draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-10.txt   draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-11.txt 
Network Working Group K. Patel Network Working Group K. Patel
Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc. Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem
Expires: January 27, 2021 Cisco Systems Expires: February 4, 2021 Cisco Systems
S. Zandi S. Zandi
LinkedIn LinkedIn
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
July 26, 2020 August 3, 2020
Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol
draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-10 draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-11
Abstract Abstract
Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on
simplified layer 3 routing. Furthermore, requirements for simplified layer 3 routing. Furthermore, requirements for
operational simplicity have led many of these MSDCs to converge on operational simplicity have led many of these MSDCs to converge on
BGP as their single routing protocol for both their fabric routing BGP as their single routing protocol for both their fabric routing
and their Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing. This document and their Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing. This document
describes a solution which leverages BGP Link-State distribution and describes a solution which leverages BGP Link-State distribution and
the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm similar to Internal Gateway the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm similar to Internal Gateway
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 January 27, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 4, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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 50 skipping to change at page 2, line 50
5.5. IPv4/IPv6 Unicast Address Family Interaction . . . . . . 16 5.5. IPv4/IPv6 Unicast Address Family Interaction . . . . . . 16
5.6. NLRI Advertisement and Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.6. NLRI Advertisement and Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.6.1. Link/Prefix Failure Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.6.1. Link/Prefix Failure Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.6.2. Node Failure Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.6.2. Node Failure Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.7. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.7. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Operational Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.2. Operational Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.2. Information References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 12.2. Information References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on
simplified layer 3 routing. Furthermore, requirements for simplified layer 3 routing. Furthermore, requirements for
operational simplicity have led many of these MSDCs to converge on operational simplicity have led many of these MSDCs to converge on
BGP [RFC4271] as their single routing protocol for both their fabric BGP [RFC4271] as their single routing protocol for both their fabric
routing and their Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing. routing and their Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing.
Requirements and procedures for using BGP are described in [RFC7938]. Requirements and procedures for using BGP are described in [RFC7938].
This document describes an alternative solution which leverages BGP- This document describes an alternative solution which leverages BGP-
skipping to change at page 19, line 19 skipping to change at page 19, line 19
log entry would include the BGP-LS NLRI SPF triggering the SPF, SPF log entry would include the BGP-LS NLRI SPF triggering the SPF, SPF
scheduled time, SPF start time, SPF end time, and SPF type if scheduled time, SPF start time, SPF end time, and SPF type if
different types of SPF are supported. Since the size of the log will different types of SPF are supported. Since the size of the log will
be finite, implementations SHOULD also maintain counters for the be finite, implementations SHOULD also maintain counters for the
total number of SPF computations of each type and the total number of total number of SPF computations of each type and the total number of
SPF triggering events. Additionally, to troubleshoot SPF scheduling SPF triggering events. Additionally, to troubleshoot SPF scheduling
and back-off [RFC8405], the current SPF back-off state, remaining and back-off [RFC8405], the current SPF back-off state, remaining
time-to-learn, remaining holddown, last trigger event time, last SPF time-to-learn, remaining holddown, last trigger event time, last SPF
time, and next SPF time should be available. time, and next SPF time should be available.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Implementation Status
Note RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the associated
references prior to publication.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
The BGP-LS SPF implementatation status is documented in
[I-D.psarkar-lsvr-bgp-spf-impl].
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Sue Hares, Jorge Rabadan, Boris The authors would like to thank Sue Hares, Jorge Rabadan, Boris
Hassanov, Dan Frost, Matt Anderson, Fred Baker, and Lukas Krattiger Hassanov, Dan Frost, Matt Anderson, Fred Baker, and Lukas Krattiger
for their review and comments. Thanks to Pushpasis Sarkar for for their review and comments. Thanks to Pushpasis Sarkar for
discussions on preventing a BGP SPF Router from being used for non- discussions on preventing a BGP SPF Router from being used for non-
local traffic (i.e., transit traffic). local traffic (i.e., transit traffic).
The authors extend special thanks to Eric Rosen for fruitful The authors extend special thanks to Eric Rosen for fruitful
discussions on BGP-LS SPF convergence as compared to IGPs. discussions on BGP-LS SPF convergence as compared to IGPs.
10. Contributors 11. Contributors
In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
co-authors have contributed to the document. co-authors have contributed to the document.
Derek Yeung Derek Yeung
Arrcus, Inc. Arrcus, Inc.
derek@arrcus.com derek@arrcus.com
Gunter Van De Velde Gunter Van De Velde
Nokia Nokia
skipping to change at page 20, line 25 skipping to change at page 20, line 35
abhay@arrcus.com abhay@arrcus.com
Venu Venugopal Venu Venugopal
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
venuv@cisco.com venuv@cisco.com
Chaitanya Yadlapalli Chaitanya Yadlapalli
AT&T AT&T
cy098d@att.com cy098d@att.com
11. References 12. References
11.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray,
S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing
BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
segment-routing-epe-19 (work in progress), May 2019. segment-routing-epe-19 (work in progress), May 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
skipping to change at page 21, line 26 skipping to change at page 21, line 36
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8405] Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Gredler, H., Lindem, A., [RFC8405] Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Gredler, H., Lindem, A.,
Francois, P., and C. Bowers, "Shortest Path First (SPF) Francois, P., and C. Bowers, "Shortest Path First (SPF)
Back-Off Delay Algorithm for Link-State IGPs", RFC 8405, Back-Off Delay Algorithm for Link-State IGPs", RFC 8405,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8405, June 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8405, June 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8405>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8405>.
11.2. Information References 12.2. Information References
[I-D.ietf-lsvr-applicability] [I-D.ietf-lsvr-applicability]
Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and G. Dawra, "Usage and Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and G. Dawra, "Usage and
Applicability of Link State Vector Routing in Data Applicability of Link State Vector Routing in Data
Centers", draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-05 (work in Centers", draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-05 (work in
progress), March 2020. progress), March 2020.
[I-D.psarkar-lsvr-bgp-spf-impl]
Sarkar, P., Patel, K., Pallagatti, S., and s.
sajibasil@gmail.com, "BGP Shortest Path Routing Extension
Implementation Report", draft-psarkar-lsvr-bgp-spf-impl-00
(work in progress), June 2020.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006, (IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.
[RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y. [RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
skipping to change at page 22, line 39 skipping to change at page 23, line 5
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of [RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938, BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Keyur Patel Keyur Patel
Arrcus, Inc. Arrcus, Inc.
Email: keyur@arrcus.com Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Acee Lindem Acee Lindem
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
301 Midenhall Way 301 Midenhall Way
Cary, NC 27513 Cary, NC 27513
USA USA
Email: acee@cisco.com Email: acee@cisco.com
Shawn Zandi Shawn Zandi
LinkedIn LinkedIn
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
15 lines changed or deleted 56 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/