draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-10.txt   draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11.txt 
IDR Working Group E. Jasinska IDR Working Group E. Jasinska
Internet-Draft BigWave IT Internet-Draft BigWave IT
Intended status: Standards Track N. Hilliard Intended status: Standards Track N. Hilliard
Expires: October 31, 2016 INEX Expires: December 12, 2016 INEX
R. Raszuk R. Raszuk
Bloomberg LP Bloomberg LP
N. Bakker N. Bakker
Akamai Technologies B.V. Akamai Technologies B.V.
April 29, 2016 June 10, 2016
Internet Exchange BGP Route Server Internet Exchange BGP Route Server
draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-10 draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11
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 external BGP speakers using a single intermediate three or more external 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
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 October 31, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 12, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
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 . . . . . . . . 2
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 . . 3
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 Interconnection 5
2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2. Mitigation of Path Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2. Mitigation of Path Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2.1. Multiple Route Server RIBs . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2.1. Multiple Route Server RIBs . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2.2. Advertising Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2.2. Advertising Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.3. Implementation Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3.3. Implementation Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
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 3, line 43 skipping to change at page 3, line 43
1.1. Notational Conventions 1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
2. Technical Considerations for Route Server Implementations 2. Technical Considerations for Route Server Implementations
A route server uses the [RFC4271] Border Gateway Protocol to broker
network reachability information between its clients. There are some
differences between the behaviour of a BGP route server and a BGP
implementation which is strictly compliant with [RFC4271]. These
differences are described as follows.
2.1. Client UPDATE Messages 2.1. Client UPDATE Messages
A route server MUST accept all UPDATE messages received from each of A route server MUST accept all UPDATE messages received from each of
its clients for inclusion in its Adj-RIB-In. These UPDATE messages its clients for inclusion in its Adj-RIB-In. These UPDATE messages
MAY be omitted from the route server's Loc-RIB or Loc-RIBs, due to MAY be omitted from the route server's Loc-RIB or Loc-RIBs, due to
filters configured for the purposes of implementing routing policy. filters configured for the purposes of implementing routing policy.
The route server SHOULD perform one or more BGP Decision Processes to The route server SHOULD perform one or more BGP Decision Processes to
select routes for subsequent advertisement to its clients, taking select routes for subsequent advertisement to its clients, taking
into account possible configuration to provide multiple NLRI paths to into account possible configuration to provide multiple NLRI paths to
a particular client as described in Section 2.3.2.2 or multiple Loc- a particular client as described in Section 2.3.2.2 or multiple Loc-
skipping to change at page 8, line 42 skipping to change at page 8, line 49
PATH implementations on a route server should enforce send-only mode PATH implementations on a route server should enforce send-only mode
with the route server clients, which would result in negotiating with the route server clients, which would result in negotiating
receive-only mode from the client to the route server. receive-only mode from the client to the route server.
2.3.3. Implementation Suggestions 2.3.3. Implementation Suggestions
Route server implementation authors may wish to consider one of the Route server implementation authors may wish to consider one of the
methods described in Section 2.3.2 to allow per-client route server methods described in Section 2.3.2 to allow per-client route server
policy control without "path hiding". policy control without "path hiding".
Recommendations for route server operations are described separately
in [I-D.ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations].
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
The path hiding problem outlined in section Section 2.3.1 can be used The path hiding problem outlined in section Section 2.3.1 can be used
in certain circumstances to proactively block third party path in certain circumstances to proactively block third party path
announcements from other route server clients. Route server announcements from other route server clients. Route server
operators should be aware that security issues may arise unless steps operators should be aware that security issues may arise unless steps
are taken to mitigate against path hiding. are taken to mitigate against path hiding.
The AS_PATH check described in Section 2.2.2 is normally enabled in The AS_PATH check described in Section 2.2.2 is normally enabled in
order to check for malformed AS paths. If this check is disabled, order to check for malformed AS paths. If this check is disabled,
skipping to change at page 10, line 21 skipping to change at page 10, line 29
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>.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations]
Hilliard, N., Jasinska, E., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker,
"Internet Exchange BGP Route Server Operations", draft-
ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-05 (work in
progress), June 2015.
[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-13 (work in progress), December 2015. add-paths-15 (work in progress), May 2016.
[RFC1863] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full [RFC1863] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full
mesh routing", RFC 1863, DOI 10.17487/RFC1863, October mesh routing", RFC 1863, DOI 10.17487/RFC1863, October
1995, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1863>. 1995, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1863>.
[RFC4223] Savola, P., "Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic", [RFC4223] Savola, P., "Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic",
RFC 4223, DOI 10.17487/RFC4223, October 2005, RFC 4223, DOI 10.17487/RFC4223, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4223>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4223>.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 26 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/