--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-04.txt 2014-10-22 15:14:57.775340915 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-05.txt 2014-10-22 15:14:57.795341403 -0700 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ Inter-Domain Routing A. Retana Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track R. White -Expires: May 22, 2014 - November 18, 2013 +Expires: April 25, 2015 Ericsson + October 22, 2014 BGP Custom Decision Process - draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-04 + draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-05 Abstract The BGP specification defines a Decision Process for installation of routes into the Loc-RIB. This process takes into account an extensive series of path attributes, which can be manipulated to indicate preference for specific paths. It is cumbersome (if at all possible) for the end user to define policies that will select, after partial comparison, a path based on subjective local (domain and/or node) criteria. @@ -31,57 +31,58 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2014. + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2015. 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. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. The BGP Cost Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Cost Community Point of Insertion Registry . . . . . 7 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B.1. Changes between the -00 and -01 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 B.2. Changes between the -01 and -02 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 B.3. Changes between the -02 and -03 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 B.4. Changes between the -03 and -04 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + B.5. Changes between the -04 and -05 versions. . . . . . . . . 9 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction There are a number of metrics available within the BGP decision process [RFC4271] which can be used to determine the exit point for traffic, but there is no metric, or combination of metrics, which can be used to break a tie among generally equal paths. o LOCAL_PREF: The LOCAL_PREF is an absolute tie breaker near the beginning of the decision process. There is no way to configure @@ -256,35 +258,34 @@ for the Opaque Extended Community type. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of - Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February - 2005. + Standards Track Code Points", RFC 4020, February 2005. [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. 9.2. Informative References [BGP_EXT] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "BGP Extended - Communities", 2010, . + Communities", 2010, . [BGP_PAR] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "BGP Parameters", 2010, . [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP (IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006. @@ -343,23 +344,28 @@ o Minor edits. B.3. Changes between the -02 and -03 versions. o No changes; just a refresh. B.4. Changes between the -03 and -04 versions. o Updated authors' contact information. +B.5. Changes between the -04 and -05 versions. + + o Updated authors' contact information. + Authors' Addresses Alvaro Retana Cisco Systems, Inc. 7025 Kit Creek Rd. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA Email: aretana@cisco.com Russ White + Ericsson Email: russw@riw.us