idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits40593/draft-mynam-grow-diverse-path-impl-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (February 28, 2011) is 4100 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC4223' is defined on line 225, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4271' is defined on line 228, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist' is defined on line 233, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist has been published as RFC 6774 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group S. Mynam 3 Internet-Draft S. Yilmaz 4 Intended status: Experimental R. Raszuk 5 Expires: September 1, 2011 K. Patel 6 Cisco Systems 7 February 28, 2011 9 Diverse Path Implementation Report 10 draft-mynam-grow-diverse-path-impl-00 12 Abstract 14 This document provides an implementation report for Diverse Path as 15 defined in draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-03. The editor did 16 not verify the accuracy of the information provided by respondents or 17 by any alternative means. The respondents are experts with the 18 implementations they reported on, and their responses are considered 19 authoritative for the implementations for which their responses 20 represent. 22 Requirements Language 24 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 25 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 26 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 28 Status of this Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2011. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 52 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 53 publication of this document. Please review these documents 54 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 55 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 56 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 57 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 58 described in the Simplified BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 2. Implementation Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2.1. Support for multiple RRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2.2. Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 2.3. Deployment Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 2.4. Usage of Diverse Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 2.5. Bestpath algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 2.6. Interoperable Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 1. Introduction 80 The BGP4 protocol specifies the selection and propagation of a single 81 best path for each prefix. Apart from BGP Add-Paths Proposal , today 82 BGP has no other mechanisms to distribute paths other then best path 83 between its speakers. BGP Divrsepath proposal does not specify any 84 changes to the BGP protocol definition as specificed by BGP Add-Paths 85 proposal. It does not require upgrades to provider edge or core 86 routers nor does it need network wide upgrades. Diverse Path 87 attempts do solve the addpath problem and provision an interim 88 solution to the customers who cannot deploy addpath solution on 89 certain networks. Due to the simple natiure of Diverse Path with 90 simple upgrades and configuration to the Route Reflectors without any 91 configurations on the edge routers, Diverse Path becomes very easy to 92 deploy 94 This document provides an implementation report for Diverse Path as 95 defined in draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-03 97 The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by 98 respondents or by any alternative means. The respondents are experts 99 with the implementations they reported on, and their responses are 100 considered authoritative for the implementations for which their 101 responses represent. 103 2. Implementation Forms 105 Contact and implementation information for person filling out this 106 form: 108 Name: Satish Mynam, Email: mynam@cisco.com, Vendor: Cisco Systems, 109 Inc. Release: IOS 111 2.1. Support for multiple RRs 113 Does the implementation support Sec.4. 114 [draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-03] Provision for Multi plane 115 route reflection? 117 Cisco: YES 119 Does the implementation provide support for 120 Sec4.1[draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-03 ] Co-located best and 121 backup path RRs? 123 Cisco: YES 124 Does the implementation provide provision for Sec 4.3. 125 [draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-03] Multi plane route servers 126 for Internet Exchanges? 128 Cisco: YES 130 2.2. Path Selection 132 Does BGP diverse Path implementation follow the procedures for 133 selection of the bestpath outlined in Section 9.1.Decision Process in 134 RFC 4271? 136 Cisco: YES 138 2.3. Deployment Consideration 140 Does BGP diverse Path implementation be easily enabled by 141 introduction of a new route reflector, route server plane dedicated 142 to the selection and distribution of Nth best-path? 144 Cisco: YES 146 Does BGP diverse Path implementation require any upgrades to the 147 edge/core routers? 149 Cisco: NO 151 Can BGP diverse Path implementation be deployed on multiple RR 152 clusters? 154 Cisco: YES 156 Does your BGP diverse Path implementation involve major modification 157 to BGP implementations in the entire network? 159 Cisco: NO 161 2.4. Usage of Diverse Path 163 Does BGP diverse Path implementation require any modifications to 164 BGP4 protocol? 166 Cisco: NO 168 Does it help in the Multi-path load balancing applications for both 169 IBGP and EBGP? 171 Cisco: YES 172 Does the implementation support second session from RR to the same 173 RR-client preferably terminated at a different loopback address of 174 the route reflector and provide second bestpath to the RR-client? 176 Cisco: NO 178 2.5. Bestpath algorithm 180 Does it add any modifications to the 9.1.Decision Process in RFC 181 4271? Does it skip any steps in the decision process? 183 Cisco: NO. No modifications to the algorithm are done except when 184 RRs are not co-located and have different metric to reach the edge 185 routers. A configurable CLI command is provided for the user to 186 control the disabling of the IGP metric check in the Decision Process 187 to select bestpath and backupath 189 Does the implementation provide support for disabling IGP metric for 190 bestpath selection on Sec 4.2 191 [draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-03] randomly located best and 192 backup path RRs? 194 Cisco: YES 196 2.6. Interoperable Implementations 198 List other implementations that you have tested interoperability of 199 Diverse Path 201 Cisco: The implementation should be interoperable with other vendor 202 BGP implementations as no BGP Protocol changes are needed 204 3. IANA Considerations 206 This document makes no request of IANA. 208 Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an 209 RFC. 211 4. Security considerations 213 No new security issues are introduced to the BGP protocol by this 214 specification. 216 5. Acknowledgements 218 6. References 220 6.1. Normative References 222 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 223 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 225 [RFC4223] Savola, P., "Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic", 226 RFC 4223, October 2005. 228 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway 229 Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. 231 6.2. Informative References 233 [I-D.ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist] 234 Raszuk, R., Fernando, R., Patel, K., McPherson, D., and K. 235 Kumaki, "Distribution of diverse BGP paths.", 236 draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-03 (work in 237 progress), January 2011. 239 Authors' Addresses 241 Satish Mynam 242 Cisco Systems 243 170 West Tasman Drive 244 San Jose, CA 95134 245 US 247 Email: mynam@cisco.com 249 Selma Yilmaz 250 Cisco Systems 251 170 West Tasman Drive 252 San Jose, CA 95134 253 US 255 Email: seyilmaz@cisco.com 256 Robert Raszuk 257 Cisco Systems 258 170 West Tasman Drive 259 San Jose, CA 95134 260 US 262 Email: raszuk@cisco.com 264 Keyur Patel 265 Cisco Systems 266 170 West Tasman Drive 267 San Jose, CA 95134 268 US 270 Email: keyupate@cisco.com