Document Action: 'Distribution of diverse BGP paths.' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-08.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Wed, 22 August 2012 15:09 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Distribution of diverse BGP paths.' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-08.txt)
Message-ID: <20120822150927.12394.96217.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:09:27 -0700
Cc: grow mailing list <grow@ietf.org>, grow chair <grow-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Precedence: list

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Distribution of diverse BGP paths.'
  (draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-08.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Global Routing Operations Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ronald Bonica and Benoit Claise.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist/




Technical Summary

   The BGP4 protocol specifies the selection and propagation of a single
   best path for each prefix.  As defined and widely deployed today BGP
   has no mechanisms to distribute alternate paths which are not
   considered best path between its speakers.  This behaviour results in
   number of disadvantages for new applications and services.

   This document presents an alternative mechanism for solving the
   problem based on the concept of parallel route reflector planes.
   Such planes can be built in parallel or they can co-exist on the
   current route reflection platforms.  Document also compares existing
   solutions and proposed ideas that enable distribution of more paths
   than just the best path.

   This proposal does not specify any changes to the BGP protocol
   definition.  It does not require upgrades to provider edge or core
   routers nor does it need network wide upgrades.

Working Group Summary

The draft was well supported in the working group, with active conversation
on the mailing list.  Numerous people contributed and commented on the draft
as part of the process. 

Document Quality

The document has had contribution from both vendors, researchers and 
operators.  The proposal does not require any changed to the BGP protocol,
but does require an implementation of the functionality specified.

Personnel

Document Shepherd -- Peter Schoenmaker <pds@lugs.com>
Area Directory -- Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>

Document Action: 'Distribution of diverse BGP pat… The IESG