draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-15.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-16.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: April 17, 2018 Cisco Systems Expires: October 13, 2018 Tesla
E. Aman E. Aman
Telia Company Telia Company
B. Decraene B. Decraene
Orange Orange
K. Wang K. Wang
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
October 14, 2017 April 11, 2018
BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR) BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-15 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-16
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 for their clients that the clients them to choose the best path for their clients that the clients
themselves would have chosen under the same conditions, without themselves would have chosen under the same conditions, without
requiring further state or any new features to be placed on the requiring further state or any new features to be placed on the
clients. This facilitates, for example, best exit point policy (hot clients. This facilitates, for example, best exit point policy (hot
potato routing). This solution is primarily applicable in potato routing). This solution is primarily applicable in
deployments using centralized route reflectors. deployments using centralized route reflectors.
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 April 17, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 13, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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. Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Existing/Alternative Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Existing/Alternative Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Proposed Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Proposed Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Client's Perspective IGP Based Best Path Selection . . . 6 4.1. Client's Perspective IGP Based Best Path Selection . . . 7
4.2. Client's Perspective Policy Based Best Path Selection . . 7 4.2. Client's Perspective Policy Based Best Path Selection . . 8
4.3. Solution Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. Solution Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. CPU and Memory Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. CPU and Memory Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Advantages and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Advantages and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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 19 skipping to change at page 3, line 19
POP - Point Of Presence POP - Point Of Presence
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
SPT - Shortest Path Tree SPT - Shortest Path Tree
best path - the route chosen by the decision process detailed in
[RFC 4271] section 9.1.2 and its subsections
best path computation - the decision process detailed in [RFC 4271]
section 9.1.2 and its subsections
best path algorithm - the decision process detailed in [RFC 4271]
section 9.1.2 and its subsections
best path selection - the decision process detailed in [RFC 4271]
section 9.1.2 and its subsections
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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Authors 2. Authors
Following authors substantially contributed to the current format of Following authors substantially contributed to the current format of
the document: the document:
Stephane Litkowski Stephane Litkowski
Orange Orange
9 rue du chene germain 9 rue du chene germain
Cesson Sevigne, 35512 Cesson Sevigne, 35512
skipping to change at page 5, line 28 skipping to change at page 5, line 46
Many networks receive full Internet routing information in a large Many networks receive full Internet routing information in a large
number of locations. This could easily result in tens of paths for number of locations. This could easily result in tens of paths for
each prefix that would need to be distributed to clients. each 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
sending more than just the single best path to the clients. Improved sending more than just the single best path to the clients. Improved
path diversity at the edge is a requirement for fast connectivity path diversity at the edge is a requirement for fast connectivity
restoration, and a requirement for effective BGP level load restoration, and a requirement for effective BGP level load
balancing. balancing.
In practical terms, add/diverse path deployments are expected to In practical terms, add/diverse path deployments [RFC7911] [RFC6774]
result in the distribution of 2, 3, or n (where n is a small number) are expected to result in the distribution of 2, 3, or n (where n is
good paths rather than all domain external paths. While the route a small number) good paths rather than all domain external paths.
reflector chooses one set of n paths and distributes them to all its When the route reflector chooses one set of n paths and distributes
route reflector clients, those n paths may not be the right n paths them to all its route reflector clients, those n paths may not be the
for all clients. In the context of the problem described above, right n paths for all clients. In the context of the problem
those n paths will not necessarily include the best exit point out of described above, those n paths will not necessarily include the
the network for each route reflector client. The mechanisms proposed closest exit point out of the network for each route reflector
in this document are likely to be complementary to mechanisms aimed client. The mechanisms proposed in this document are likely to be
at improving path diversity. complementary to mechanisms aimed at improving path diversity.
Another possibility to optimize exit point selection is the Another possibility to optimize exit point selection is the
implementation of distributed route reflector functionality at key implementation of distributed route reflector functionality at key
IGP locations in order to ensure that these locations see their IGP locations in order to ensure that these locations see their
viewpoints respected in exit selection. Typically, however, this viewpoints respected in exit selection. Typically, however, this
requires the installation of physical nodes to implement the requires the installation of physical nodes to implement the
reflection, and if exit policy subsequently changes, the reflector reflection, and if exit policy subsequently changes, the reflector
placement and position can become inappropriate. placement and position can become inappropriate.
To counter the burden of physical installation, it is possible to To counter the burden of physical installation, it is possible to
build a logical overlay of tunnels with appropriate IGP metrics in build a logical overlay of tunnels with appropriate IGP metrics in
order to simulate closeness to key locations required to implement order to simulate closeness to key locations required to implement
exit policy. There is significant complexity overhead in this exit policy. There is significant complexity overhead in this
approach, however, enough so to make it typically undesirable. approach, however, enough so to typically make it undesirable.
Trends in control plane decoupling are causing a shift from Trends in control plane decoupling are causing a shift from
traditional routers to compute virtualization platforms, or even traditional routers to compute virtualization platforms, or even
third-party cloud platforms. As a result, without this proposal, third-party cloud platforms. As a result, without this proposal,
operators are left with a difficult choice for the distribution and operators are left with a difficult choice for the distribution and
reflection of address families with significant exit diversity: reflection of address families with significant exit diversity:
o centralized path selection, and tolerate the associated suboptimal o centralized path selection, and tolerate the associated suboptimal
paths, or paths, or
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 23
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 route A significant advantage of these approaches is that the route
reflector clients do not need to run new software or hardware. reflector clients do not need to run new software or hardware.
4.1. 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 shortest distance to the next hops from the position of the
virtual IGP location. This also provides for freedom of route configured virtual IGP location. This provides for freedom of route
reflector location, and allows transient or permanent migration of reflector location, and allows transient or permanent migration of
this network control plane function to an optimal location. this network control plane function to an arbitrary location.
The choice of specific granularity is left to the implementation The choice of specific granularity left as an implementation
decision. An implementation is considered compliant with the decision. An implementation is considered compliant with the
document if it supports at least one listed grouping of virtual IGP document if it supports at least one listed grouping of virtual IGP
location. location.
In this approach, optimal refers to the decision made during best In this approach, optimal refers to the decision made during best
path selection at the IGP metric to BGP next hop comparison step. path selection at the IGP metric to BGP next hop comparison step.
This approach does not apply to path selection preference based on This approach does not apply to path selection preference based on
other policy steps and provisions. other policy steps and provisions.
The computation of the virtual IGP location with any of the above The computation of the virtual IGP location with any of the above
described granularity is outside of the scope of this document. The described granularity is outside of the scope of this document. The
operator may configure it manually, implementation may automate it operator may configure it manually, implementation may automate it
based on specified heuristics, or it can be computed centrally and based on heuristics, or it can be computed centrally and configured
configured by an external system. by an external system.
In situations where BGP next hop is a BGP prefix itself the IGP In situations where the BGP next hop is a BGP prefix itself the IGP
metric of a route used for its resolution should be the final IGP metric of a route used for its resolution SHOULD be the final IGP
cost to reach such next hop. Implementations which can not inform cost to reach such next hop. Implementations which can not inform
BGP of the final IGP metric to a recursive next hop should treat such BGP of the final IGP metric to a recursive next hop SHOULD treat such
paths to be least preferred during next hop metric comparison, paths as least preferred during next hop metric comparison. However
however should be still considered valid for best path selection. such paths SHOULD still be considered valid for best path selection.
This solution does not require any BGP or IGP protocol changes, as This solution does not require any BGP or IGP protocol changes, as
all required changes are contained within the route reflector all required changes are contained within the route reflector
implementation. implementation.
This solution applies to NLRIs of all address families, that can be This solution applies to NLRIs of all address families, that can be
route reflected. route reflected.
4.2. Client's Perspective Policy Based Best Path Selection 4.2. Client's Perspective Policy Based Best Path Selection
skipping to change at page 8, line 8 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
on factors beyond IGP cost. Examples include, but not limited to: on factors beyond IGP cost. Examples include, but not limited to:
o Selecting the best path for the clients from a traffic engineering o Selecting the best path for the clients from a traffic engineering
perspective. perspective.
o Dedicating certain exit points for certain ingress points. o Dedicating certain exit points for certain ingress points.
The solution proposed here allows the user to apply a general policy The solution proposed here allows the user to apply a general policy
on the route reflector to select a subset of exit points as the on the route reflector to select a subset of exit points as the
candidate exit points for its clients. For a given client, the candidate exit points for its clients. For a given client, the
policy should also allow the operator to select different candidate policy SHOULD also allow the operator to select different candidate
exit points for different address families. Regular path selection, exit points for different address families. Regular path selection,
including client's perspective IGP based best path selection stated including client's perspective IGP based best path selection stated
above, will be applied to the candidate paths to select the final above, will be applied to the candidate paths to select the final
paths to advertise to the clients. paths to advertise to the clients.
Since the policy is applied on the route reflector on behalf of its Since the policy is applied on the route reflector on behalf of its
clients, the route reflector will be able to reflect only the optimal clients, the route reflector will be able to reflect only the optimal
paths to its clients. An additional advantage of this approach is paths to its clients. An additional advantage of this approach is
that configuration need only be done on a small number of route that configuration need only be done on a small number of route
reflectors, rather than on a significantly larger number of clients. reflectors, rather than on a significantly larger number of clients.
skipping to change at page 9, line 10 skipping to change at page 9, line 29
With IGP based optimal route reflection, even though the virtual IGP With IGP based optimal route reflection, even though the virtual IGP
location could be specified on a per route reflector basis or per location could be specified on a per route reflector basis or per
peer/update group basis or per peer basis, in reality, it's most peer/update group basis or per peer basis, in reality, it's most
likely to be specified per peer/update group basis. All clients with likely to be specified per peer/update group basis. All clients with
the same or similar IGP location can be grouped into the same peer/ the same or similar IGP location can be grouped into the same peer/
update group. A virtual IGP location is then specified for the peer/ update group. A virtual IGP location is then specified for the peer/
update group. The virtual location is usually specified as the update group. The virtual location is usually specified as the
location of one of the clients from the peer group or an ABR to the location of one of the clients from the peer group or an ABR to the
area where clients are located. Also, one or more backup virtual area where clients are located. Also, one or more backup virtual
location SHOULD be allowed to be specified for redundancy. locations SHOULD be allowed to be specified for redundancy.
Implementations may wish to take advantage of peer group mechanisms Implementations may wish to take advantage of peer group mechanisms
in order to provide for better scalability of optimal route reflector in order to provide for better scalability of optimal route reflector
client groups with similar properties. client groups with similar properties.
5. 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, current SPF tree extra cost in terms of CPU resources. However, current SPF tree
skipping to change at page 9, line 33 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
drawback. The number of SPTs computed is expected to be of the order drawback. The number of SPTs computed is expected to be of the order
of the number of clients of a route reflector whenever a topology of the number of clients of a route reflector whenever a topology
change is detected. Advanced optimizations like partial and change is detected. Advanced optimizations like partial and
incremental SPF may also be exploited. The number of SPTs computed incremental SPF may also be exploited. The number of SPTs computed
is expected to be higher but comparable to some existing deployed is expected to be higher but comparable to some existing deployed
features such as (Remote) Loop Free Alternate which computes a (r)SPT features such as (Remote) Loop Free Alternate which computes a (r)SPT
per IGP neighbor. per IGP neighbor.
For policy based optimal route reflection, there will be some For policy based optimal route reflection, there will be some
overhead to apply the policy to select the candidate paths. This overhead to apply the policy to select the candidate paths. This
overhead is comparable to existing BGP export policies therefore overhead is comparable to existing BGP export policies and therefore
should be manageable. should be manageable.
By the nature of route reflection, the number of clients can be split By the nature of route reflection, the number of clients can be split
arbitrarily by the deployment of more route reflectors for a given arbitrarily by the deployment of more route reflectors for a given
number of clients. While this is not expected to be necessary in number of clients. While this is not expected to be necessary in
existing networks with best in class route reflectors available existing networks with best in class route reflectors available
today, this avenue to scaling up the route reflection infrastructure today, this avenue to scaling up the route reflection infrastructure
is available. is 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
skipping to change at page 10, line 20 skipping to change at page 10, line 36
cost between the client and the nexthop (rather than the IGP cost cost between the client and the nexthop (rather than the IGP cost
from the route reflector to the nexthop) or other user configured from the route reflector to the nexthop) or other user configured
policies. policies.
Implementations considered compliant with this document allow the Implementations considered compliant with this document allow the
configuration of a logical location from which the best path will be configuration of a logical location from which the best path will be
computed, on the basis of either a peer, a peer group, or an entire computed, on the basis of either a peer, a peer group, or an entire
routing instance. 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 networks
networks where there are multiple route reflectors and hop-by-hop where there are multiple route reflectors and hop-by-hop forwarding
forwarding without encapsulation, such optimizations should be without encapsulation, such optimizations SHOULD be enabled in a
enabled in a consistent way on all route reflectors. Otherwise, consistent way on all route reflectors. Otherwise, clients may
clients may receive an inconsistent view of the network, in turn receive an inconsistent view of the network, in turn leading to
leading to intra-domain forwarding loops. 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
even if route reflection has been moved out of the forwarding plane, even if route reflection has been moved out of the forwarding plane,
and hop-by-hop switching has been replaced by end-to-end MPLS or IP and hop-by-hop switching has been replaced by end-to-end MPLS or IP
encapsulation. encapsulation.
As per above, these approaches reduce the amount of state which needs As per above, these approaches reduce the amount of state which needs
to be pushed to the edge of the network in order to perform hot to be pushed to the edge of the network in order to perform hot
potato routing. The memory and CPU resources required at the edge of potato routing. The memory and CPU resources required at the edge of
the network to provide hot potato routing using these approaches is the network to provide hot potato routing using these approaches is
skipping to change at page 11, line 19 skipping to change at page 11, line 32
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document does not request any IANA allocations. This document does not request any IANA allocations.
9. 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, Daniele Mitchell, John Scudder, Jeff Haas, Martin Djernaes, Daniele
Ceccarelli, Kieran Milne and Job Snijders for their valuable input. Ceccarelli, Kieran Milne, Job Snijders and Randy Bush for their
valuable input.
10. References 10. References
10.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 12, line 9
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>. February 2006, <https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.
10.2. Informative References [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths] 10.2. Informative References
Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-
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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1998, August 1996, DOI 10.17487/RFC1998, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1998>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1998>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 42 skipping to change at page 13, line 10
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", [RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010, RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.
[RFC6774] Raszuk, R., Ed., Fernando, R., Patel, K., McPherson, D., [RFC6774] Raszuk, R., Ed., Fernando, R., Patel, K., McPherson, D.,
and K. Kumaki, "Distribution of Diverse BGP Paths", and K. Kumaki, "Distribution of Diverse BGP Paths",
RFC 6774, DOI 10.17487/RFC6774, November 2012, RFC 6774, DOI 10.17487/RFC6774, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6774>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6774>.
[RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Robert Raszuk (editor) Robert Raszuk (editor)
Bloomberg LP Bloomberg LP
731 Lexington Ave 731 Lexington Ave
New York City, NY 10022 New York City, NY 10022
USA USA
Email: robert@raszuk.net Email: robert@raszuk.net
Christian Cassar Christian Cassar
Cisco Systems Tesla
10 New Square Park 43 Avro Way
Bedfont Lakes, FELTHAM TW14 8HA Weybridge KT13 0XY
UK UK
Email: ccassar@cisco.com Email: ccassar@tesla.com
Erik Aman Erik Aman
Telia Company Telia Company
Solna SE-169 94 Solna SE-169 94
Sweden Sweden
Email: erik.aman@teliacompany.com Email: erik.aman@teliacompany.com
Bruno Decraene Bruno Decraene
Orange Orange
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
54 lines changed or deleted 73 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/