Internet Engineering Task Force R. Shakir
Internet-Draft C&W
Intended status: Informational February 20, 2011
Expires: August 24, 2011

Operational Requirements for Enhanced Error Handling Behaviour in BGP-4
draft-shakir-idr-ops-reqs-for-bgp-error-handling-01

Abstract

BGP-4 is utilised as a key intra- and inter-Autonomous System routing protocol in modern IP networks. The failure modes as defined by the original protocol standards are based on a number of assumptions around the impact of session failure. Numerous incidents both in the global Internet routing table and within Service Provider networks have been caused by strict handling of a single invalid UPDATE message causing large-scale failures in one or more Autonomous Systems.

This memo describes the current use of BGP-4 within Service Provider networks, and outlines a set of requirements for further work to enhance the mechanisms available to a BGP-4 implementation when erroneous data is detected. Whilst this document does not provide specification of any standard, it is intended as an overview of a set of enhancements to BGP-4 to improve the protocol's robustness to suit its current deployment.

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 http://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 August 24, 2011.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2011 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 (http://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

Where BGP-4 [RFC4271] is deployed in the Internet and Service Provider networks, numerous incidents have been recorded due to the manner in which [RFC4271] specifies errors in routing information should be handled. Whilst the behaviour defined in the existing standards retains utility, the deployments of the protocol have changed within modern networks, resulting in significantly different demands for protocol robustness. Whilst a number of Internet Drafts have been written to begin to enhance the behaviour of BGP-4 in terms of the handling of erroneous messages, this draft intends to define a set of requirements for ongoing work. These requirements are considered from the perspective of a Network Operator, and hence this draft does not intend to define the protocol mechanisms by which such error handling behaviour is to be implemented.

1.1. Role of BGP-4 in Service Provider Networks

BGP was designed as an inter-Autonomous System (AS) routing protocol and hence many of the error handling mechanisms within the protocol specification are designed to be conducive to this role. In general, this consideration as an inter-AS routing propagation mechanism results in the view that a BGP session propagates a relatively small amount of network-layer reachability information (NLRI) between two ASes. In this case, it is the expectation of session resilience for those adjacencies that are key to routing continuity (for example, it is expected that two networks peering via BGP would connect multiple times in order to safeguard equipment or protocol failure). In addition, there is some expectation of multiple paths to a particular NLRI being available - it would be expected that a network can fall back to utilising alternate, less direct, paths where a failure of a more direct path occurs.

Traditional network architectures would deploy an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) to carry infrastructure and customer prefixes, with an Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) such as BGP being utilised to propagate these prefixes to other Autonomous Systems. However, with the growth of IP-based services, this is no longer considered best practice. In order to ensure that convergence is within acceptable time bounds, the amount of routing information carried within the IGP is significantly reduced - and tends to be only infrastructure prefixes. iBGP is then utilised to propagate both customer, and external prefixes within an AS. As such, BGP has become an IGP, with traditional IGPs acting as a means by which to propagate the routing information which is required to establish a BGP session, and reach the egress node within the local routing domain. This change in role presents different requirements for the robustness of BGP as a routing protocol - with the expectation of similar level of robustness to that of an IGP being set.

Along with this change in role, the nature of the IP routing information that is carried has changed. BGP has become a ubiquitous means by which service information can be propagated between devices. For instance, BGP is utilised to carry routing information for IP/MPLS VPN services as described in [RFC4364]. Since there is an existing deployment of the protocol between PE devices in numerous networks, it has been adapted to propagate this routing information, as its use limits number of routing protocols required on each device. This additional information being propagated represents a large change in requirement for the error handling of the protocol - where session failure occurs, it is likely a complete service outage for at least a subset of a network's customers is experienced where an erroneous packet may have occurred within a different sub-topology or even service (a different address family for example). For this reason, there is a significant demand to avoid service affecting failures that may be triggered by routing information within a single sub-topology or service.

Both within Internet and multi-service routing architectures, a number of BGP sessions propagate a large proportion of the required routing information for network operation. For Internet routing, these are typically BGP sessions which propagate the global routing table to an AS - failure of these sessions may have a large impact on network service, based on a single erroneous update. In an multi-service environment, typical deployments utilise a small number of core-facing BGP sessions, typically towards route reflector devices. Failure of these sessions may also result in a large impact to network operation. Clearly, the avoidance of conditions requiring these sessions to fail is of great utility to any network operator, and provides further motivation for the revision of the existing behaviour.

Whilst the behaviour in [RFC4271] is suited to ensuring that BGP messages with erroneous routing information in are limited in scope (by means of session reset), with the above considerations, it is clear that this mechanism is not suited to all deployments. It should, however, be noted that the change in scope affects the handling only of errors occurring after BGP session establishment. There is no current operational requirement to amend the means by which error handling in session establishment, or liveliness detection, are performed.

1.2. Overview of Operator Requirements for BGP-4 Error Handling

It is the intention of this document to define a set of criteria for the manner in which a revised error handling mechanism in BGP-4 is required to conform. The motivation for the definition of these requirements can be summarised based on certain behaviour currently present in the protocol that is not deemed acceptable within current operational deployments, or where there is a short-fall in the tool set available to an operator. These key requirements can be summarised as follows:

  • It is unacceptable within modern deployments of the BGP-4 protocol that a single erroneous UPDATE packet affects prefixes that it does not carry. This requirement therefore requires some modification to the means by which erroneous UPDATE packets are handled, and reacted to - with a particular focus on avoiding the use of the NOTIFICATION message.
  • It is recognised that some error conditions may occur within the BGP-4 protocol may not always be handled gracefully, and may result in conditions whereby an implementation cannot recover. In these (and similar) cases, it is unacceptable for an operator that this reset of the BGP-4 session results in interruption to forwarding packets (by means of withdrawing prefixes installed by BGP-4 into a device's RIB, and subsequently FIB). To this end, there is a requirement to define a session reset mechanism which provides session re-initialisation in a non-destructive manner.
  • Further to the requirements to provide a more robust protocol, the current visibility into error conditions within the BGP-4 protocol is extremely limited - where further modifications to this behaviour are to be made, complexity is likely to be added. Thus, to ensure that BGP-4 is manageable, there are requirements for mechanisms by which the protocol can be examined and monitored.

This document describes each of these requirements in further depth, along with an overview of means by which they are expected to be achieved. In addition, the mechanism by which the enhancements meeting these requirements are to interact is discussed.

2. Avoiding use of NOTIFICATION

The error handling behaviour defined in RFC4271 is problematic due to the limited options that are available to an implementation. When an erroneous BGP message is received, at the current time, the implementation must either ignore the error, or send a NOTIFICATION message, after which it is mandatory to terminate the BGP session. It is apparent that this requirement is at odds with that of protocol robustness.

There is significant complexity to this requirement. The mechanism defined in [I-D.chen-ebgp-error-handling] describes a means by which no NOTIFICATION message is generated for all cases whereby NLRI can be extracted from an UPDATE. The NLRI contained within the erroneous UPDATE message is considered as though the remote BGP speaker has provided an UPDATE marking it as withdrawn. This results in a limit in the propagation of the invalid routing information, whilst also ensuring that no traffic is forwarded via a previously-known path that may no longer be valid. This mechanism is referred to as "treat-as-withdraw".

Whilst this behaviour results in avoiding a NOTIFICATION message, keeping other routing information advertised by the remote BGP speaker within the RIB, it may result in unreachability for a sub-set of the NLRI advertised by the remote speaker. Two cases should be considered - that where the entry for a prefix in the Adj-RIB-In of the neighbour propagating an erroneous packet is utilised, and that where the prefix installed in the device's RIB is learnt from another BGP speaker. In the former case, should the identified NLRI not be treated as withdrawn, the original NLRI is utilised within the global RIB. However, this information is potentially now invalid (i.e. it no longer provides a valid forwarding path), whilst an alternate (valid) path may exist in another Adj-RIB-In. By continuing to utilise the NLRI for which the UPDATE was considered invalid, traffic may be forwarded via an invalid path, resulting in routing loops, or black-holing. In the second case, no impact to the forwarding of traffic, or global RIB, is incurred, yet where treat-as-withdraw is implemented, possibly stale routing information is purged from the Adj-RIB-In of the neighbour propagating errors.

Whilst mechanisms such as "treat-as-withdraw" are currently documented, the proposals are limited in their scope - particularly in terms of restrictions to implementation only on eBGP sessions. This limitation is made based on the view that the BGP RIB must be consistent across an autonomous system. By implementing treat-as-withdraw for a iBGP session, one or more routers within the Autonomous System may not have reachability to a prefix, and hence blackholing of traffic, or routing loops, may occur. It should, however, be considered if this view is valid, in light of the manner in which BGP is utilised within operator networks. Inconsistency in a RIB based on a single UPDATE being treated as withdrawn may cause a inconsistency in a single sub-topology (e.g. Layer 3 VPN service), or a service not operating completely (in the case of an UPDATE carrying service membership information). Where a NOTIFICATION and teardown is utilised this is destructive to all sub-topologies in all address family identifiers (AFIs) carried by the session in question. Even where mechanisms such as multi-session BGP are utilised, a whole AFI is affected by such a NOTIFICATION message. In terms of routing operation, it is therefore far less costly to endure a situation where a limited sub-set of routing information within an AS is invalid, than to consider all routing information as invalid based on a single trigger.

It is considered that, if extended to cover iBGP, the mechanisms described in [I-D.chen-ebgp-error-handling] and [I-D.ietf-idr-optional-transitive] provide a means to avoid the transmission of a NOTIFICATION to a remote BGP speaker based on a single erroneous message, where at all possible, and hence meet this requirement. The failure cases whereby NLRI cannot be extracted from the UPDATE message represent a case whereby the receiving system cannot handle the error gracefully based on this mechanism.

3. Recovering RIB Consistency

The recommendations described in Section 2 may result in the RIB for a topology within an AS being inconsistent across the AS' internal routers. Alternatively, where such mechanisms are deployed at an AS boundary, interconnects between two ASes may be inconsistent with each other. There are therefore risks of traffic blackholing, due to missing routing information, or forwarding loops. Whilst this is deemed an acceptable compromise in the short term, clearly, it is suboptimal. Therefore, a requirement exists to provide mechanisms by which a BGP speaker is able to recover the consistency of the Adj-RIB-In for a particular neighbour.

It is envisaged that during such routing inconsistencies, the local BGP speaker is aware that some routing information was not able to be processed - due to the fact that an UPDATE message was not parsed correctly. If the 'treat-as-withdraw' mechanism described within Section 2 is utilised, it is also possible for the local BGP speaker to have determined the set of NLRI for which an erroneous UPDATE message was received. In this scenario, by utilising targeted mechanisms to re-request the specific NLRI that was unreachable, this routing information can be re-transmitted from the remote BGP speaker. Such a request requires extension to the existing BGP-4 protocol, in terms of specific UPDATE generation filters with a transient lifetime. It is envisaged that the work within [I-D.zeng-one-time-prefix-orf] provides a mechanism allowing targeted elements of the Adj-RIB-In for a BGP neighbour to be recovered.

In addition to such cases where specific routing information is known to be erroneous, the more general case where either a large amount of the Adj-RIB-In is contained in UPDATE messages subject to treat-as-withdraw, or the specific prefixes are unknown to the local BGP speaker must be considered. In this case, there is a requirement for a BGP speaker to re-request the entire RIB advertised by a remote neighbour. In this case, where such re-advertisement is required, it is envisaged that a ROUTE-REFRESH as per the description in [RFC2918] is utilised. [I-D.keyur-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh] provides a means by which the ROUTE-REFRESH mechanism can be extended in order to meet this requirement.

It is of particular note for both means of recovering RIB consistency described that these are effective only when considering transitive errors within an implementation - for instance, should an RFC interpretation error within an implementation be present, regardless of the number of times a specific UPDATE is generated, it is likely that this error condition will persist. For this reason, there is an requirement to consider the means by which such consistency recovery mechanisms are utilised. It is not advisable that a transitive filter and advertisement mechanism is triggered by all error handling events due to the load this is likely to place on the neighbour receiving such a request. Where this BGP speaker is a relatively centralised device - a route reflector (as described by [RFC4456]) for example - the act of generation of UPDATE messages with such frequency is likely to cause disproportionate load. It is therefore an operational requirement of such mechanisms that means of request dampening be required by any such extension.

4. Reducing the Impact of Session Reset

Even where protocol enhancements allow errors in the BGP-4 protocol to cease to trigger NOTIFICATION messages, and hence reset a BGP session, it is clear that some error conditions may not be exited. In particular, errors due to existing state, or memory structures, associated with a specific BGP session will not be handled. It is therefore important to consider how these error conditions are currently handled by the protocol. It should be noted that the following discussion and analysis considers only those NOTIFICATION messages generated in response to errors in UPDATE messages (as defined by Section 6.3 in [RFC4271]).

The existing NOTIFICATION behaviour triggers a reset of all elements of the BGP-4 session, as described in Section 6 of [RFC4271]. It is expected that session teardown requires an implementation to re-initialise all structures and state required for session maintenance. Clearly, there is some utility to this requirement, as error conditions in BGP are, in general, exited from. However, this definition is responsible for the forwarding outages within networks utilising BGP for route propagation when each error is experienced. The requirement described in Section 2 is intended to reduce the cases whereby a NOTIFICATION is required, however, any mechanism implemented as a response to this requirement by definition cannot provide a session reset to the extent of that achieved by the current behaviour.

In order to address this, there is a requirement for a means by which a BGP speaker can signal that an unhandled error condition in an UPDATE message occurred - requiring a session reset - yet also continue to utilise the paths advertised by the neighbour that are currently in use within the RIB. In this case, the Adj-RIB-In received from the neighbour is not considered invalid, despite a NOTIFICATION, and session reset, being required. This set of requirements is akin to those answered by the BGP Graceful Restart mechanism described in [RFC4724]. Since the operational requirement in this case is to provide a means to achieve a complete session restart without disrupting the forwarding path of those prefixes in use within a BGP speaker's RIB, it is expected that utilising a procedure similar to the Graceful Restart mechanism meets the error handling requirement. By responding to an error condition (repeated or otherwise) with a message indicating that an error that cannot be handled has occurred, forcing session reset, whilst retaining forwarding information within the RIB allows forwarding to all prefixes within a system's RIB to continue, whilst the session restarts. By placing a time bound on the restart lifetime, should an error condition not be transient - for example, should an error have occurred with the BGP process, rather than a specific of the BGP session - the remote BGP speaker is still detected as an invalid device for forwarding.

It should, however, be noted that a protocol enhancement meeting this requirement is not able to solve all error conditions - however, a complete restart of the BGP and TCP session between two BGP speakers implements an identical recovery mechanism to that which is achieved by the existing behaviour. Where an error condition such as memory or configuration corruption has occurred in a BGP implementation, it is expected that a mechanism meeting this requirement continues to detect this, by means of a bound on time for session restart to occur. Whilst there may be some consideration that packets continue to be forwarded through a device which can be in an failure mode of this nature for a longer period, due to this requirement, the architecture of modern IP routers should be considered. A divided forwarding and control plane is common in many devices, as well as process separation for software-based devices - corruption of a specific protocol daemon does not necessarily imply forwarding is affected. Indeed, where forwarding behaviour of a device is affected, it is envisaged that a failure detection mechanism (be it Bidirectional Forwarding Detection, or indeed BGP KEEPALIVE packets) will detect such a failure in almost all cases, with the symptomatic behaviour of such a failure being an invalid UPDATE message in very few other cases.

5. Operational Toolset for Monitoring BGP

A significant complexity that is introduced through the requirements defined in this document is that of monitoring BGP session status for an operator. Although the existing error handling behaviour causes a disproportionate failure, session failure is extremely visible to most operational personnel within a Network Operator due to both existing definitions of SNMP trap mechanisms for BGP, along with the forwarding impact typically caused by such a failure. By introducing mechanisms by which errors of this nature are not as visible, this is no longer the case. There is a requirement that where subsets of the RIB on a device are no longer reachable from a BGP speaker, or indeed an AS, that some mechanism to determine the cause is available to an operator. Whilst, to some extent, this can be solved by mandating a sub-requirement of each of the aforementioned requirements that a BGP speaker must log where such errors occur, and are hence handled, this does not solve all cases. In order to clarify this requirement, the example of the transmission of an erroneous Optional Transitive attribute can be considered. Since, by definition, there is no requirement for all BGP speakers to parse such an attribute, a receiving router may treat NLRI as withdrawn based on an erroneous attribute not examined by its neighbour. In this case, the upstream device or network, propagating the UPDATE, has no visibility of this error. Operationally, however, it is of interest to the upstream router operator that such invalid information was propagated.

The requirement for logging of error conditions in transmitted BGP messages, which are visible to only the receiver, cannot be achieved by any existing BGP message, or capability. It is envisaged that each erroneous event should be transmitted to the remote peer - including the information as to the set of NLRI that were considered invalid. Whilst with some mechanisms this is achieved by default (for example, One-Time Prefix ORF [I-D.zeng-one-time-prefix-orf] (Outbound Route Filtering) will transmit the set of prefixes that are required), the operator requirement is to know which prefixes may have been unreachable in all cases. It is envisaged that an extension to meet this requirement will allow for such information to be transmitted between peers, and hence logged. Such a mechanism may provide further utility as a either a diagnostic, or logging toolset.

It should be noted that numerous work items within the IETF exist at the time of writing that begin to solve this requirement. Within the IDR working group both [I-D.raszuk-bgp-diagnostic-message] and [I-D.ietf-idr-advisory] provide mechanisms by which such information can be propagated in-band to an existing BGP session. Transmitting such diagnostic information in-band is considered the optimal means by which to propagate details of errors present in UPDATE messages, due to the fact that no additional protocols (and hence security and trust concerns) must be configured between two Autonomous Systems (where the errors occur at an AS boundary), and the load on each BGP speaker is increased only due to an additional capability, rather than an additional code base, and protocol. Clearly, any mechanism implemented in-band to a BGP session is required to be relatively lightweight, since the information provided over the session is an enhancement to the operational visibility of the protocol, and should not disrupt core protocol operations. Other, out-of-band, mechanisms - such as that proposed in [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp] are likely to provide mechanisms by which further insight into BGP operation can be achieved. The fact that such a protocol is implemented independently of the BGP protocol results in further flexibility to provide detailed protocol data, without introducing further complexity to the BGP protocol itself.

6. Operational Complexities Introduced by Altering RFC4271

The existing NOTIFICATION and subsequent teardown of a BGP session upon encountering an error has the advantage that a consistent approach to error handling is required of all implementations of the BGP-4 protocol. This is of operational advantage, as it provides a clear expectation of the behaviour of the protocol. The requirements defined herein add further complexity to the error-handling within BGP, and hence are liable to compromise the existing deterministic protocol behaviour. It is therefore deemed that there is a further requirement to provide a clear method by which an erroneous UPDATE should be reacted to, in order that all protocol implementations provide a consistent means by which recovery is achieved. A further complexity is introduced due to the disparate nature of the work items altering the BGP error handling behaviour - since all items are likely to be implemented as a BGP capability [RFC5492], situations are likely to occur between devices (especially those with different BGP implementations), where some of the mechanisms referenced are unsupported. This adds further barriers to a standard definition of the BGP-4 error handling behaviour.

In general, the approach considered ideal upon encountering an erroneous UPDATE message can be divided into two cases - those where the NLRI can be determined from the message, and those where it cannot be. The latter case is the simpler of the two. In this case, there is a requirement for the implementation to reset the BGP session, utilising the reduced-impact approach, described in Section 4. In the case where the remote BGP speaker is in a transient error condition related to specific peer data structures, or state, a single instance of this behaviour is likely to exit the error condition. In the case of implementation errors, it is possible that the BGP session in question may enter a continuous loop of being reset, with a partial RIB being held by one or more of the BGP speakers due to an non-deterministic order of UPDATE propagation. It is therefore a requirement that within this reduced-impact procedure any subsequent UPDATE messages that would result in further session resets are ignored. Whilst this results in a condition where an undetermined amount of the RIB is inconsistent, partial reachability is maintained. In this case, the operational toolsets discussed in Section 5 is likely to provide mechanisms by which this condition can be brought to the attention of the relevant operators. This requirement to accept a partial RIB, which results in potential invalid traffic forwarding is a direct result of the deployments of BGP-4, as described in Section 1.1.

The case where NLRI can be determined from an erroneous UPDATE provides further complexities. In this case, a BGP speaker is aware of the sub-set of the RIB which have been identified as being contained within invalid UPDATE messages. This allows a local BGP speaker to re-request single prefixes, utilising a mechanism such as "one-time prefix ORF". However, a similar result is achieved by re-requesting the entire RIB - albeit with greater resource requirements. It is therefore expected that the process of recovery utilises a staged set of mechanisms to attempt to restore consistency of the RIB:

  1. Where available, a mechanism capable of requesting only the NLRI determined to have been contained within a invalid UPDATE should be utilised. However, since it is possible that such an error condition can be transient in nature, it is likely that more than one request is to be transmitted (assuming the first does not return a valid UPDATE message). In order to allow a deterministic process, there is a requirement for a limit on the number of specific requests transmitted to be defined.
  2. Where a specific refresh mechanism is not available, a peer should re-request the entire RIB. Again, there is a requirement to limit the number of complete RIB requests that should be sent via an implementation, in order to provide a bound both on the expected level of load a device may experience, and on the time for which the RIB may be inconsistent.
  3. Finally, a session reset should be performed, as per the reduced-impact NOTIFICATION requirement defined in Section 4. At this point, a similar challenge to that discussed above exists, should the error condition persist. In this case, as defined above, there is a requirement to ignore those UPDATE messages that continue to be erroneous.

It is envisaged that where limits are required, these will be defined on a per memo-basis, or within a further revision of the requirements described herein.

Whilst the approach described above provides a standard means by which error recovery may be handled on a per UPDATE basis, further complexities are raised where multiple errors occur. Clearly, following this procedure causes control-plane load on both the BGP speakers - for this reason, consideration of how repeated use of the mechanisms discussed in this document is required. It is notable that errors may not occur with UPDATE messages relating to only a single NLRI, independent errors in multiple NLRIs may be experienced. For this reason, it is required that an implementation rate limits the number of error handling events sourced towards a particular neighbour. It is expected that such rate limiting, or event suppression is achieved on a per-session basis, where state information is already held, rather than on a per-prefix basis as it is envisaged that such behaviour presents significant scaling problems, and introduces further state requirements for an implementation of the protocol. It is recommended that where a flag indicative of erroneous behaviour is implemented, the state of such a value is maintained independently of session establishment.

7. IANA Considerations

This memo includes no request to IANA.

8. Security Considerations

The requirements outlined in this document provide mechanisms by which erroneous BGP messages may be responded to with limited impact to forwarding operation. This is of benefit to the security of a BGP speaker in general. Where UPDATE messages may have been propagated by a single malicious Autonomous System or router within a network (or the Internet default free zone - DFZ), which are then propagated to all devices within the same routing domain, all other NLRI available over the same session become unreachable. This mechanism may provide means by which an Autonomous System can be isolated from required routing domains (such as the Internet), should the relevant UPDATE messages be propagated via specific paths. By reducing the impact of such failures, it is envisaged that this possibility may be constrained to a specific set of NLRI, or a specific topology.

Some mechanisms meeting the requirements specified in this document, particularly those within Section 5 may provide further security concerns, however, it is envisaged that these are addressed in per-enhancement memos.

9. Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Rob Evans, David Freedman, Tom Hodgson, Sven Huster, Jonathan Newton, Neil McRae, Thomas Mangin, Tom Scholl and Ilya Varlashkin for their review and valuable feedback.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

[RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918, September 2000.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T. and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E. and R. Chandra, "BGP Route Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP (IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006.
[RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J. and Y. Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724, January 2007.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009.
[I-D.keyur-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh] Patel, K, Chen, E and B Venkatachalapathy, "Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", Internet-Draft draft-keyur-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-02, March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-idr-optional-transitive] Scudder, J, Chen, E, Mohapatra, P and K Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-optional-transitive-04, October 2011.
[I-D.chen-ebgp-error-handling] Chen, E, Mohapatra, P and K Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP Updates from External Neighbors", Internet-Draft draft-chen-ebgp-error-handling-01, September 2011.
[I-D.zeng-one-time-prefix-orf] Zeng, Q and J Dong, "One-time Address-Prefix Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4", Internet-Draft draft-zeng-one-time-prefix-orf-01, October 2010.
[I-D.raszuk-bgp-diagnostic-message] Raszuk, R, Chen, E and B Decraene, "BGP Diagnostic Message", Internet-Draft draft-raszuk-bgp-diagnostic-message-02, March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-idr-advisory] Scholl, T, Scudder, J, Steenbergen, R and D Freedman, "BGP Advisory Message", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-advisory-00, October 2009.
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp] Scudder, J, Fernando, R and S Stuart, "BGP Monitoring Protocol", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-grow-bmp-05, December 2010.

10.2. Informational References

[RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June 2010.

Author's Address

Rob Shakir Cable&Wireless Worldwide EMail: rob.shakir@cw.com