simpson
Alcatel-Lucent
600 March Road
Ottawa, Ontario K2K 2E6
Canada
Email: adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com
10. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new BGP capability - Long-lived Graceful
Restart Capability. IANA has assigned a Capability Code of 71.
This document introduces a new BGP community "LLGR_STALE" for marking
the long-lived stale routes, and another community "NO_LLGR" to
indicate that stale routes should not be retained. IANA has assigned
these well-known community values 0xFFFF0006 and 0xFFFF0007,
respectively.
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4724, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4724>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC6625] Rosen, E., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., Hendrickx, W., and R.
Qiu, "Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes",
RFC 6625, DOI 10.17487/RFC6625, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6625>.
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
[RFC8538] Patel, K., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and J. Haas,
"Notification Message Support for BGP Graceful Restart",
RFC 8538, DOI 10.17487/RFC8538, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8538>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria]
Asati, R., "BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhancement",
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-12 (work in
progress), June 2019.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC4781] Rekhter, Y. and R. Aggarwal, "Graceful Restart Mechanism
for BGP with MPLS", RFC 4781, DOI 10.17487/RFC4781,
January 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4781>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
[RFC6368] Marques, P., Raszuk, R., Patel, K., Kumaki, K., and T.
Yamagata, "Internal BGP as the Provider/Customer Edge
Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)",
RFC 6368, DOI 10.17487/RFC6368, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6368>.
[RFC7524] Rekhter, Y., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., Morin, T.,
Grosclaude, I., Leymann, N., and S. Saad, "Inter-Area
Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Segmented Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 7524, DOI 10.17487/RFC7524, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7524>.
Authors' Addresses
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Long-Lived Graceful Restart September 2019
James Uttaro
AT&T
200 S. Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
Email: ju1738@att.com
Enke Chen
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: enkechen@cisco.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
38-40 Rue de General Leclerc
92794 Issy Moulineaux cedex 9
France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
John G. Scudder
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: jgs@juniper.net
Uttaro, et al. Expires March 8, 2020 [Page 25]
