[Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-09.txt

internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun, 26 April 2015 11:53 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150426115301.5905.62975.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 04:53:01 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NzrY-yZzA0XW94rbK7WzlaN6WZ8>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-09.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)
        Authors         : Robert Raszuk
                          Christian Cassar
                          Erik Aman
                          Bruno Decraene
                          Stephane Litkowski
	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-09.txt
	Pages           : 9
	Date            : 2015-04-26

Abstract:
   [RFC4456] asserts that, because the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
   cost to a given point in the network will vary across routers, "the
   route reflection approach may not yield the same route selection
   result as that of the full IBGP mesh approach."  One practical
   implication of this assertion is that the deployment of route
   reflection may thwart the ability to achieve hot potato routing.  Hot
   potato routing attempts to direct traffic to the closest AS egress
   point in cases where no higher priority policy dictates otherwise.
   As a consequence of the route reflection method, the choice of exit
   point for a route reflector and its clients will be the egress point
   closest to the route reflector - and not necessarily closest to the
   RR clients.

   Section 11 of [RFC4456] describes a deployment approach and a set of
   constraints which, if satsified, would result in the deployment of
   route reflection yielding the same results as the iBGP full mesh
   approach.  Such a deployment approach would make route reflection
   compatible with the application of hot potato routing policy.

   As networks evolved to accommodate architectural requirements of new
   services, tunneled (LSP/IP tunneling) networks with centralized route
   reflectors became commonplace.  This is one type of common deployment
   where it would be impractical to satisfy the constraints described in
   Section 11 of [RFC4456].  Yet, in such an environment, hot potato
   routing policy remains desirable.

   This document proposes a new solution which can be deployed to
   facilitate the application of closest exit point policy in
   centralized route reflection deployments.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-09


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

[Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-rout… internet-drafts