--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-05.txt 2014-12-10 12:14:50.623870976 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-06.txt 2014-12-10 12:14:50.647871561 -0800 @@ -1,23 +1,23 @@ IDR Working Group E. Jasinska Internet-Draft Netflix, Inc Intended status: Standards Track N. Hilliard -Expires: December 11, 2014 INEX +Expires: June 13, 2015 INEX R. Raszuk - NTT MCL Inc. + Mirantis Inc. N. Bakker Akamai Technologies B.V. - June 9, 2014 + December 10, 2014 Internet Exchange Route Server - draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-05 + draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-06 Abstract This document outlines a specification for multilateral interconnections at Internet exchange points (IXPs). Multilateral interconnection is a method of exchanging routing information between three or more exterior BGP speakers using a single intermediate broker system, referred to as a route server. Route servers are typically used on shared access media networks, such as Internet exchange points (IXPs), to facilitate simplified interconnection @@ -31,21 +31,21 @@ 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 December 11, 2014. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 13, 2015. Copyright Notice 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 @@ -300,25 +300,24 @@ to a route server client, then route server clients would no longer depend on receiving a single best path to a particular prefix; consequently, the path hiding problem described in Section 2.3.1 would disappear. We present two methods which describe how such increased path diversity could be implemented. 2.3.2.2.1. Diverse BGP Path Approach - The Diverse BGP Path proposal as defined in - [I-D.ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist] is a simple way to distribute - multiple prefix paths from a route server to a route server client by - using a separate BGP session from the route server to a client for - each different path. + The Diverse BGP Path proposal as defined in [RFC6774] is a simple way + to distribute multiple prefix paths from a route server to a route + server client by using a separate BGP session from the route server + to a client for each different path. The number of paths which may be distributed to a client is constrained by the number of BGP sessions which the server and the client are willing to establish with each other. The distributed paths may be established from the global BGP Loc-RIB on the route server in addition to any per-client Loc-RIB. As there may be more potential paths to a given prefix than configured BGP sessions, this method is not guaranteed to eliminate the path hiding problem in all situations. Furthermore, this method may significantly increase the number of BGP sessions handled by the route server, which may @@ -392,62 +391,63 @@ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. 6.2. Informative References - [I-D.ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist] - 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 2012. - [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", - draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-09 (work in progress), - October 2013. + draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-10 (work in progress), + October 2014. [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 Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP (IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006. + [RFC6774] Raszuk, R., Fernando, R., Patel, K., McPherson, D., and K. + Kumaki, "Distribution of Diverse BGP Paths", RFC 6774, + November 2012. + Authors' Addresses Elisa Jasinska Netflix, Inc 100 Winchester Circle Los Gatos, CA 95032 USA Email: elisa@netflix.com Nick Hilliard INEX 4027 Kingswood Road Dublin 24 IE Email: nick@inex.ie Robert Raszuk - NTT MCL Inc. - 101 S Ellsworth Avenue Suite 350 - San Mateo, CA 94401 - US + Mirantis Inc. + 615 National Ave. #100 + Mt View, CA 94043 + USA + Phone: + Fax: Email: robert@raszuk.net + URI: + Niels Bakker Akamai Technologies B.V. Kingsfordweg 151 Amsterdam 1043 GR NL Email: nbakker@akamai.com