BGP Persistence
draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-01
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jim Uttaro , Adam Simpson , Rob Shakir , Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra , Bruno Decraene , John Scudder , Yakov Rekhter | ||
| Last updated | 2012-09-13 (Latest revision 2012-03-12) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr, RFC 9494 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
For certain AFI/SAFI combinations it is desirable that a BGP speaker be able to retain routing state learned over a session that has terminated. By maintaining routing state forwarding may be preserved. This technique works effectively as long as the AFI/SAFI is primarily used to realize services that do not depend on exchanging BGP routing state with peers or customers. There may be exceptions based upon the amount and frequency of route exchange that allow for this technique. Generally the BGP protocol tightly couples the viability of a session and the routing state that is learned over it. This is driven by the history of the protocol and it's application in the internet space as a vehicle to exchange routing state between administrative authorities. This document addresses new services whose requirements for persistence diverge from the Internet routing point of view.
Authors
Jim Uttaro
Adam Simpson
Rob Shakir
Clarence Filsfils
Prodosh Mohapatra
Bruno Decraene
John Scudder
Yakov Rekhter
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)