draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-04.txt		draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-05.txt
	IDR Working Group E. Jasinska		IDR Working Group E. Jasinska
	Internet-Draft Netflix, Inc		Internet-Draft Netflix, Inc
	Intended status: Standards Track N. Hilliard		Intended status: Standards Track N. Hilliard
	Expires: September 4, 2014 INEX		Expires: December 11, 2014 INEX
	R. Raszuk		R. Raszuk
	NTT MCL Inc.		NTT MCL Inc.
	N. Bakker		N. Bakker
	Akamai Technologies B.V.		Akamai Technologies B.V.
	March 3, 2014		June 9, 2014
	Internet Exchange Route Server		Internet Exchange Route Server
	draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-04		draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document outlines a specification for multilateral		This document outlines a specification for multilateral
	interconnections at Internet exchange points (IXPs). Multilateral		interconnections at Internet exchange points (IXPs). Multilateral
	interconnection is a method of exchanging routing information between		interconnection is a method of exchanging routing information between
	three or more exterior BGP speakers using a single intermediate		three or more exterior BGP speakers using a single intermediate
	broker system, referred to as a route server. Route servers are		broker system, referred to as a route server. Route servers are
	typically used on shared access media networks, such as Internet		typically used on shared access media networks, such as Internet
	exchange points (IXPs), to facilitate simplified interconnection		exchange points (IXPs), to facilitate simplified interconnection
	between multiple Internet routers.		between multiple Internet routers.
	Status of This Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	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 September 4, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on December 11, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 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
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Technical Considerations for Route Server Implementations . . 3		2. Technical Considerations for Route Server Implementations . . 4
	2.1. Client UPDATE Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Client UPDATE Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. Attribute Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2. Attribute Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2.1. NEXT_HOP Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2.1. NEXT_HOP Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2.2. AS_PATH Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2.2. AS_PATH Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2.3. MULTI_EXIT_DISC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2.3. MULTI_EXIT_DISC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.2.4. Communities Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2.4. Communities Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.3. Per-Client Policy Control in Multilateral Interconnection 5		2.3. Per-Client Policy Control in Multilateral
	2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Interconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.3.2. Mitigation of Path Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.3.2.1. Multiple Route Server RIBs . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.3.2. Mitigation of Path Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	2.3.2.2. Advertising Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.3.2.1. Multiple Route Server RIBs . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	2.3.3. Implementation Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 8		2.3.2.2. Advertising Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		2.3.3. Implementation Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection		1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection
	Internet exchange points (IXPs) provide IP data interconnection		Internet exchange points (IXPs) provide IP data interconnection
	facilities for their participants, typically using shared Layer-2		facilities for their participants, typically using shared Layer-2
	networking media such as Ethernet. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)		networking media such as Ethernet. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
	[RFC4271], an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol, is commonly		[RFC4271], an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol, is commonly
	used to facilitate exchange of network reachability information over		used to facilitate exchange of network reachability information over
	such media.		such media.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 31		skipping to change at page 6, line 7
	possible, there are circumstances where control of path distribution		possible, there are circumstances where control of path distribution
	on a per-client basis is important to ensure that desired		on a per-client basis is important to ensure that desired
	interconnection policies are met.		interconnection policies are met.
	The control of path distribution on a per-client basis can lead to a		The control of path distribution on a per-client basis can lead to a
	path being hidden from the route server client. We refer to this as		path being hidden from the route server client. We refer to this as
	"path hiding".		"path hiding".
	2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server		2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server
	___ ___		___ ___
	/ \ / \		/ \ / \
	..| AS1 |..| AS2 |..		..| AS1 |..| AS2 |..
	: \___/ \___/ :		: \___/ \___/ :
	: \ / | :		: \ / | :
	: \ / | :		: \ / | :
	: IXP \/ | :		: IXP \/ | :
	: /\ | :		: /\ | :
	: / \ | :		: / \ | :
	: ___/____\_|_ :		: ___/____\_|_ :
	: / \ / \ :		: / \ / \ :
	..| AS3 |..| AS4 |..		..| AS3 |..| AS4 |..
	\___/ \___/		\___/ \___/
	Figure 1: Per-Client Policy Controlled Interconnection at an IXP		Figure 1: Per-Client Policy Controlled Interconnection at an IXP
	Using the example in Figure 1, AS1 does not directly exchange prefix		Using the example in Figure 1, AS1 does not directly exchange prefix
	information with either AS2 or AS3 at the IXP, but only interconnects		information with either AS2 or AS3 at the IXP, but only interconnects
	with AS4.		with AS4.
	In the traditional bilateral interconnection model, per-client policy		In the traditional bilateral interconnection model, per-client policy
	control to a third party exchange participant is accomplished either		control to a third party exchange participant is accomplished either
	by not engaging in a bilateral interconnection with that participant		by not engaging in a bilateral interconnection with that participant
	skipping to change at page 8, line 43		skipping to change at page 9, line 18
	The new set of mechanisms for route servers does not require any new		The new set of mechanisms for route servers does not require any new
	allocations from IANA.		allocations from IANA.
	5. Acknowledgments		5. Acknowledgments
	The authors would like to thank Ryan Bickhart, Steven Bakker, Martin		The authors would like to thank Ryan Bickhart, Steven Bakker, Martin
	Pels, Chris Hall, Aleksi Suhonen, Bruno Decraene, Pierre Francois and		Pels, Chris Hall, Aleksi Suhonen, Bruno Decraene, Pierre Francois and
	Eduardo Ascenco Reis for their valuable input.		Eduardo Ascenco Reis for their valuable input.
	In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the developers of		In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the developers of
	BIRD, OpenBGPD and Quagga, whose open source BGP implementations		BIRD, OpenBGPD, Quagga and IOS whose BGP implementations include
	include route server capabilities which are compliant with this		route server capabilities which are compliant with this document.
	document.
			Route server functionality was described in 1995 in [RFC1863] and
			modern route server implementations are based on concepts developed
			in the 1990s by the Routing Arbiter Project and the Route Server Next
			Generation Project, managed by ISI and Merit. Although the original
			RSNG code is no longer in use at any IXPs, the IXP community owes a
			debt of gratitude to the many people who were involved in route
			server development in the 1990s.
	6. References		6. References
	6.1. Normative References		6.1. Normative References
	[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.
	[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, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway		[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
	Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.		Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
	skipping to change at page 9, line 22		skipping to change at page 10, line 4
	[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway		[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
	Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.		Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
	[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended		[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
	Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.		Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
	6.2. Informative References		6.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist]		[I-D.ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist]
	Raszuk, R., Fernando, R., Patel, K., McPherson, D., and K.		Raszuk, R., Fernando, R., Patel, K., McPherson, D., and K.
	Kumaki, "Distribution of diverse BGP paths.", draft-ietf-
	grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-08 (work in progress), July		Kumaki, "Distribution of diverse BGP paths.",
	2012.		draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-08 (work in
			progress), July 2012.
	[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",
	add-paths-09 (work in progress), October 2013.		draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-09 (work in progress),
			October 2013.
			[RFC1863] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full
			mesh routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.
	[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route		[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
	Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP		Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
	(IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006.		(IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Elisa Jasinska		Elisa Jasinska
	Netflix, Inc		Netflix, Inc
	100 Winchester Circle		100 Winchester Circle
End of changes. 11 change blocks.
	48 lines changed or deleted		62 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/