INTERNET-DRAFT Paul Traina
Danny McPherson
Arbor Networks
John Scudder
Cisco Systems
Expires: November 2004 May 2004
Autonomous System Confederations for BGP
<draft-ietf-idr-rfc3065bis-02.txt>
Status of this Document
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
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 [RFC 2119].
This document is a product of the . Comments should be addressed to
the authors, or the mailing list at
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Traina, McPherson, Scudder [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is an inter-autonomous system
routing protocol designed for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol (TCP/IP) networks. BGP requires that all BGP speakers
within a single autonomous system (AS) must be fully meshed. This
represents a serious scaling problem that has been well documented in
a number of proposals.
This document describes an extension to BGP which may be used to
create a confederation of autonomous systems that is represented as a
single autonomous system to BGP peers external to the confederation,
thereby removing the "full mesh" requirement. The intention of this
extension is to aid in policy administration and reduce the
management complexity of maintaining a large autonomous system.
Traina, McPherson, Scudder [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. AS_CONFED Segement Type Extension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. AS_PATH Modification Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Common Administration Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. MED and LOCAL_PREF Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. AS_PATH and Path Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Compatability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Deployment Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
15. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Traina, McPherson, Scudder [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
1. Introduction
As currently defined, BGP requires that all BGP speakers within a
single AS must be fully meshed. The result is that for n BGP
speakers within an AS n*(n-1)/2 unique IBGP sessions are required.
This "full mesh" requirement clearly does not scale when there are a
large number of IBGP speakers within the autonomous system, as is
common in many networks today.
This scaling problem has been well documented and a number of
proposals have been made to alleviate this [3,6]. This document
presents another alternative alleviating the need for a "full mesh"
and is known as "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", or
simply, "BGP Confederations". It has also been observed that BGP
Confederations may provide improvements in routing policy control.
This document is a revision of RFC 3065 [5], which is itself a
revision to RFC 1965 [4]. It includes editorial changes, terminology
clarifications and more explicit protocol specifications based on
deployment experience with BGP Confederations. These revisions are
summarized in Appendices A and B.
2. Terminology
AS Confederation
A collection of autonomous systems represented and advertised
as a single AS number to BGP speakers that are not members of
the local BGP confederation.
AS Confederation Identifier
An externally visible autonomous system number that identifies
a BGP confederation as a whole.
Member Autonomous System (Member-AS)
An autonomous system that is contained in a given AS
confederation. Note that "Member Autonomous System" and
"Member-AS" are used entirely interchangeably throughout
this document.
Member-AS Number
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 2. [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
An autonomous system number identifier visible only within
a BGP confederation, and used to represent a Member-AS
within that confederation.
3. Discussion
It may be useful to subdivide autonomous systems with a very large
number of BGP speakers into smaller domains for purposes of
controlling routing policy via information contained in the BGP
AS_PATH attribute. For example, one may choose to consider all BGP
speakers in a geographic region as a single entity.
In addition to potential improvements in routing policy control, if
techniques such as those presented here or in [6] are not employed,
[1] requires BGP speakers in the same autonomous system to establish
a full mesh of TCP connections among all speakers for the purpose of
exchanging exterior routing information. In autonomous systems the
number of intra-domain connections that need to be maintained by each
border router can become significant.
Subdividing a large autonomous system allows a significant reduction
in the total number of intra-domain BGP connections, as the
connectivity requirements simplify to the model used for inter-domain
connections.
Unfortunately, subdividing an autonomous system may increase the
complexity of routing policy based on AS_PATH information for all
members of the Internet. Additionally, this division increases the
maintenance overhead of coordinating external peering when the
internal topology of this collection of autonomous systems is
modified.
Therefore, division of an autonomous system into separate systems may
adversely affect optimal routing of packets through the Internet.
However, there is usually no need to expose the internal topology of
this divided autonomous system, which means it is possible to regard
a collection of autonomous systems under a common administration as a
single entity or autonomous system, when viewed from outside the
confines of the confederation of autonomous systems itself.
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 3. [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
4. AS_CONFED Segement Type Extension
Currently, BGP specifies that the AS_PATH attribute is a well-known
mandatory attribute that is composed of a sequence of AS path
segments. Each AS path segment is represented by a triple <path
segment type, path segment length, path segment value>.
In [1], the path segment type is a 1-octet long field with the two
following values defined:
Value Segment Type
1 AS_SET: unordered set of autonomous systems a route in
the UPDATE message has traversed
2 AS_SEQUENCE: ordered set of autonomous systems a route
in the UPDATE message has traversed
This document specifies two additional segment types:
3 AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE: ordered set of Member Autonomous
Systems in the local confederation that the UPDATE message
has traversed
4 AS_CONFED_SET: unordered set of Member Autonomous Systems
in the local confederation that the UPDATE message has
traversed
5. Operation
A member of a BGP confederation MUST use its AS Confederation
Identifier in all transactions with peers that are not members of its
confederation. This AS confederation identifier is the "externally
visible" AS number and this number is used in OPEN messages and
advertised in the AS_PATH attribute.
A member of a BGP confederation MUST use its Member-AS Number in all
transactions with peers that are members of the same confederation as
the local BGP speaker.
A BGP speaker receiving an AS_PATH attribute containing an autonomous
system matching its own AS Confederation Identifier SHALL treat the
path in the same fashion as if it had received a path containing its
own AS number.
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 5. [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
A BGP speaker receiving an AS_PATH attribute containing an
AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET which contains its own Member-AS
Number SHALL treat the path in the same fashion as if it had received
a path containing its own AS number.
5.1. AS_PATH Modification Rules
When implementing BGP Confederations Section 5.1.2 of [1] is replaced
with the following text:
When a BGP speaker propagates a route which it has learned from
another BGP speaker's UPDATE message, it SHALL modify the route's
AS_PATH attribute based on the location of the BGP speaker to which
the route will be sent:
a) When a given BGP speaker advertises the route to another BGP
speaker located in its own autonomous system, the advertising
speaker SHALL modify the AS_PATH attribute associated with the
route.
b) When a given BGP speaker advertises the route to a BGP speaker
located in a neighboring autonomous system that is a member of
the local confederation, the advertising speaker SHALL update
the AS_PATH attribute as follows:
1) if the first path segment of the AS_PATH is of type
AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE, the local system SHALL prepend its own
Member-AS Number as the last element of the sequence (put
it in the leftmost position).
2) if the first path segment of the AS_PATH is not of type
AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE the local system SHALL prepend a new path
segment of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE to the AS_PATH, including
its own Member-AS Number in that segment.
c) When a given BGP speaker advertises the route to a BGP speaker
located in a neighboring autonomous system that is not a member of
the local confederation, the advertising speaker SHALL update the
AS_PATH attribute as follows:
1) if any path segments of the AS_PATH are of the type
AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET, those segments MUST
be removed from the AS_PATH attribute, leaving the sanitized
AS_PATH attribute to be operated on by steps 2 or 3.
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 5.1. [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
2) if the first path segment of the remaining AS_PATH is of type
AS_SEQUENCE, the local system SHALL prepend its own
AS Confederation Identifier as the last element of the sequence
(put it in the leftmost position).
3) if there are no path segments following the removal of the
first AS_CONFED_SET/AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE segments, or if the
first path segment of the remaining AS_PATH is not of type
AS_SEQUENCE the local system SHALL prepend a new path segment
of type AS_SEQUENCE to the AS_PATH, including its own AS
Confederation Identifier in that segment.
When a BGP speaker originates a route:
a) the originating speaker SHALL include an empty AS_PATH attribute
in all UPDATE messages sent to BGP speakers residing within the
same Member-AS. (An empty AS_PATH attribute is one whose length
field contains the value zero).
b) the originating speaker SHALL include its own Member-AS Number in
an AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE segment of the AS_PATH attribute of all
UPDATE messages sent to BGP speakers located in neighboring
Member Autonomous Systems that are members of the local
confederation (i.e., the originating speaker's Member-AS Number
will be the only entry in the AS_PATH attribute).
c) the originating speaker SHALL include its own AS Confederation
Identifier in an AS_SEQUENCE segment of the AS_PATH attribute of
all UPDATE messages sent to BGP speakers located in neighboring
autonomous systems that are not members of the local
confederation. (In this case, the originating speaker's AS
Confederation Identifier will be the only entry in the AS_PATH
attribute).
6. Error Handling
A BGP speaker MUST NOT transmit updates containing AS_CONFED_SET or
AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE attributes to peers that are not members of the
local confederation.
It is an error for a BGP speaker to receive an update message with an
AS_PATH attribute which contains AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET
segments from a neighbor which is not located in the same
confederation. If a BGP speaker receives such an update message, it
SHALL treat the message as having a malformed AS_PATH according to
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 6. [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
the procedures of [1] Section 6.3 ("UPDATE message error handling").
It is a error for a BGP speaker to receive an update message from a
confederation peer which does not have AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE as the
first segment. If a BGP speaker receives such an update message, it
SHALL treat the message as having a malformed AS_PATH according to
the procedures of [1] Section 6.3 ("Update message error handling").
7. Common Administration Issues
It is reasonable for Member Autonomous Systems of a confederation to
share a common administration and IGP information for the entire
confederation.
7.1. MED and LOCAL_PREF Handling
It SHALL be legal for a BGP speaker to advertise an unchanged
NEXT_HOP and MULTI_EXIT_DISC (MED) attribute to peers in a
neighboring Member-AS of the local confederation.
An implementation MAY compare MEDs received from a Member-AS via
multiple paths. An implementation MAY compare MEDs from different
Member Autonomous Systems of the same confederation.
In addition, the restriction against sending the LOCAL_PREF attribute
to peers in a neighboring autonomous system within the same
confederation is removed.
7.2. AS_PATH and Path Selection
Path selection criteria for information received from members inside
a confederation MUST follow the same rules used for information
received from members inside the same autonomous system, as specified
in [1].
In addition, the following rules SHALL be applied:
1) If the AS_PATH is internal to the local confederation (i.e., there
are only AS_CONFED_* segments) consider the neighbor AS to be the
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 7.2. [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
local AS.
2) Otherwise, if the first segment in the path which is not an
AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET is an AS_SEQUENCE, consider
the neighbor AS to be the leftmost AS_SEQUENCE AS.
8. Compatability Considerations
All BGP speakers participating as member of a confederation MUST
recognize the AS_CONFED_SET and AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE segment type
extensions to the AS_PATH attribute.
Any BGP speaker not supporting these extensions will generate a
NOTIFICATION message specifying an "UPDATE Message Error" and a sub-
code of "Malformed AS_PATH".
This compatibility issue implies that all BGP speakers participating
in a confederation MUST support BGP confederations. However, BGP
speakers outside the confederation need not support these extensions.
9. Deployment Considerations
BGP confederations have been widely deployed throughout the Internet
for a number of years and are supported by multiple vendors.
Improper configuration of BGP confederations can cause routing
information within an AS to be duplicated unnecessarily. This
duplication of information will waste system resources, cause
unnecessary route flaps, and delay convergence.
Care should be taken to manually filter duplicate advertisements
caused by reachability information being relayed through multiple
Member Autonomous Systems based upon the topology and redundancy
requirements of the confederation.
Additionally, confederations (as well as route reflectors), by
excluding different reachability information from consideration at
different locations in a confederation, have been shown [9] to cause
permanent oscillation between candidate routes when using the tie
breaking rules required by BGP [1]. Care must be taken when
selecting MED values and tie breaking policy to avoid these
situations.
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 9. [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
One potential way to avoid this is by configuring inter-Member-AS IGP
metrics higher than intra-Member-AS IGP metrics and/or using other
tie breaking policies to avoid BGP route selection based on
incomparable MEDs.
10. Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might 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
Director.
11. Acknowledgments
The general concept of BGP confederations was taken from IDRP's
Routing Domain Confederations [2]. Some of the introductory text in
this document was taken from [6].
The authors would like to acknowledge Bruce Cole for his
implementation feedback and extensive analysis of the limitations of
the protocol extensions described in this document and [5]. We would
also like to acknowledge Srihari Ramachandra, Alex Zinin, Naresh
Kumar Paliwal, Jeffrey Haas and Bruno Rijsman for their feedback and
suggestions.
Finally, we'd like to acknowledge Ravi Chandra and Yakov Rekhter for
providing constructive and valuable feedback on earlier versions of
this specification.
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 11. [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
12. Security Considerations
This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
inherent in the existing BGP, such as those defined in [7].
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 12. [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
13. References
[1] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC
1771, March 1995.
[2] Kunzinger, C., Editor, "Inter-Domain Routing Protocol", ISO/IEC
10747, October 1993.
[3] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh
routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.
[4] Traina, P. "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC 1965,
June 1996.
[5] Traina, P., McPherson, D. and Scudder, J., "Autonomous System
Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001.
[6] Bates, T., Chandra, R. and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection An
Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000.
[7] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998.
[8] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[9] McPherson, D., Gill, V., Walton, D., Retana, A., "Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) Persistent Route Oscillation Condition", RFC 3345,
August 2002.
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 13. [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
14. Authors' Addresses
Paul Traina
EMail: pst+confed@spamcatcher.bogus.com
Danny McPherson
Arbor Networks
EMail: danny@arbor.net
John G. Scudder
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: +1 734.302.4128
EMail: jgs@cisco.com
15. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 15. [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: November 2004 May 2004
Traina, McPherson, Scudder Section 15. [Page 15]
