draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-05.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-06.txt 
IDR Working Group R. Raszuk IDR Working Group R. Raszuk
Internet-Draft NTT I3 Internet-Draft NTT I3
Intended status: Standards Track C. Cassar Intended status: Standards Track C. Cassar
Expires: December 06, 2013 Cisco Systems Expires: July 6, 2014 Cisco Systems
E. Aman E. Aman
TeliaSonera TeliaSonera
B. Decraene B. Decraene
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
June 04, 2013 January 2, 2014
BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR) BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-05 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-06
Abstract Abstract
[RFC4456] asserts that, because the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) [RFC4456] asserts that, because the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
cost to a given point in the network will vary across routers, "the cost to a given point in the network will vary across routers, "the
route reflection approach may not yield the same route selection route reflection approach may not yield the same route selection
result as that of the full IBGP mesh approach." One practical result as that of the full IBGP mesh approach." One practical
implication of this assertion is that the deployment of route implication of this assertion is that the deployment of route
reflection may thwart the ability to achieve hot potato routing. Hot reflection may thwart the ability to achieve hot potato routing. Hot
potato routing attempts to direct traffic to the closest AS egress potato routing attempts to direct traffic to the closest AS egress
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 06, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 6, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 48 skipping to change at page 2, line 48
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Proposed solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Proposed solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Best path selection for BGP hot potato routing from 3. Best path selection for BGP hot potato routing from
customized IGP network position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 customized IGP network position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Client's perspective best path selection algorithm . . . 7 3.1. Client's perspective best path selection algorithm . . . 7
3.1.1. Flat IGP network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.1. Flat IGP network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2. Hierarchical IGP network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.2. Hierarchical IGP network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Aside: Configuration-based flexible route reflector 3.2. Aside: Configuration-based flexible route reflector
placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Route reflector client grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Route reflector client grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1. Route Reflector Client Group ID . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3.1. Route Reflector Client Group ID . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5. Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.5. Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Angular distance approximation for BGP warm potato routing . 12 4. Angular distance approximation for BGP warm potato routing . 13
4.1. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Proposed solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2. Proposed solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Centralized vs distributed route reflectors . . . . . . . 15 4.3. Centralized vs distributed route reflectors . . . . . . . 15
5. Client's perspective policy based best path selection . . . . 16 5. Client's perspective policy based best path selection . . . . 16
5.1. Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.1. Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.3. Avoiding routing loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.3. Avoiding routing loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. Deployment considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. Deployment considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 21, line 16 skipping to change at page 21, line 13
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009. with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths] [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths]
Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", draft-ietf-idr- "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-
add-paths-08 (work in progress), December 2012. add-paths-09 (work in progress), October 2013.
[RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP [RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP
Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996. Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.
[RFC1998] Chen, E. and T. Bates, "An Application of the BGP [RFC1998] Chen, E. and T. Bates, "An Application of the BGP
Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing", RFC 1998, Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing", RFC 1998,
August 1996. August 1996.
[RFC4384] Meyer, D., "BGP Communities for Data Collection", BCP 114, [RFC4384] Meyer, D., "BGP Communities for Data Collection", BCP 114,
RFC 4384, February 2006. RFC 4384, February 2006.
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
9 lines changed or deleted 9 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/