Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria
IDR Working Group Rajiv Asati
Internet Draft Cisco Systems
Updates: 4271 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: December 5, 2019
June 5, 2019
BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhancement
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-12.txt
Abstract
BGP specification (RFC4271) prescribes 'BGP next-hop reachability'
as one of the key 'Route Resolvability Condition' that must be
satisfied before the BGP bestpath candidate selection. This
condition, however, may not be sufficient (as explained in the
Appendix section) and would desire further granularity.
This document defines enhances the "Route Resolvability Condition"
to facilitate the next-hop to be resolved in the chosen data plane.
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 December 5, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Asati, Rajiv Expires December 5, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhanced June 5, 2019
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. Specification Language.........................................3
3. Route Resolvability Condition - Modification...................3
4. Conclusions....................................................4
5. Security Considerations........................................5
6. IANA Considerations............................................5
7. Acknowledgments................................................5
8. Appendix.......................................................5
9. References.....................................................8
Author's Addresses................................................9
1. Introduction
As per BGP specification [RFC4271], when a router receives a BGP
path, BGP must qualify it as the valid candidate prior to the BGP
bestpath selection using the 'Route Resolvability Condition'
(section#9.1.2.1 of RFC4271]. After the path gets qualified as the
bestpath candidate, it becomes eligible to be the bestpath, and may
get advertised out to the neigbhor(s), if it became the bestpath.
However, in BGP networks that utilize data plane protocol other than
IP, such as MPLS [RFC3031] etc. to forward the received traffic
towards the next-hop, the above qualification condition may not be
sufficient. In fact, this may expose the BGP networks to experience
traffic blackholing i.e. traffic loss, due to malfunctioning of the
chosen data plane protocol to the next-hop. This is explained
further in the Appendix section.
This document defines further granularity to the "Route
Resolvability Condition" by (a) resolving the BGP next-hop
Asati, Rajiv Expires December 5, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhanced June 5, 2019
reachability in the forwarding database of a particular data plane
protocol, and (b) optionally including the BGP next-hop "path
availability" check.
The goal is to enable BGP to select the bestpaths based on whether
or not the corresponding nexthop can be resolved in the valid data
plane.
2. Specification 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 [RFC2119].
3. Route Resolvability Condition - Modification
This document proposes two amendments to 'Route Resolvability
Condition', which is defined in RFC4271, in consideration for a
particular data plane protocol:
1) The next-hop reachability (check) SHOULD be resolved in a
forwarding database of a particular data plane protocol.
For example, if a BGP IPv4/v6 or VPNv4/v6 path wants to use
MPLS data plane to the next-hop, as determined by the policy,
then the BGP 'next-hop reachability' should be resolved using
the MPLS forwarding database. In another example, if BGP path
wants to use the IP data plane to the next-hop, as determined
by the policy, then BGP 'next-hop reachability' should be
resolved using the IP forwarding database. The latter example
relates to MPLS-in-IP encapsulation techniques such as
[RFC4817], [RFC4023] etc.
The selection of particular data plane is a matter of a policy, and
is outside the scope of this document. It is envisioned that the
policy would exist for either per-neighbor or per-SAFI or both. A
dynamic signaling such as BGP encapsulation SAFI (or tunnel encap
attribute) [RFC5512] may be used to convey the data plane protocol
chosen by the policy.
This check is about confirming the availability of the valid
forwarding entry for the next-hop in the forwarding database of the
chosen data plane protocol.
Asati, Rajiv Expires December 5, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhanced June 5, 2019
2) The 'path availability' check for the BGP next-hop MAY be
performed. This criterion checks for the functional data plane
path to the next-hop in a particular data plane protocol.
The path availability check may be performed by any of the OAM data-
plane liveness mechanisms associated with the data plane that is
used to reach the Next Hop. The data plane protocol for this
criterion MUST be the same as the one selected by the previous
criterion (#1).
The mechanism(s) to perform the "path availability" check and the
selection of particular data plane are a matter of a policy and
outside the scope of this document.
For example, if a BGP VPNv4 path wants to use the MPLS as the
data plane protocol to the next-hop, then MPLS path
availability to the next-hop should be evaluated i.e. liveness
of MPLS LSP to the next-hop should be validated.
This check is about confirming the availability of functioning path
to the next-hop. Note that it is not necessary to trigger the data-
plane liveness mechanism for a given next-hop as a consequence of
this check, though it may be an option. Another option is to do it a
priori. The selection of a particular option is deemed deployment
specific and outside the scope of this document.
4. Conclusions
Both amendments discussed in section 2 provide further clarity and
granularity to help the BGP speaker to either continue to advertise
a BGP path's reachability or withdraw the BGP path's reachability,
based on the consideration for the path's next-hop reachability
and/or availability in a particular data plane.
It is not expected that the proposed amendments would negatively
impact BGP convergence, barring any implementation specifics.
The intention of this document is to help operators to build BGP
networks that can avoid self-blackholing.
Asati, Rajiv Expires December 5, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhanced June 5, 2019
5. Security Considerations
While this draft doesn't impose any additional security constraints,
it can help with mitigating one particular type of routing attack in
which a BGP speaker could receive routes with an arbitrary next-hop.
If the next-hop is not reachable, then those routes/paths would not
get selected.
6. IANA Considerations
None.
7. Acknowledgments
Yakov Rekhter provided critical suggestions and feedback to improve
this document. Thanks to John Scudder and Chandrashekhar Appanna for
contributing to the discussions that formed the basis of this
document. Thanks to Ilya Varlashkin and Michael Benjamin, who made
the case to revive this document and provided useful feedback. Also
thanks to Robert Raszuk and Keyur Patel for constructive feedback.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
8. Appendix
8.1. Problem Applicability
In IP networks using BGP, a router would continue to attract traffic
by advertising the BGP prefix reachability to neighbor(s) as long as
the router had a route to the next-hop in its routing table, but
independent of whether the router has a functional forwarding path
to the next-hop. This may cause the forwarded traffic to be dropped
inside the IP network.
In MPLS or MPLS VPN networks [RFC4364], the same problem is observed
if the functional MPLS LSP to the next-hop is not available (due to
the forwarding path error on any node along the path to the next-
hop).
The following MPLS/VPN topology clarifies the problem -
Asati, Rajiv Expires December 5, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhanced June 5, 2019
<-eBGP/IGP-> <-------MP-BGP------> <-eBGP/IGP->
CE1~~~~~~~~~PE1~~~MPLS Network~~~PE2~~~~~~~~CE2~~
^
======PE1-PE2 LSP==> ^
^
a.b.c.d
Figure 1 MPLS VPN Network
In the network illustrated in Figure 1, the PE1 to PE2 LSP may be
non-functional due to any reason such as corrupted MPLS Forwarding
Table entry, or the missing MPLS Forwarding table entry, or LDP
binding defect, or down LDP session between the P routers (with
independent label distribution control) etc. In such a situation, it
is clear that the CE1->CE2 traffic inserted into the MPLS network by
PE1 will get dropped inside the MPLS network.
It is undesirable to have PE1 continue to convey to the CE1 router
that PE1 (and the MPLS network) is still the next-hop for the remote
VPN reachability, without being sure of the corresponding LSP
health.
8.1.1. Multi-Homed VPN Site
If the remote VPN site is dual-homed to both PE2 and PE3, then PE1
may learn two VPNv4 paths to the prefix a.b.c.d. via PE2 and PE3
routers, as shown below in Figure 2. PE1 may select the bestpath for
the prefix a.b.c.d via PE2 (say, for which the PE1->PE2 LSP is mal-
functioning) and advertise that bestpath to CE1 in the context of
figure 2.
<------MP-BGP------>
CE1~~~~~~~~~PE1~~~MPLS Network~~~PE2~~~~~~~~CE2~~
\ / ^
\~~~~~~~~~~PE3~~~~~~~/ ^
^
a.b.c.d
Figure 2 MPLS VPN Network - CE2 Dual-Homing
Asati, Rajiv Expires December 5, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhanced June 5, 2019
This causes CE1 to likely send the traffic destined to prefix
a.b.c.d to the PE1 router, which forwards the traffic over the
malfunctioning LSP to PE2. It is clear that this MPLS encapsulated
VPN traffic ends up getting dropped or blackholed somewhere inside
the MPLS network.
It is desirable to force PE1 to select an alternate bestpath via
that next-hop (such as PE3), whose LSP is correctly functioning.
8.1.2. Single-Homed VPN Site with Site-to-Site Backup Connectivity
The local VPN site may have a backup/dial-up link available at the
CE router, but the backup link will not even be activated as long as
the CE's routing table continues to point to the PE router as the
next-hop (over the MPLS/VPN network).
<------MP-BGP------>
CE1~~~~~~~~~PE1~~~MPLS Network~~~PE2~~~~~~~~CE2~~
\ / ^
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~backup path~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ ^
^
a.b.c.d
Figure 3 MPLS VPN Network - CE1-CE2 Backup connection
Unless PE2 withdraws the route via the routing protocol used on the
PE-CE link, CE1 will not be able to activate the backup link
(barring any tracking functionality) to the remote VPN site.
In summary, if PE1 could appropriately qualify the BGP VPNv4
bestpath, then the VPN traffic outage could likely be avoided. Even
if the VPN site was not multi-homed, it is desirable to force PE1 to
withdraw the path from CE1 to improve the CE-to-CE convergence. This
document proposes a mechanism to achieve the optimal BGP behavior at
PE.
Asati, Rajiv Expires December 5, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhanced June 5, 2019
8.1.3. 6PE or 6VPE
This problem is very much applicable to the MPLS network that is
providing either 6PE [RFC4978] or 6VPE [RFC4659] service to
transport IPv6 packets over the MPLS network.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4364] Rosen E. and Rekhter Y., "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC4364, February 2006.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li T., and Hares S.(editors), "A Border
Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3031] Rosen, et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture", RFC3031, Jan 2001.
[RFC5512] Rosen, E., Mohapatra, P., "BGP Encapsulation SAFI and BGP
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC5512, April 2009.
[RFC4023] Rosen, et al., "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic
Routing Encapsulation", RFC4023, March 2005.
[RFC4817] Townsley, et al., "Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2
Tunneling Protocol Version 3", RFC4817, Nov 2006.
[RFC4978] De Clercq, et al., "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS
Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers", RFC4978, Feb 2007.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, et al., "BGP-MPLS IP VPN Extension for IPv6
VPN", RFC4659, Sep 2006.
Asati, Rajiv Expires December 5, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhanced June 5, 2019
Author's Addresses
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road
RTP, NC 27560 USA
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Asati, Rajiv Expires December 5, 2019 [Page 9]