Network Working Group J. Uttaro
Internet-Draft AT&T
Intended status: Standards Track A. Simpson
Expires: September 10, 2012 Alcatel-Lucent
R. Shakir
C&W
C. Filsfils
P. Mohapatra
Cisco Systems
B. Decraene
France Telecom
J. Scudder
Y. Rekhter
Juniper Networks
March 9, 2012
BGP Persistence
draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-01
Abstract
For certain AFI/SAFI combinations it is desirable that a BGP speaker
be able to retain routing state learned over a session that has
terminated. By maintaining routing state forwarding may be
preserved. This technique works effectively as long as the AFI/SAFI
is primarily used to realize services that do not depend on
exchanging BGP routing state with peers or customers. There may be
exceptions based upon the amount and frequency of route exchange that
allow for this technique. Generally the BGP protocol tightly couples
the viability of a session and the routing state that is learned over
it. This is driven by the history of the protocol and it's
application in the internet space as a vehicle to exchange routing
state between administrative authorities. This document addresses
new services whose requirements for persistence diverge from the
Internet routing point of view.
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
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
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 September 10, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. BGP Graceful Restart and BGP persistence targets
different use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. DO_NOT_PERSIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. STALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Configuration (Persistence Timer and DO_NOT_PERSIST
Community) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Settings for Different Applications . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. BGP session failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Attaching the STALE Community Value and
Propagation of Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Lower route preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. BGP session re-establishement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Persistence in L2VPN (VPLS/VPWS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Persistence in L3VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Interactions between GR and Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
1. Introduction
In certain scenarios, a BGP speaker may maintain forwarding in spite
of BGP session termination. Currently all routing state learned
between two speakers is flushed upon either normal or abnormal
session termination. There are techniques that are useful for
maintaining routing when a session abnormally terminates i.e BGR
Graceful RestartR ( RFC 4724 ) or normal termination such as
increasing timers but they do not change the fundamental problem.
The technique of BGP persistence works effectively as long as the
expectation is that there is a decoupling of session viability and
the correct service delivery, and the delivery uses the routing state
learned over that session. This document proposes a modification to
BGP's behavior by enabling persistence of BGP learned routing state
in spite of normal or abnormal session termination.
1.1. BGP Graceful Restart and BGP persistence targets different use
cases
BGP Graceful Restart as defined in [RFC4724] solve the requirement of
a control plane restart.
As such the fundamental assumption is that the control plane is to go
back quickly (e.g. minutes) and that the failure does not need to be
advertised in the network thus avoiding churn. Hence there is an
opportunity to locally recover from a control plane only failure
without affecting the whole network. In the worst case where reality
turns to be different from the assumption and that this is not only a
control plane failure but also a the forwarding plane failure, the
traffic may be black hole but only during the relative short duration
of the initial assumption (e.g. minutes). In term of technical
specification, this translates into: a short timer, no change of
attributes of stale routes, need to exchange information with the BGP
peer (e.g. ability to preserve forwarding, forwarding preserved...)
BGP Persistence targets the different use case of a catastrophic
failure when the BGP control plane can remain down for a longer time
(e.g. hours). In such case, if alternate path are available, they
should be used as their are kept up to date. But if not alternate
path are available, it is felt to be better to use stale old routes
rather than no routes at all. In term of technical specification,
this translates into: a long timer, defined per AFI/SAFI, the need to
lower the preference of stale routes, no need to exchange information
with the BGP peer. Possibly the need to have different timers per
AFI/SAFI.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
1.2. 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].
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
2. Communities
This memo defines two new communities that are used to identify the
capability of a path to persist and whether or not that path is live
or stale.
2.1. DO_NOT_PERSIST
This memo defines a new BGP community, DO_NOT_PERSIST, with value TBD
(to be assigned by IANA). Attaching of the DO_NOT_PERSIST community
SHOULD be controlled by configuration. The functionality SHOULD
default to being disabled.
2.2. STALE
This memo defines a new BGP community, STALE, with value TBD (to be
assigned by IANA). Attaching of the STALE community is limited to a
path that currently has not the DO_NOT_PERSIST community attached
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
3. Configuration (Persistence Timer and DO_NOT_PERSIST Community)
Persistence is configured on a per session and per AFI/SAFI basis.
Through the use of an inbound BGP policy selectively setting the
DO_NOT_PERSIST community, the persistence behavior can be set on a
per route basis. A speaker configures the ability to persist
independently of its peer. There is no negotiation between the
peers. A timer must be configured indicating the time to persist
stale state from a peer where the session is no longer viable. This
timer is designated as the persist-timer. A speaker may also attach
the DO_NOT_PERSIST community value indicating if a path to a route
should not persist.
3.1. Settings for Different Applications
The setting of the persist-timer should be based upon the field of
use. BGP is used in a many different applications that each bring a
unique requirement for retaining state. The following is not meant
as a comprehensive listing but to suggest timer settings for a subset
of AFI/SAFIs.
L2VPN This AFI/SAFI requires the exchange of routing state in order
to establish PWs to realize a VPLS VPN, or a VPWS PW. This AFI/
SAFI does not require exchange of routing state with a customer
and there is no eBGP session established. The persist-timer
should be set to a large value on the order of days to infinity.
L3VPN This AFI/SAFI requires the exchange of routing state to create
a private VPN. This AFI/SAFI requires exchange of state with
customers via eBGP and is dynamic. The SP needs to consider the
possibility that stale state may not reflect the latest route
updates and therefore may be incorrect from the customer
perspective. The persist-timer should be set to a large value on
the order of hours to a few days. this is built upon the notion
some incorrectness is preferable to a large outage.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
4. Operation
4.1. BGP session failure
Assuming a session failure has occurred, a BGP persistent router
SHOULD retain BGP routes unless they carry the DO_NOT_PERSIST
community and propagate paths to downstream speakers that indicate
that a given path is now stale.
There is no restriction on whether the session is internal or
external.
4.1.1. Attaching the STALE Community Value and Propagation of Paths
The following rules must be followed:
o Identify paths learned over a failed session that do not have the
DO_NO_PERSIST community value attached.
o For those paths, attach the STALE community value, lower their
preference and propagate the updated path to peers.
o For those paths learned over the failed session that have the
DO_NOT_PERSIST community attached follow BGP rules: remove the
routes from the RIB and generate withdrawals to all peers for
those paths.
4.1.2. Lower route preference
As the STALE routes are not dynamically updated anymore, it's
desirable that they be only used in last resort. Hence when
comparing paths for a prefix, a non STALE path should be preferred
over a STALE path. If all path are marked as STALE, it's desirable
to keep their relative (pre-STALE) priority. To achieve the above
goals, the below mechanism is proposed.
To lower the preference of the STALE routes within the Autonomous
System, the LOCAL_PREF of the routes marked as STALE SHOULD be
decreased by a configured value. If the result of the subtraction is
negative, the LOCAL_PREF SHOULD be set to 0.
Optionally, a configured BGP cost community may be attached. In this
case, as described in [I-D.ietf-idr-custom-decision] in order to
avoid potential forwarding loops, the operator needs to make sure
that all routers are compliant with [I-D.ietf-idr-custom-decision].
In this case, it is also expected that the LOCAL_PREF would not be
decreased (i.e. the configured value would be 0).
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
To allow for a lower preference of STALE routes across Autonomous
System, ASBR in others AS which are configured with BGP Persistence,
MAY lower the preference of PATH received with the STALE community
over an eBGP session. Lowering the preference within their AS is
performed as described above in the iBGP case. Note that if the ASBR
is not persistent capable, this behavior can be implemented by the
operator by configuring a BGP policy.
4.2. Forwarding
As per BGP rules, the BGP MUST check that the BGP Next Hop is viable.
As during the persistence situation, the BGP session will be down,
the network operator SHOULD make sure that BGP has the ability to
check Next-Hop liveliness. For routes learnt over an iBGP session,
the IGP should be able to provide this. For routes learnt over an
eBGP session, the liveness of the Next Hop may be checked by using a
layer 1 (e.g. light), layer 2 (e.g. Ethernet OAM) or layer 3 (e.g.
BFD) mechanism.
When the forwarding plane is updated with a new next-hop, a make
before break strategy SHOULD be employed. Such routing change may
happen when the BGP session has failed and hence the nominal path has
been de-preferenced and an alternate path selected, or when the BGP
session is re-established and the nominal path is selected back.
4.3. BGP session re-establishement
When a failed persistent BGP session is re-established, the Receiving
Speaker MUST replace the stale routes by the routing updates received
from the peer. Once the End-of-RIB marker for an address family is
received from the peer, it MUST immediately remove any paths from the
peer that are still marked as stale for that address family.
If the End-of-RIB marker is not received before a configurable timer
expired, it MUST immediately remove any paths from the peer that are
still marked as stale.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
5. Deployment Considerations
BGP Persistence as described in this document is useful within a
single autonomous system or across autonomous systems.
If [I-D.ietf-idr-custom-decision] is used to lower the preference of
the STALE paths, the operator needs to make sure that all routers are
compliant with [I-D.ietf-idr-custom-decision]. Otherwise, forwarding
loops, may form.
When a BGP session is persistent enabled, the network operator SHOULD
make sure that when the BGP session is down, BGP has a way to
evaluate that the BGP Next Hop is viable and reachable. For routes
learnt over an iBGP session, the IGP should be able to advertise the
reachability of the next-hop. For routes learnt over an eBGP
session, the liveness of the Next Hop need to be checked. For
example using a layer 1 (e.g. light), layer 2 (e.g. Ethernet OAM) or
layer 3 (e.g. BFD) mechanism.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
6. Applications
This technique may be useful in a wide array of applications where
routing state is either fairly static or, the state is localized
within a routing context. Some applications that come immediately to
mind are L2 and L3 VPN.
6.1. Persistence in L2VPN (VPLS/VPWS)
VPLS/VPWS VPNs use BGP to exchange routing state between two PEs.
This exchange allows for the creation of a PW within a VPN context
between those PEs. By definition, L2VPN does not exchange any
routing state with customers via BGP. BGP persistence is very useful
here as the state is quite constant. The only time state is
exchanged is when a PW endpoint is provisioned, deleted or when a
speaker reboots.
Referring to Figure 1, PE1 and PE2 have advertised BGP routing state
in order to create PWs between PE1 and PE2. The RRs are only
responsible to reflect this state between the PEs. The use of a
unique RD makes every path unique from the RRs perspective.
Assume that the both RR experience catastrophic failure.
Case 1 - All BGP speakers are persistent capable.
The PWs created between PE1 and PE2 persist. Forwarding
uninterrupted.
Case 2 - PE1 and the RRs are persistent capable, PE2 is not.
In this case the path advertised from PE2 via the RRs is persistent
at PE1, the PW from PE1 to PE2 is not torn down. PE2 will remove the
path from PE1 and tear down the PW from PE2 to PE1. THe effect is
that MAC state learned at PE2 is valid as the PW is still valid. MAC
state learned at PE1 is removed as the PW is no longer valid.
Eventually MAC destinations recursed to the PW at PE1 destined for
PE2 over the valid PW will time out.
Assume that the RRs are valid but the iBGP sessions are torn down.
Case 3 - All BGP speakers are persistent capable.
The PWs created between PE1 and PE2 persist. Forwarding
uninterrupted.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
VPNA VPNA
PW+++++++++++++++++++PW
CE1-------PE1--------RR1-------PE2------CE2
| |
| |
----------RR2---------
<--iBGP---><---iBGP-->
Figure 1
6.2. Persistence in L3VPN
--------RR1-------
/ A C \
CE1 ----- PE1 --Forwarding Path-- PE2 ---- CE2
\ B D /
------- RR2 ------
Figure 2
In the case of a Layer 3 VPN topology, during the failure of a route
reflector device at the current time, all routing information
propagated via BGP is purged from the routing database. In this
case, forwarding is interrupted within such a topology due to the
lack of signalling information, rather than an outage to the
forwarding path between the PE devices. With the addition of BGP
persistence, a complete service outage can be avoided.
The topology shown in Figure 2 is a simple L3VPN topology consisting
of two customer edge (CE) devices, along with two provider edge (PE),
and route reflector (RR) devices. In this case, where an RFC4364 VPN
topology is utilised a BGP session exists between PE1 to both RR1 and
RR2, and from PE2 to RR1 and RR2, in order to propagate the VPN
topology.
Case 1: No BGP speakers are persistence capable:
o In this scenario, during a simultaneous failure of RR1 and RR2
(which are extremely likely to share route reflector clients) both
PE1 and PE2 remove all routing information from the VPN from their
RIB, and hence a complete service outage is experienced.
o Where either sessions A and B, or C and D fail simultaneously,
routing information from either PE1 (in the case of A and B), or
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
PE2 (in the case of C and D) are withdrawn, and a partial service
topology exists.
o Both of the states described reflect a service outage where the
forwarding path between the PE devices is not interrupted.
Case 2: All BGP speakers are persistence capable:
o PE1 continues to forward utilising the label information received
from PE2 via the working forwarding path for the duration of the
persistence timer (and vice versa).
o This condition occurs regardless of the session(s) that fail. In
the worst case where sessions A, B, C and D fail simultaneously,
the network continues to operate in the state in which it was at
the time of the failure.
Case 3: PE1 and RR[12] are persistence capable - PE2 is not.
o During a failure of BGP session A or B, PE1 will continue to
forward utilising the routing information received from the RRs
for PE2 for the duration of the persistence timer. PE2 will
continue to forward utilising the routing information received
from the RRs, again for the duration of the persistence timer.
o In the case that either BGP session C or D fails, all routes will
be withdrawn by RR[12] towards PE1 since these routes are not
valid to be persisted by the RRs. The end result of this will be
that the routes advertised by CE2 into the VPN will be withdrawn.
o Where the worst case failure occurs (i.e. sessions A, B, C and D
fail) the routes advertised by CE1 into the VPN will be
persistently advertised by the RR devices, whereas those
advertised by CE2 will be withdrawn. Clearly in the example shown
in the figure this results in a service outage, but where multiple
PE devices exist within a topology, service is maintained for the
subset of CEs attached to PE devices supporting the persistence
capability.
Within the Layer 3 VPN deployment it should be noted that routing
information is less static than that of the many Layer 2 VPNs since
typically multiple routes exist within the topology rather than an
individual MAC address or egress interface per CE device on the PE
device. As such, the L3VPN operates with the routing databases in
the 'core' of the network reflecting those at the time of failure.
Should there be re-convergence for any path between the PE and CE
devices, this will result in invalid routing information, should the
egress PE device not hold alternate routing information for the
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
prefixes undergoing such re-convergence. It is expected that where
each PE maintains multiple paths to each egress prefix (where an
alternate path is available), it is expected that the egress PE will
forward packets towards an alternative egress PE for the prefix in
question where the topology is no longer valid.
The lack of convergence within a Layer 3 topology during the
persistent state SHOULD be considered since it may adversely affect
services, however, an assumption is made that a degraded service is
preferable to a complete service outage during a large-scale BGP
control plane failure.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
7. Interactions between GR and Persistence
BGP Graceful Restart and BGP Persitence can be enabled independantly.
o If only BGP Graceful Restart is enabled, BGP behaved as defined in
[RFC4724].
o If only BGP Persistence is enabled, BGP behaved as defined in this
document.
o If both BGP Graceful Restart and BGP Persistence are enabled on a
BGP session, since both graceful-restart and persistence provide a
means by which routes are retained in the RIB after a BGP session
is no longer established, then there is a need to define their
interactions. The principle is that when the BGP session is down,
Graceful Restart is the first to come into play. While BGP
Graceful runs and keep the route, BGP Persistence has no effect.
i.e. BGP routes are kept unchanged and not readvertised. If BGP
Graceful Restart fails, then BGP Persistence kicks in to keep the
route. i.e. BGP Routes are kept, de-preferenced and re-
advertised.
Case a: GR succeed and Persistence never kicks in:
1. BGP session failure --> GR behavior applies.
* Route marked as stale.
* Route are kept unchanged (hence not re-advertised).
2. BGP session is re-established before GR timer expires --> GR
succeed, GR behavior applies
1. Route are refreshed.
2. When End-of-RIB is received, route still marked as stale are
removed.
3. If routes have changed, routes are updated in the FIB and re-
advertised to peer as per regular BGP.
Case b: GR fails and Persistence kicks in:
1. BGP session failure --> GR behavior applies
* Route marked as stale.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
* Route are kept unchanged (hence not re-advertised).
2. Expiry of GR restart-time-expiry timer --> GR behavior ends,
Persistent behavior applies.
1. GR stale routes are marked as Persistence stale and their
preference is lowered.
2. As a result, regular BGP best path computation runs and
possibly select alternate routes.
+ If routes have changed, routes are updated in the FIB.
+ Updated routes are advertised to peer as needed.
3. Session now runs in persistence mode as defined in this document
It is expected that in general the Persistence timer SHOULD be set to
a value greater than that of the Graceful Restart.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
8. Security Considerations
The security implications of the persistence 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 (e.g. 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 (e.g. 20 minutes).
This is further aggravated by the BGP persistent extension proposed
in this document as VPN routes can be stalled for a much longer
period of time (e.g. 2 hours, 1 day).
Therefore, to avoid VPN breach, before enabling BGP persistence, SPs
needs 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 (e.g. per route or per VRF/CE), the re-
allocation policy (e.g. least recently used label...)
Note that RFC 4781 [RFC4781] which defines Graceful Restart Mechanism
for BGP with MPLS is also applicable to BGP Persistence.
In addition to these considerations, the persistence mechanism
described within this document is considered to be complex to exploit
maliciously - in order to inject packets into a topology, there is a
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
requirement to engineer a specific persistence 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).
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
9. IANA Considerations
IANA shall assigned community values from BGP well-known communities
registry[a] for the DO-NOT-PERSIST and STALE communities.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
10. Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Roberto Fragassi (Alcatel-Lucent), John
Medamana, (AT&T) Han Nguyen (AT&T), Jeffrey Haas (Juniper), Nabil
Bitar (Verizon), Nicolai Leymann (DT) for their contributions to this
document.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-custom-decision]
White, R. and A. Retana, "BGP Custom Decision Process",
draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-00 (work in progress),
November 2011.
[RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP
Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
January 2007.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4781] Rekhter, Y. and R. Aggarwal, "Graceful Restart Mechanism
for BGP with MPLS", RFC 4781, January 2007.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
Appendix A. Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes
[RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ]
Changes -01
o PERSIST community removed
o Use of local_pref or cost_community to lower the preference of the
path within an AS. Between AS, the STALE community is used to
convey the information.
o Deployment considerations section enhanced.
o Introduction explains why GR and persistence are different and
target different needs.
o Security section refer to RFC RFC 4781.
o New section describing interaction between GR and Persistence.
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
Authors' Addresses
James Uttaro
AT&T
200 S. Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
Email: ju1738@att.com
Adam Simpson
Alcatel-Lucent
600 March Road
Ottawa, Ontario K2K 2E6
Canada
Email: adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com
Rob Shakir
Cable&Wireless Worldwide
London
UK
Email: rjs@cw.net
URI: http://www.cw.com/
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
Brussels 1000
BE
Email: cf@cisco.com
Pradosh Mohapatra
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: pmohapat@cisco.com
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft BGP Persistence March 2012
Bruno Decraene
France Telecom
38-40 Rue de General Leclerc
92794 Issy Moulineaux cedex 9
France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
John Scudder
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: jgs@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks
Email: yakov@juniper.net
Uttaro, et al. Expires September 10, 2012 [Page 24]