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/