headers
internet-drafts | 3 May 2012 16:13
Picon
Favicon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-02.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item
of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)
	Author(s)       : Robert Raszuk
                          Christian Cassar
                          Erik Aman
                          Bruno Decraene
	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-02.txt
	Pages           : 19
	Date            : 2012-05-03

   [RFC4456] asserts that, because the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
   cost to a given point in the network will vary across routers, "the
   route reflection approach may not yield the same route selection
   result as that of the full IBGP mesh approach."  One practical
   implication of this assertion is that the deployment of route
   reflection may thwart the ability to achieve hot potato routing.  Hot
   potato routing attempts to direct traffic to the closest AS egress
   point in cases where no higher priority policy dictates otherwise.
   As a consequence of the route reflection method, the choice of exit
   point for a route reflector and its clients will be the egress point
   closest to the route reflector - and not necessarily closest to the
   RR clients.

   Section 11 of [RFC4456] describes a deployment approach and a set of
   constraints which, if satsified, would result in the deployment of
   route reflection yielding the same results as the iBGP full mesh
   approach.  Such a deployment approach would make route reflection
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
rfc-editor | 7 May 2012 21:05
Favicon

RFC 6608 on Subcodes for BGP Finite State Machine Error


A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 6608

        Title:      Subcodes for BGP Finite State 
                    Machine Error 
        Author:     J. Dong, M. Chen,
                    A. Suryanarayana
        Status:     Standards Track
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       May 2012
        Mailbox:    jie.dong <at> huawei.com, 
                    mach.chen <at> huawei.com, 
                    asuryana <at> cisco.com
        Pages:      5
        Characters: 8612
        Updates:    RFC4271

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-idr-fsm-subcode-03.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6608.txt

This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Finite State
Machine (FSM) Error that could provide more information to help
network operators in diagnosing BGP FSM issues and correlating
network events.  This document updates RFC 4271.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]

This document is a product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
internet-drafts | 7 May 2012 23:03
Picon
Favicon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-as0-04.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item
of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Codification of AS 0 processing.
	Author(s)       : Warren Kumari
                          Randy Bush
                          Heather Schiller
                          Keyur Patel
	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-as0-04.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2012-05-07

   This document updates RFC 4271 and proscribes the use of AS 0 in BGP
   OPEN and AS_PATH / AS4_PATH BGP attribute.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-as0-04.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-as0-04.txt

The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-as0/

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Xuxiaohu | 11 May 2012 11:16
Favicon

fwd: New Version Notification for draft-xu-idr-tunnel-address-prefix-00.txt

Hi all,

This document (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-idr-tunnel-address-prefix-00) describes a
new BGP attribute referred to as Tunnel Address Prefix Attribute and a new BGP address specific extended
community referred to as Tunnel Address Prefix Extended Community, both of which are intended for
facilitating the load-balancing of IP/GRE tunneled traffic (e.g., L3VPN-over-GRE traffic) in the core
of IP-enabled Packet Switch Networks (PSN).

The basic idea of this method is: a given (tunnel) egress router signals to (tunnel) ingress routers a
special prefix called “tunnel address prefix” via BGP and any addresses beginning with that prefix
would be used by those ingress routers as tunnel destination addresses when tunneling traffic towards
that egress router. Therefore distinct traffic flows between that tunnel endpoint pair could be
encapsulated with as many different tunnel destination addresses as possible. In this way, core routers
could achieve a better load-balancing for those IP/GRE tunneled traffic through performing hash
calculation just on the fields in the IP header (e.g., source IP address, destination IP address).

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts <at> ietf.org]
> 发送时间: 2012年5月11日 16:38
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> 主题: New Version Notification for draft-xu-idr-tunnel-address-prefix-00.txt
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-xu-idr-tunnel-address-prefix-00.txt has been
> successfully submitted by Xiaohu Xu and posted to the IETF repository.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John G. Scudder | 16 May 2012 21:40
Favicon

Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document

Folks,

We have received a request from the authors to adopt draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG
document.  Please send your comments to the list.  The deadline for comments is June 1, 2012 at noon EDT.

Thanks,

--John
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
Permalink | Reply | 18 comments |
headers
Keyur Patel | 16 May 2012 21:53
Picon
Favicon

Re: Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document

Support.

-Keyur

On 5/16/12 12:40 PM, "John G. Scudder" <jgs <at> juniper.net> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> We have received a request from the authors to adopt
> draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document.  Please send your
> comments to the list.  The deadline for comments is June 1, 2012 at noon EDT.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --John
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robert Raszuk | 16 May 2012 22:19

Re: Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document

Hi,

I support the adoption of this draft as WG document.

However the new text authors added between -00 and -01 seems too 
restrictive to the original theme/direction.

It says:

".. or the AS_PATH attribute of the flow specification is empty."

That precludes injecting and honoring the flow routes even within the 
same administrative domain in the presence of confederations.

I recommend that this limitation should be removed in next version.

Regards,
R.

> Folks,
>
> We have received a request from the authors to adopt
> draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document.  Please send
> your comments to the list.  The deadline for comments is June 1, 2012
> at noon EDT.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --John _______________________________________________ Idr mailing
> list Idr <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Randy Bush | 16 May 2012 22:21

Re: Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document

> We have received a request from the authors to adopt
> draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as an IDR WG document.

have read lightly.  agree it is a reasonable wg work item.

of course, i like centralization about as much as i like large telco
switches, nat444, ....  but that does not detract from this being a
perfectly reasonable work item.

randy
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Keyur Patel | 16 May 2012 23:20
Picon
Favicon

Re: Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document

One comment and one question on the draft.

1) I believe the rule should cover checks for AS4_PATH as well.

2) Section 6 from RFC5575

<snip>
BGP implementations MUST also enforce that the AS_PATH attribute of a
   route received via the External Border Gateway Protocol (eBGP)
   contains the neighboring AS in the left-most position of the AS_PATH
   attribute.  While this rule is optional in the BGP specification, it
   becomes necessary to enforce it for security reasons.
<snip>

Do we need to do a complete aspath check instead? Otherwise, a neighboring
AS can inject a bogus flowspec route?

Regards,
Keyur

On 5/16/12 1:19 PM, "Robert Raszuk" <robert <at> raszuk.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I support the adoption of this draft as WG document.
> 
> However the new text authors added between -00 and -01 seems too
> restrictive to the original theme/direction.
> 
> It says:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Robert Raszuk | 16 May 2012 23:24

Re: Adoption of draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid-01 as IDR WG document

Hi Keyur,

Actually you bring a good point. Going by section 6 would preclude 
reception of flow-spec routes across IX route servers as in those cases 
enforcing-first-as must be disabled on the IX client.

Perhaps as you suggest we should replace section 6 of current 5575 with 
the full AS_PATH check regardless if enforce-first-as is in effect there 
or not.

Comments ?

Thx,
R.

> One comment and one question on the draft.
>
> 1) I believe the rule should cover checks for AS4_PATH as well.
>
> 2) Section 6 from RFC5575
>
> <snip>
> BGP implementations MUST also enforce that the AS_PATH attribute of a
>     route received via the External Border Gateway Protocol (eBGP)
>     contains the neighboring AS in the left-most position of the AS_PATH
>     attribute.  While this rule is optional in the BGP specification, it
>     becomes necessary to enforce it for security reasons.
> <snip>
>
> Do we need to do a complete aspath check instead? Otherwise, a neighboring
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane