draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-13.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14.txt 
IDR Working Group R. Raszuk, Ed. IDR Working Group R. Raszuk, Ed.
Internet-Draft Bloomberg LP Internet-Draft Bloomberg LP
Intended status: Standards Track C. Cassar Intended status: Standards Track C. Cassar
Expires: July 9, 2017 Cisco Systems Expires: February 12, 2018 Cisco Systems
E. Aman E. Aman
Telia Company Telia Company
B. Decraene B. Decraene
S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
K. Wang K. Wang
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
January 5, 2017 August 11, 2017
BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR) BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-13 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14
Abstract Abstract
This document proposes a solution for BGP route reflectors to allow This document proposes a solution for BGP route reflectors to allow
them to choose the best path their clients would have chosen under them to choose the best path their clients would have chosen under
the same conditions, without requiring further state or any new the same conditions, without requiring further state or any new
features to be placed on the clients. This facilitates, for example, features to be placed on the clients. This facilitates, for example,
best exit point policy (hot potato routing). This solution is best exit point policy (hot potato routing). This solution is
primarily applicable in deployments using centralized route primarily applicable in deployments using centralized route
reflectors. reflectors.
skipping to change at page 2, line 6 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 February 12, 2018.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Definitions of Terms Used in This Memo . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Definitions of Terms Used in This Memo . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Existing/Alternative Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Proposed Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Existing/Alternative Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Client's Perspective IGP Based Best Path Selection . . . 6 4. Proposed Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Client's Perspective Policy Based Best Path Selection . . 6 4.1. Client's Perspective IGP Based Best Path Selection . . . 6
3.3. Solution Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Client's Perspective Policy Based Best Path Selection . . 7
4. CPU and Memory Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. Solution Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Advantages and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. CPU and Memory Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Advantages and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Definitions of Terms Used in This Memo 1. Definitions of Terms Used in This Memo
NLRI - Network Layer Reachability Information. NLRI - Network Layer Reachability Information.
RIB - Routing Information Base. RIB - Routing Information Base.
AS - Autonomous System number. AS - Autonomous System number.
VRF - Virtual Routing and Forwarding instance. VRF - Virtual Routing and Forwarding instance.
skipping to change at page 3, line 21 skipping to change at page 3, line 19
L3VPN - Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks RFC4364 L3VPN - Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks RFC4364
6PE - IPv6 Provider Edge Router 6PE - IPv6 Provider Edge Router
IGP - Interior Gateway Protocol IGP - Interior Gateway Protocol
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]
2. Introduction 2. Authors
Following authors substantially contributed to the current format of
the document:
Stephane Litkowski
Orange
9 rue du chene germain
Cesson Sevigne, 35512
France
stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Adam Chappell
Interoute Communications
31st Floor
25 Canada Square
London, E14 5LQ
United Kingdom
adam.chappell@interoute.com
3. Introduction
There are three types of BGP deployments within Autonomous Systems There are three types of BGP deployments within Autonomous Systems
today: full mesh, confederations and route reflection. BGP route today: full mesh, confederations and route reflection. BGP route
reflection [RFC4456] is the most popular way to distribute BGP routes reflection [RFC4456] is the most popular way to distribute BGP routes
between BGP speakers belonging to the same Autonomous System. In between BGP speakers belonging to the same Autonomous System. In
some situations, this method suffers from non-optimal path selection. some situations, this method suffers from non-optimal path selection.
2.1. Problem Statement 3.1. Problem Statement
[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 best AS exit point potato routing attempts to direct traffic to the best AS exit point
in cases where no higher priority policy dictates otherwise. As a in cases where no higher priority policy dictates otherwise. As a
consequence of the route reflection method, the choice of exit point consequence of the route reflection method, the choice of exit point
skipping to change at page 4, line 29 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
paths for a given prefix will typically pick its best path and only paths for a given prefix will typically pick its best path and only
advertise that best path to its clients. If the best path for a advertise that best path to its clients. If the best path for a
prefix is selected on the basis of an IGP tie break, the path prefix is selected on the basis of an IGP tie break, the path
advertised will be the exit point closest to the route reflector. advertised will be the exit point closest to the route reflector.
But the clients will be in a different place in the network topology But the clients will be in a different place in the network topology
than the route reflector. In networks where the route reflectors are than the route reflector. In networks where the route reflectors are
not in the forwarding path, this difference will be even more acute. not in the forwarding path, this difference will be even more acute.
Beside this, there are also deployment scenarios where service Beside this, there are also deployment scenarios where service
providers want to have more control of choosing the exit points for providers want to have more control of choosing the exit points for
clients based on other factors like traffic type, traffic load, etc. clients based on other factors like traffic type, traffic load, etc.
This further complicated the issue and makes it less likely for the This further complicated the issue and makes it less likely for the
route reflector to select the best path from the client's route reflector to select the best path from the client's
perspective. It follows that the best path chosen by the route perspective. It follows that the best path chosen by the route
reflector is not necessarily the same as the path which would have reflector is not necessarily the same as the path which would have
been chosen by the client if the client had considered the same set been chosen by the client if the client had considered the same set
of candidate paths as the route reflector. of candidate paths as the route reflector.
2.2. Existing/Alternative Solutions 3.2. Existing/Alternative Solutions
One possible valid solution or workaround to the best path selection One possible valid solution or workaround to the best path selection
problem requires sending all domain external paths from the RR to all problem requires sending all domain external paths from the RR to all
its clients. This approach suffers the significant drawback of its clients. This approach suffers the significant drawback of
pushing a large amount of BGP state to all edge routers. Many pushing a large amount of BGP state to all edge routers. Many
networks receive full Internet routing information in a large number networks receive full Internet routing information in a large number
of locations. This could easily result in tens of paths for each of locations. This could easily result in tens of paths for each
prefix that would need to be distributed to clients. prefix that would need to be distributed to clients.
Notwithstanding this drawback, there are a number of reasons for Notwithstanding this drawback, there are a number of reasons for
skipping to change at page 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 5, line 39
result in the distribution of 2, 3 or n (where n is a small number) result in the distribution of 2, 3 or n (where n is a small number)
good paths rather than all domain external paths. While the route good paths rather than all domain external paths. While the route
reflector chooses one set of n paths and distributes those same n reflector chooses one set of n paths and distributes those same n
paths to all its route reflector clients, those n paths may not be paths to all its route reflector clients, those n paths may not be
the right n paths for all clients. In the context of the problem the right n paths for all clients. In the context of the problem
described above, those n paths will not necessarily include the best described above, those n paths will not necessarily include the best
exit point out of the network for each route reflector client. The exit point out of the network for each route reflector client. The
mechanisms proposed in this document are likely to be complementary mechanisms proposed in this document are likely to be complementary
to mechanisms aimed at improving path diversity. to mechanisms aimed at improving path diversity.
Another possibility to optimize exit points would be installing Another possibility to optimize exit point selection is the
physical hardware at various IGP locations or what is quite unlikely implementation of distributed reflector functionality at key IGP
to attach Route Reflectors over manually created tunnels. locations in order to ensure that these locations see their
viewpoints respected in exit selection. Typically, however, this
requires the installation of physical nodes to implement the
reflection, and if exit policy subsequently changes, the reflector
placement and position can become inappropriate.
The paradigm of control plane is shifting from traditional routers to To counter the burden of physical installation, it's possible to
x86 virtual space or even cloud. As result without this proposal build a logical overlay of tunnels with appropriate IGP metrics in
operators have choice of their route reflectors distributing order to simulate closeness to key locations required to implement
suboptimal paths or distributing all paths and in turn allowing exit policy. There is significant complexity overhead in this
clients to make independent best path selection. approach, however, to make it typically undesirable.
Now while the latter could be even an option in router's world more Trends in control plane decoupling are causing a shift from
and more BGP is being observed on the compute servers where sending traditional routers to compute virtualisation platforms, or even
there all present in an AS BGP paths would be for one undesired as third-party cloud platforms. As a result, without this proposal,
well would require to run also IGP there. Let's also note that operators are left with a difficult choice for the distribution and
number of paths per BGP prefix varies a lot. Depending on the reflection of address families with significant exit diversity:
network it can be anywhere from few to few hundreds.
3. Proposed Solutions o centralised path selection, and tolerate the associated suboptimal
paths,
o defer selection to end clients, but lose potential route scale
capacity
The latter can be a viable option, but it is clearly a decision that
needs to be made on an application and address family basis, with
strong consideration for the number of available paths per prefix
(which may even vary per prefix range, depending on peering policy,
e.g. consider bilateral peerings versus onward transit arrangements)
4. Proposed Solutions
The goal of this document is to allow a route reflector to choose the The goal of this document is to allow a route reflector to choose the
best path the client would have chosen had the client considered the best path the client would have chosen had the client considered the
same set of candidate paths the reflector has available. For same set of candidate paths the reflector has available. For
purposes of route selection, the perspective of a client can differ purposes of route selection, the perspective of a client can differ
from that of a route reflector or another client in two distinct from that of a route reflector or another client in two distinct
ways: it can, and usually will, have a different position in the IGP ways: it can, and usually will, have a different position in the IGP
topology, and it can have a different routing policy. These topology, and it can have a different routing policy. These
correspond to the issues described earlier. Accordingly, we propose correspond to the issues described earlier. Accordingly, we propose
two distinct modifications to the best path algorithm, to address two distinct modifications to the best path algorithm, to address
skipping to change at page 6, line 8 skipping to change at page 6, line 47
considered the same set of candidate paths. considered the same set of candidate paths.
Both modifications rely upon all route reflectors learning all paths Both modifications rely upon all route reflectors learning all paths
which are eligible for consideration. In order to satisfy this which are eligible for consideration. In order to satisfy this
requirement, path diversity enhancing mechanisms such as ADD-PATH/ requirement, path diversity enhancing mechanisms such as ADD-PATH/
diverse paths may need to be deployed between route reflectors. diverse paths may need to be deployed between route reflectors.
A significant advantage of these approaches is that the RR clients do A significant advantage of these approaches is that the RR clients do
not need to run new software or hardware. not need to run new software or hardware.
3.1. Client's Perspective IGP Based Best Path Selection 4.1. Client's Perspective IGP Based Best Path Selection
The core of this solution is the ability for an operator to specify The core of this solution is the ability for an operator to specify
on a per route reflector basis or per peer/update group basis or per on a per route reflector basis or per peer/update group basis or per
peer basis the virtual IGP location placement of the route reflector. peer basis the virtual IGP location placement of the route reflector.
This enables having a given group of clients receive routes with This enables having a given group of clients receive routes with
optimal distance to the next hops from the position of the configured optimal distance to the next hops from the position of the configured
virtual IGP location. This also provides for freedom of route virtual IGP location. This also provides for freedom of route
reflector location and allows transient or permanent migration of reflector location and allows transient or permanent migration of
such network control plane function to optimal location. such network control plane function to optimal location.
skipping to change at page 6, line 41 skipping to change at page 7, line 31
operator may configure it manually, implementation may automate it operator may configure it manually, implementation may automate it
based on specified heuristic or it can be computed centrally and based on specified heuristic or it can be computed centrally and
configured by an external system. configured by an external system.
The solution does not require any BGP or IGP protocol changes as The solution does not require any BGP or IGP protocol changes as
required changes are contained within the RR implementation. required changes are contained within the RR implementation.
The solution applies to NLRIs of all address families which can be The solution applies to NLRIs of all address families which can be
route reflected. route reflected.
3.2. Client's Perspective Policy Based Best Path Selection 4.2. Client's Perspective Policy Based Best Path Selection
Optimal route reflection based on virtual IGP location could reflect Optimal route reflection based on virtual IGP location could reflect
the best path to the client from IGP cost perspective. However, the best path to the client from IGP cost perspective. However,
there are also cases where the client might want best path from there are also cases where the client might want best path from
perspectives beyond IGP cost. Examples include, but not limited to: perspectives beyond IGP cost. Examples include, but not limited to:
o Select the best path for the clients from a traffic engineering o Select the best path for the clients from a traffic engineering
perspective. perspective.
o Dedicate certain exit points for certain ingress points. o Dedicate certain exit points for certain ingress points.
skipping to change at page 7, line 21 skipping to change at page 8, line 12
be applied to the candidate paths to select the final paths to be applied to the candidate paths to select the final paths to
advertise to the clients. advertise to the clients.
The policy is applied on the route reflector on behalf of its The policy is applied on the route reflector on behalf of its
clients. This way, the route reflector will be able to reflect only clients. This way, the route reflector will be able to reflect only
the optimal paths to the clients. An additional advantage of this the optimal paths to the clients. An additional advantage of this
approach is that configuration need only be done on a small number of approach is that configuration need only be done on a small number of
route reflectors rather than a significantly larger number of route reflectors rather than a significantly larger number of
clients. clients.
3.3. Solution Interactions 4.3. Solution Interactions
Depending on the actual deployment scenarios, service providers may Depending on the actual deployment scenarios, service providers may
configure IGP based optimal route reflection or policy based optimal configure IGP based optimal route reflection or policy based optimal
route reflection. It's also possible to configure both approaches route reflection. It's also possible to configure both approaches
together. In that case, policy based optimal route reflection will together. In that case, policy based optimal route reflection will
be applied first to select the candidate paths. Subsequently, IGP be applied first to select the candidate paths. Subsequently, IGP
based optimal route reflection will be applied on top of the based optimal route reflection will be applied on top of the
candidate paths to select the final path to advertise to the client. candidate paths to select the final path to advertise to the client.
The expected use case for optimal route reflection is to avoid The expected use case for optimal route reflection is to avoid
skipping to change at page 8, line 15 skipping to change at page 9, line 7
similar IGP location can be grouped into the same peer group. A similar IGP location can be grouped into the same peer group. A
virtual IGP location is then specified for the peer group. The virtual IGP location is then specified for the peer group. The
virtual location is usually specified as the location of one of the virtual location is usually specified as the location of one of the
clients from the peer group or an ABR to the area where clients are clients from the peer group or an ABR to the area where clients are
located. Also, one or more backup virtual location SHOULD be allowed located. Also, one or more backup virtual location SHOULD be allowed
to be specified for redundancy. Implementations may wish to take to be specified for redundancy. Implementations may wish to take
advantage of peer group mechanisms in order to provide for better advantage of peer group mechanisms in order to provide for better
scalability of optimal route reflector client groups with similar scalability of optimal route reflector client groups with similar
properties. properties.
4. CPU and Memory Scalability 5. CPU and Memory Scalability
For IGP based optimal route reflection, determining the shortest path For IGP based optimal route reflection, determining the shortest path
and associated cost between any two arbitrary points in a network and associated cost between any two arbitrary points in a network
based on the IGP topology learned by a router is expected to add some based on the IGP topology learned by a router is expected to add some
extra cost in terms of CPU resources. However SPF tree generation extra cost in terms of CPU resources. However SPF tree generation
code is now implemented efficiently in a number of implementations, code is now implemented efficiently in a number of implementations,
and therefore this is not expected to be a major drawback. The and therefore this is not expected to be a major drawback. The
number of SPTs computed is expected to be of the order of the number number of SPTs computed is expected to be of the order of the number
of clients of an RR whenever a topology change is detected. Advanced of clients of an RR whenever a topology change is detected. Advanced
optimizations like partial and incremental SPF may also be exploited. optimizations like partial and incremental SPF may also be exploited.
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 41
today, this avenue to scaling up the route reflection infrastructure today, this avenue to scaling up the route reflection infrastructure
would be available. would be available.
If we consider the overall network wide cost/benefit factor, the only If we consider the overall network wide cost/benefit factor, the only
alternative to achieve the same level of optimality would require alternative to achieve the same level of optimality would require
significantly increasing state on the edges of the network. This significantly increasing state on the edges of the network. This
will consume CPU and memory resources on all BGP speakers in the will consume CPU and memory resources on all BGP speakers in the
network. Building this client perspective into the route reflectors network. Building this client perspective into the route reflectors
seems appropriate. seems appropriate.
5. Advantages and Deployment Considerations 6. Advantages and Deployment Considerations
The solutions described provide a model for integrating the client The solutions described provide a model for integrating the client
perspective into the best path computation for RRs. More perspective into the best path computation for RRs. More
specifically, the choice of BGP path factors in either the IGP cost specifically, the choice of BGP path factors in either the IGP cost
between the client and the nexthop (rather than the distance from the between the client and the nexthop (rather than the distance from the
RR to the nexthop) or user configured policies. RR to the nexthop) or other user configured policies.
Implementation to be declared as compliant with this memo should Implementations considered compliant with this memo allow the
allow to configure per instance or per group of peers logical configuration of a logical location from which the best path will be
location from which either for the entire instance or for set of computed, on the basis of either a peer, a peer group, or an entire
peers best path will be computed. routing instance.
These solutions can be deployed in traditional hop-by-hop forwarding These solutions can be deployed in traditional hop-by-hop forwarding
networks as well as in end-to-end tunneled environments. In the networks as well as in end-to-end tunneled environments. In the
networks where there are multiple route reflectors and hop-by-hop networks where there are multiple route reflectors and hop-by-hop
forwarding without encapsulation, such optimizations should be forwarding without encapsulation, such optimizations should be
enabled in a consistent way on all route reflectors. Otherwise enabled in a consistent way on all route reflectors. Otherwise
clients may receive an inconsistent view of the network and in turn clients may receive an inconsistent view of the network and in turn
lead to intra-domain forwarding loops. lead to intra-domain forwarding loops.
With this approach, an ISP can effect a hot potato routing policy With this approach, an ISP can effect a hot potato routing policy
skipping to change at page 9, line 48 skipping to change at page 10, line 37
The proposals allow for a fast and safe transition to a BGP control The proposals allow for a fast and safe transition to a BGP control
plane with centralized route reflection without compromising an plane with centralized route reflection without compromising an
operator's closest exit operational principle. This enables edge-to- operator's closest exit operational principle. This enables edge-to-
edge LSP/IP encapsulation for traffic to IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes. edge LSP/IP encapsulation for traffic to IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes.
Regarding the client's IGP best-path selection, it should be self Regarding the client's IGP best-path selection, it should be self
evident that this solution does not interfere with policies enforced evident that this solution does not interfere with policies enforced
above IGP tie breaking in the BGP best path algorithm. above IGP tie breaking in the BGP best path algorithm.
6. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
No new security issues are introduced to the BGP protocol by this No new security issues are introduced to the BGP protocol by this
specification. specification.
7. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document does not request any IANA allocations. This document does not request any IANA allocations.
8. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Keyur Patel, Eric Rosen, Clarence Authors would like to thank Keyur Patel, Eric Rosen, Clarence
Filsfils, Uli Bornhauser, Russ White, Jakob Heitz, Mike Shand, Jon Filsfils, Uli Bornhauser, Russ White, Jakob Heitz, Mike Shand, Jon
Mitchell, John Scudder, Jeff Haas, Martin Djernaes and Daniele Mitchell, John Scudder, Jeff Haas, Martin Djernaes and Daniele
Ceccarelli for their valuable input. Ceccarelli for their valuable input.
9. References 10. References
9.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>. February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>. 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.
9.2. 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-15 (work in progress), May 2016. add-paths-15 (work in progress), May 2016.
[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities [RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996, Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 27 skipping to change at page 13, line 19
Email: erik.aman@teliacompany.com Email: erik.aman@teliacompany.com
Bruno Decraene Bruno Decraene
Orange Orange
38-40 rue du General Leclerc 38-40 rue du General Leclerc
Issy les Moulineaux cedex 9 92794 Issy les Moulineaux cedex 9 92794
France France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Stephane Litkowski
Orange
9 rue du chene germain
Cesson Sevigne 35512
France
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Kevin Wang Kevin Wang
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
10 Technology Park Drive 10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886 Westford, MA 01886
USA USA
Email: kfwang@juniper.net Email: kfwang@juniper.net
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
64 lines changed or deleted 93 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/