Egress Peer Engineering using BGP-LU
draft-gredler-idr-bgplu-epe-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Hannes Gredler , Kaliraj Vairavakkalai , Chandrasekar R , Balaji Rajagopalan , Luyuan Fang | ||
| Last updated | 2014-10-26 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-gredler-idr-bgplu-epe-00
Inter-Domain Routing H. Gredler, Ed.
Internet-Draft K. Vairavakkalai
Intended status: Informational C. Ramachandran
Expires: April 29, 2015 B. Rajagopalan
Juniper Networks, Inc.
L. Fang
Microsoft
October 26, 2014
Egress Peer Engineering using BGP-LU
draft-gredler-idr-bgplu-epe-00
Abstract
The MPLS source routing paradigm provides path control for both
intra- and inter- Autonomous System (AS) traffic. For Intra-AS path
control, protocols like RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and CR-LDP [RFC3212] are
utilized. This documents outlines how MPLS routers may use the BGP
labeled unicast protocol (BGP-LU) [RFC3107] for doing traffic-
engineering on inter-AS links.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2015.
Gredler, et al. Expires April 29, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Egress Peer Engineering using BGP-LU October 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Motivation, Rationale and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Sample Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Loopback IP addresses and Router-IDs . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Link IP addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Egress Link Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Single-hop eBGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Multi-hop eBGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Grouping of Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Egress Link Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. FRR backup routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1. Local links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.2. Remote BGP-LU labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.3. Local IP forwarding tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Dynamic link utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
Today BGP-LU [RFC3107] is used both as an intra-AS
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] and inter-AS routing protocol. BGP-LU
may advertise a MPLS transport path between IGP regions and
Autonomous Systems. Those paths may span one or more router hops.
This document describes advertisement and use of one-hop MPLS label-
Gredler, et al. Expires April 29, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Egress Peer Engineering using BGP-LU October 2014
switched paths (LSP) for traffic-engineering the links between
Autonomous Systems.
Consider Figure Figure 1: an ASBR router (R2) advertises a labeled
host route for the remote-end IP address of its link (IP3). The BGP
next-hop gets set to R2s loopback IP address. For the advertised
Label <N> a forwarding action of 'POP and forward' to next-hop (IP3)
is installed in R2's MPLS forwarding table. Now consider if R2 had
several links and R2 would advertise labels for all of its inter-AS
links. By pushing the corresponding MPLS label <N> on the label-
stack an ingress router R1 may control the egress peer selection.
AS1 : AS2
:
+----+ iBGP +----+ : eBGP +----+
| R1 |----------| R2 |-IP2----IP3-| R3 |
+----+ +----+ : +----+
:
-----------traffic-flow---------->
<------------route-flow-----------
Figure 1: single-hop LSPs
2. Motivation, Rationale and Applicability
BGP-LU is often just seen as a 'stitching' protocol for connecting
Autonomous Systems. BGP-LU is often not visible as a viable protocol
for solving the Inter-domain traffic-engineering problem.
With this document the authors want to clarify the use of BGP-LU for
traffic-engineering purposes and encourage both implementers and
network operator to use a widely deployed and operationally well
understood protocol, rather than inventing and deploying new
protocols.
3. Sample Topology
The following topology (Figure 2) and IP addresses shall be used
throughout the Egress Peering Engineering advertisement examples.
Gredler, et al. Expires April 29, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Egress Peer Engineering using BGP-LU October 2014
: :
AS 1 : AS 2 : AS 4
: :
: +-----+ :
/IP1--:-IP2--|ASBR3| :
+-----+ +-----+-IP3--:-IP4--+-----+-----------+-----+
| R1 +-------------+ASBR1| : |ASBR6|
+--+--+ +--+--+-IP5--:-IP6--+-----+-----------+-----+
| | \ : |ASBR4| : /
| | \ : +-----+ : /
| | IP7- ---
| | \ ................ /
| | IP8- ---
| | : \ / :
| | : \ / :
+--+--+ +--+--+ : +--+--+ :
| R2 +-------------+ASBR2|-IP9--:-IP10-|ASBR5| :
+-----+ +-----+ : +-----+ :
: :
: AS3 :
: :
Figure 2: Sample Topology
3.1. Loopback IP addresses and Router-IDs
o R1: 192.168.1.1
o R2: 192.168.1.2
o ASBR1: 192.168.1.11
o ASBR2: 192.168.1.12
o ASBR3: 192.168.1.13
o ASBR4: 192.168.1.14
o ASBR5: 192.168.1.15
o ASBR5: 192.168.1.15
3.2. Link IP addresses
o ASBR1 to ASBR3 link #1: 10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2
o ASBR1 to ASBR3 link #2: 10.0.0.3, 10.0.0.4
Gredler, et al. Expires April 29, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Egress Peer Engineering using BGP-LU October 2014
o ASBR1 to ASBR4 link: 10.0.0.5, 10.0.0.6
o ASBR1 to ASBR5 link: 10.0.0.7, 10.0.0.8
o ASBR2 to ASBR5 link: 10.0.0.9, 10.0.0.10
4. Egress Link Advertisement
An ASBR assigns for each of its egress links facing a BGP peer, a
distinct label and advertises it to its internal BGP mesh. The ASBR
programs a forwarding action 'POP and forward' into the MPLS
forwarding table. Note that the neighboring AS is not required to
support exchanging NRLIs using BGP-LU. It is the local ASBR
(ASBR{1,2}) which generates the BGP-LU routes. The forwarding next-
hop for those routes points to the link-IP addresses of the remote
ASBRs (ASBR{3,4,5}). Note that the generated BGP-LU routes always
match the BGP next-hop that the remote ASBRs set their BGP service
routes to, such that the software component doing route-resolution
understands the association between the BGP service route and the
BGP-LU forwarding route.
4.1. Single-hop eBGP
In Figure 2 the ASBR{1,5} and ASBR{2,5} links are examples for
single-hop eBGP advertisements.
o ASBR5 advertises a BGP service (SAFI-1) route {172.16/12} to ASBR1
with a BGP next-hop of 10.0.0.8. ASBR1 re-advertises this BGP
service route towards its iBGP mesh (R{1,2}) it does not overwrite
the BGP next-hop, but rather leave it unchanged.
o ASBR1 advertises a BGP-LU route {10.0.0.8/32, label 100} over a
single-hop eBGP session with a BGP next hop of 192.168.1.11.
ASBR1 programs a MPLS forwarding state of 'POP and forward' to
10.0.0.8 for the advertised label 100.
o ASBR5 advertises a BGP service (SAFI-1) route {172.16/12} to ASBR2
with a BGP next-hop of 10.0.0.10. ASBR2 re-advertises this BGP
service route towards its iBGP mesh (R{1,2}) it does not overwrite
the BGP next-hop, but rather leave it unchanged.
o ASBR2 advertises BGP-LU route {10.0.0.10/32, label 101} with a BGP
next hop of 192.168.1.12. ASBR2 programs a MPLS forwarding state
of 'POP and forward' to 10.0.0.10 for the advertised label 101.
Gredler, et al. Expires April 29, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Egress Peer Engineering using BGP-LU October 2014
4.2. Multi-hop eBGP
Todays operational practice for load-sharing across parallel links is
to configure a single multi-hop eBGP session between a pair of
routers. Since the BGP next-hops of the received BGP service routes
are typically not on a common IP subnet, the operator configures a
static route with next-hops pointing to each of the remote-IP
addresses of the underlying links.
In Figure 2 both ASBR{1,3} links are examples of a multi-hop eBGP
advertisement. In order to advertise a distinct label for a common
FEC throughout the iBGP mesh, ASBR1 and all the receiving iBGP
routers need to support the BGP Add-paths extension.
[I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths].
o ASBR3 advertises a BGP service (SAFI-1) route {172.16/12} over
multi-hop eBGP to ASBR1 with a BGP next-hop of 192.168.1.13.
ASBR1 re-advertises this BGP service route towards its iBGP mesh
(R{1,2}) it does not overwrite the BGP next-hop, but rather leave
it unchanged.
o For link #1, ASBR1 advertises a BGP-LU route {192.168.1.13/32,
label 102} with a BGP next hop of 192.168.1.11. To differentiate
this from the link #2 route-advertisement (which contains the same
FEC) it is setting the path-ID to 1. ASBR1 programs a MPLS
forwarding state of 'POP and forward' to 10.0.0.2 for the
advertised label 102.
o For link #2, ASBR1 advertises a BGP-LU route {192.168.1.13/32,
label 103} with a BGP next hop of 192.168.1.11. To differentiate
this from the link #1 route-advertisement (which contains the same
FEC) it is setting the path-ID to 2. ASBR1 programs a MPLS
forwarding state of 'POP and forward' to 10.0.0.4 for the
advertised label 103.
4.3. Grouping of Peers
In addition to offer a distinct BGP-LU label for each egress link, an
ASBR MAY want to advertise a BGP-LU label which represents a load-
balancing forwarding action across all links going to a particular
Peer.
For link #1 and link #2 in Figure 2, ASBR1 advertises a BGP-LU route
{192.168.1.13/32, label 104} with a BGP next hop of 192.168.1.11. To
differentiate this from the link #1 and link #2 route-advertisements
(which contains the same FEC) it is setting the path-ID to 3. ASBR1
programs a MPLS forwarding state of 'POP and load-balance' to
10.0.0.2 and 10.0.0.4 for the advertised label 104.
Gredler, et al. Expires April 29, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Egress Peer Engineering using BGP-LU October 2014
5. Egress Link Protection
It is desirable to provide a local-repair based protection scheme, in
case a redundant path is available to reach a peer AS. Protection
may be applied at multiple levels in the routing stack. Since the
ASBR has insight in both BGP-LU and BGP service advertisements,
protection can be provided at the BGP-LU, at the BGP service or both
levels.
5.1. FRR backup routes
Assume the network operator wants to provide a local-repair next-hop
for the 172.16/12 BGP service route at ASBR1. The active route
resolve over the parallel links towards ASBR3. In case the link #1
between ASBR{1,3} fails there are now several candidate backup paths
providing protection against link or node failure.
5.1.1. Local links
Assuming that the remaining link #2 between ASBR{1,3} has enough
capacity, and link-protection is sufficient, this link MAY serve as
temporary backup.
However if node-protection or additional capacity is desired, then
the local link between ASBR{1,4} or ASBR{1,5} MAY be used as
temporary backup.
5.1.2. Remote BGP-LU labels
ASBR1 is both originator and receiver of BGP routing information.
For this protection method it is required that the ASBRs support the
[I-D.ietf-idr-best-external] behavior. ASBR1 receives both the BGP-
LU and BGP service routes from ASBR2 and therefore can use the ASBR2
advertised label as a backup path given that ASBR1 has a tunnel
towards ASBR2.
5.1.3. Local IP forwarding tables
For protecting plain unicast (Internet) routing information a very
simple backup scheme could be to recurse to the relevant IP
forwarding table and do an IP lookup to further determine a new
egress link.
6. Dynamic link utilization
For a software component which controls the egress link selection it
may be desirable to know about a particular egress link current
Gredler, et al. Expires April 29, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Egress Peer Engineering using BGP-LU October 2014
utilization, such that it can adjust the traffic that gets sent to a
particular interface.
In [I-D.ietf-idr-link-bandwidth] a community for reporting link-
bandwidth is specified. Rather than reporting the static bandwidth
of the link, the ASBRs shall report the available bandwidth as seen
by the data-plane via the link-bandwidth community in their BGP-LU
update message.
It is crucial that ingress routers learn quickly about congestion of
an egress link and hence it is desired to get high frequency updates
of the advertised per-link BGP-LU labels.
7. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Yakov Rekhter for his detailed review and insightful
comments
8. IANA Considerations
This documents does not request any action from IANA.
9. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any change in terms of BGP security.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R., Wu,
L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.,
Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T., and A.
Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212,
January 2002.
Gredler, et al. Expires April 29, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Egress Peer Engineering using BGP-LU October 2014
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths]
Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-
add-paths-10 (work in progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-idr-best-external]
Marques, P., Fernando, R., Chen, E., Mohapatra, P., and H.
Gredler, "Advertisement of the best external route in
BGP", draft-ietf-idr-best-external-05 (work in progress),
January 2012.
[I-D.ietf-idr-link-bandwidth]
Mohapatra, P. and R. Fernando, "BGP Link Bandwidth
Extended Community", draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-06
(work in progress), January 2013.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]
Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz,
M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", draft-
ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Hannes Gredler (editor)
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: hannes@juniper.net
Kaliraj Vairavakkalai
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: kaliraj@juniper.net
Gredler, et al. Expires April 29, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Egress Peer Engineering using BGP-LU October 2014
Chandra Ramachandran
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Electra, Exora Business Park Marathahalli - Sarjapur Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, KA 560103
India
Email: csekar@juniper.net
Balaji Rajagopalan
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Electra, Exora Business Park Marathahalli - Sarjapur Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, KA 560103
India
Email: balajir@juniper.net
Luyuan Fang
Microsoft
5600 148th Ave NE
Redmond, WA 98052
US
Email: lufang@microsoft.com
Gredler, et al. Expires April 29, 2015 [Page 10]