draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-01.txt   draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-02.txt 
Network Working Group T. Bates Network Working Group T. Bates (Cisco Systems)
Internet Draft Cisco Systems Internet Draft R. Chandra (Sonoa Systems)
Expiration Date: November 2004 R. Chandra Expiration Date: April 2006 E. Chen (Cisco Systems)
E. Chen
Redback Networks
BGP Route Reflection - BGP Route Reflection -
An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP
draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-01.txt draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is an inter-autonomous system The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is an inter-autonomous system
skipping to change at page 9, line 10 skipping to change at page 9, line 10
is the POP-based reflection, in which each POP maintains its own is the POP-based reflection, in which each POP maintains its own
route reflectors serving clients in the POP, and all route reflectors route reflectors serving clients in the POP, and all route reflectors
are fully meshed. In addition, clients of the reflectors in each POP are fully meshed. In addition, clients of the reflectors in each POP
are often fully meshed for the purpose of optimal intra-POP routing, are often fully meshed for the purpose of optimal intra-POP routing,
and the intra-POP IGP metrics are configured to be better than the and the intra-POP IGP metrics are configured to be better than the
inter-POP IGP metrics. inter-POP IGP metrics.
12. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
inherent in the existing IBGP [5]. inherent in the existing IBGP [1, 5].
13. Acknowledgments 13. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dennis Ferguson, John Scudder, Paul The authors would like to thank Dennis Ferguson, John Scudder, Paul
Traina and Tony Li for the many discussions resulting in this work. Traina and Tony Li for the many discussions resulting in this work.
This idea was developed from an earlier discussion between Tony Li This idea was developed from an earlier discussion between Tony Li
and Dimitri Haskin. and Dimitri Haskin.
In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge valuable review In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge valuable review
and suggestions from Yakov Rekhter on this document, and helpful and suggestions from Yakov Rekhter on this document, and helpful
comments from Tony Li, Rohit Dube, John Scudder and Bruce Cole. comments from Tony Li, Rohit Dube, John Scudder and Bruce Cole.
14. References 14. References
14.1. Normative References 14.1. Normative References
[1] Rekhter, Y., T. Li and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 [1] Rekhter, Y., T. Li and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
(BGP-4)", draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-23.txt, November 2003. (BGP-4)", draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-26.txt, October 2004.
14.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[2] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh [2] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh
routing", RFC 1863, October 1995. routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.
[3] Traina, P., "Limited Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", [3] Traina, P., "Limited Autonomous System Confederations for BGP",
RFC 1965, June 1996. RFC 1965, June 1996.
[4] Bates, T. and R. Chandra, "BGP Route Reflection An alternative [4] Bates, T. and R. Chandra, "BGP Route Reflection An alternative
skipping to change at page 10, line 18 skipping to change at page 10, line 18
15. Authors' Addresses 15. Authors' Addresses
Tony Bates Tony Bates
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive 170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
EMail: tbates@cisco.com EMail: tbates@cisco.com
Ravi Chandra Ravi Chandra
Redback Networks Inc. Sonoa Systems, Inc.
300 Holger Way. 3255-7 Scott Blvd.
San Jose, CA 95134 Santa Clara, CA 95054
EMail: rchandra@redback.com Email: rchandra@sonoasystems.com
Enke Chen Enke Chen
Redback Networks Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Holger Way. 170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
EMail: enke@redback.com EMail: enkechen@cisco.com
16. Appendix A Comparison with RFC 2796 16. Appendix A Comparison with RFC 2796
The impact on route selection is added. The impact on route selection is added.
The pictorial description of the encoding of the CLUSTER_LIST
attribute is removed as the description is redundant to the BGP
specification, and the attribute length field is inadvertently
described as one octet.
17. Appendix B Comparison with RFC 1966 17. Appendix B Comparison with RFC 1966
All the changes listed in Appendix A, plus the following.
Several terminologies related to route reflection are clarified, and Several terminologies related to route reflection are clarified, and
the reference to EBGP routes/peers are removed. the reference to EBGP routes/peers are removed.
The handling of a routing information loop (due to route reflection) The handling of a routing information loop (due to route reflection)
by a receiver is clarified and made more consistent. by a receiver is clarified and made more consistent.
The addition of a CLUSTER_ID to the CLUSTER_LIST has been changed The addition of a CLUSTER_ID to the CLUSTER_LIST has been changed
from "append" to "prepend" to reflect the deployed code. from "append" to "prepend" to reflect the deployed code.
The section on "Configuration and Deployment Considerations" has been The section on "Configuration and Deployment Considerations" has been
expanded to address several operational issues. expanded to address several operational issues.
18. Intellectual Property Notice 18. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
Director. ipr@ietf.org.
19. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 19. Full Copyright Notice
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
50 lines changed or deleted 46 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.27, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/