Last Modified: 2005-07-01
| Done | Submit to BGP Capability Advertisement to the IESG | |
| Done | Submit BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis to IESG as an Informational | |
| Done | Submit BGP4 MIB to IESG as a Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit BGP4 document to IESG as a Draft Standard | |
| Done | Submit Extended Communities draft to IESG as a Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit BGP Graceful Restart to IESG as a Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit revised text on Multi-Protocol BGP (rfc2858bis) to IESG as a Draft Standard | |
| Done | Submit Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message to IESG as a Proposed Standard | |
| Oct 05 | Submit BGP MIB v2 to IESG as a Proposed Standard | |
| Oct 05 | Submit 4-byte AS ID to IESG as a Proposed Standard | |
| Oct 05 | Submit Outbound Route Filter, Prefix and ASpath ORF draft to IESG as a Proposed Standard | |
| Oct 05 | Submit AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4 to IESG as a Proposed Standard | |
| Oct 05 | Submit Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 to IESG as a Proposed Standard |
| RFC | Status | Title |
|---|---|---|
| RFC1105 | E | Border Gateway Protocol BGP |
| RFC1163 | H | A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) |
| RFC1164 | H | Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet |
| RFC1265 | I | BGP Protocol Analysis |
| RFC1266 | I | Experience with the BGP Protocol |
| RFC1267 | H | A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3) |
| RFC1268 | H | Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet |
| RFC1269 | PS | Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway Protocol (Version 3) |
| RFC1364 | PS | BGP OSPF Interaction |
| RFC1397 | PS | Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 And BGP3 Versions Of The Border Gateway Protocol |
| RFC1403 | PS | BGP OSPF Interaction |
| RFC1654 | PS | A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) |
| RFC1655 | PS | Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet |
| RFC1656 | I | BGP-4 Protocol Document Roadmap and Implementation Experience |
| RFC1657 | DS | Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2 |
| RFC1745 | PS | BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction |
| RFC1771 | DS | A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) |
| RFC1773 | I | Experience with the BGP-4 protocol |
| RFC1774 | I | BGP-4 Protocol Analysis |
| RFC1863 | E | A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing |
| RFC1930 | BCP | Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS) |
| RFC1965 | E | Autonomous System Confederations for BGP |
| RFC1966 | E | BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP |
| RFC1997 | PS | BGP Communities Attribute |
| RFC1998 | I | An Application of the BGP Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing |
| RFC2270 | I | Using a Dedicated AS for Sites Homed to a Single Provider |
| RFC2283 | PS | Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 |
| RFC2385 | PS | Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option |
| RFC2439 | PS | BGP Route Flap Damping |
| RFC2519 | I | A Framework for Inter-Domain Route Aggregation |
| RFC2545 | PS | Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing |
| RFC2796 | PS | BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP |
| RFC2842 | Standard | Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 |
| RFC2858 | PS | Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 |
| RFC2918 | PS | Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 |
| RFC3065 | PS | Autonomous System Confederations for BGP |
| RFC3345 | I | Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Persistent Route Oscillation Condition |
| RFC3392 | DS | Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 |
| RFC3562 | I | Security Requirements for Keys used with the TCP MD5 Signature Option |
|
IDR WG Minutes 2005.08.04 ------------------------- Doc status see ppt for info Danny McPherson to finish Confed implementation report in one month. Geoff Houston to complete the implementation report for 4-octet AS number space. New MIB editor see draft ------------------------- Tony Li AS Hop count Attribute see ppt for info Essence: Add TTL to each prefix, decrement at AS boundary Drop route when TTL hits zero Transitive attribute Alt: Distribution Lists List contains ASs that can rx and cannot exclusion NOTE: NO_EXPORT and AS_HOPCOUNT can be combined Geoff Houston: is NO_EXPORT dropped or continued when combined? NOTE: Can scope 'anycast' Geoff Houston: when aspath prepending, is that expressed in the HOP_COUNT? Tony Li: Decremented by one always Sue Hares: Two more ASPATHS per route? How does scaling work? Tony Li: In the worst case, when setting up a list you can have an arbitrary number in incl or excl list? Sue Hares: Is order semantics true but, Yakov Rekhter: An ASPATH cannot carry all AS in the internet as it would exceed the maximum size of the BGP Update message. Tony Li: An avg ASPATH has ~4 AS' in it so, we are going to have on avg roughly two X Sue Hares: Why do you say proxy usage is diffficult in Dist List case? TTL is lighter but, why choose between two? Might have both. Tony Li: From an implementors POV, it is easier to do one and not two Yakov Rekhter: The increase in number of AS' per route is not a practical issue Geoff Houston: At the edge, it may work but, topology is dense and we nee Jason Schiller (UUNET): Scope - useful in subconfeds ... need a separate counter? Tony Li: Want to see draft first. Technically what is required is a separate attribute but, look almost identical Geoff Houston: When comparing the two mechanisms need to look at "what is going on." Distribution lists require complete knowledge of topology. Problem is that you cannot insure that they do not leak. HOPCOUNT does not have 'knowledge' problem but, focuses on accuracy. Sue Hares: Inclusion requires enumeration but exclusion does not Geoff Houston: HOPCOUNT allows more specifics w/ a boundary. Advocates HOPCOUNT Pedro Roque: No productive compare the two. Want to select upstream provider w/ targeted ext comms. HOPCOUNT might prevent this technique. Most common TE technique; customers preferring transit AS' per prefix. Not applicable for transit exit scenario. Two issues and solutions are orthogonal but, neither solution is devalued. Chris Morrow (UUNET): proxy means "I can add" and/or "I can delete" Tony Li: Yes and not violate Chris Morrow: Will it get used if provider ignores or removes Yakov Rekhter: Who is entity that benefits from this? Which SP. Tony Li: Table size reduction is goal. One SP adds does the work but, gets no benefits. Altruism or hope of it is a good reason. Geoff Houston: Zhang drafts in GROW show that altruism is bunk instead self-interest. Most UPDATEs come from lower tier points. Most computation happens at lower level of peering .. therefore, small folks get most thrash. If "I" do this, I help my problem ... therefore altruism is there for the folks that use it and tag it. David Ward: Affect Hop count? Tony Li: Not significantly as it would be longer prefixes. Enke Chen: Can we inject an AS numer as 'signature' of who adds attribute? May be added to draft. No comments ------------------------- Zhang Renhai Entire Route Reflect Comments held until after Walton's draft see ppt for info ------------------------- Walton Add Paths Alvaro Retana (Cisco) presenter. see ppt for info NOTE: RFC 3107 must be updated ------------------------- Walton Oscillation Stop Alvaro Retana (Cisco) presenter info in same ppt as "Add Paths" George Swallow: What is frequency of oscillation? Alvaro Retana: dependent on update timer setting (MIN ADVERT INTERVAL) Combined questions for both draft authors: Danny (unaffiliated) - We are increasing and decreasing table size. Walton's draft is more general and flexible then Zhang's. Alvaro Retana: Most of increase of table size is internal to an AS (almost all) Zhang: I don't understand question. Zhang: Walton's draft is more general. Alvaro Retana: NLRI will be bigger but, no impact on packing. Gargi (Cisco): Zhang's draft - must specify that you explicitly WD when a nexthop changes or how to announce new NH? How do you delete the first NH? Zhang: If NH changes, just add it. To solve the problem there will taken offline to email. Paul Jakma: If in ECMP case, what AS sequence? How to pass multiple paths to a legacy speaker? Alvaro Retana: Cap advert defines who can learn add_path. Other applications like EBGP ECMP and propagating multiple paths will have to be addressed. Alvaro Retana: Constrained scope. Pedro Roque: Although you say impact of deployment is localized. We need a better understanding of what impact will be. For each route prefix, path attrs in Adj RIB Out. Generally announcement, is only when Adj-RIB-Out changes. What is expectation of propagating changes when inbound updates would cause outbound content. What are consequences? Size of Adj-RIB-Out? What is key of Adj-RIB-Out? etc. Alvaro Retana: Spec says send on path. Change is that we would have tracking of two or more paths. Yakov Rekhter: We can have as many ad hoc solutions as we want or a more general solution. We, as a group, should decide on a more general solution. We should look at potential new functionality once we have more than one path being advertised. Suggestion is that the authors of three proposals should find common solution to all problems that WG would like to address. A mailing list will be set up to discuss this problem and solution. On the IDR mailing list please identify problems. Yakov Rekhter: Do we need requirements document? Ward: No, absolutely not. ------------------------- Dubois PM Reqmts see ppt for info Yakov Rekhter: Send note to list on whether or not we should take as a WG doc. Dubois: Earlier solution was not meeting requirements and there are many possible solutions. We need a solution that fits the requirements; we are not encouraging one solution over another: Ted Seely (Sprint): Why not weight traffic away from peer or interface? There are other techniques that don't require change to protocol. Ruediger Volk: I lose traffic when I do this technique. Ruediger Volk: The convergence problem I see is due to the previous issue of config change. Jason Schiller (UUNET): Is there a hard requirement that this does not require a config change ... taken to the list. ------------------------- Hares Dynamic Confed AS Not requested to be WG item. see ppt for info Roque: I would assume that you would want to do restoration in a seamless way. What is motivation to make failure restoration a visible outside the confederation? Sue Hares: Goal is to not drop the peering session. Therefore, the purpose is policy rerouting wants to 'hang by itself.' If I drop out of the AS confed, I would have had to drop the session. Roque: Why not just tunnel back? Sue Hares: No IGP connectivity and tunnels ran into problems. Sue Hares: will send scenarios to list Chandra Appanna (Cisco): I think you need a few more failsafes. Resend is a MUST, and some mechanisms is nec. that moved did not suddenly change. Need to resend routes due to policy change potential. Sue Hares: We have added failsafe. We delayed resend, it would be abnormal to send all routes if nothing changed. Will send scenario in email. Gargi (Cisco): Are there any mechanisms in mind for NO resend if ones moves from one confed to another? ------------------------- Multisession update - Chandra Appanna See ppt for info Added flexibility for any capability code to cause/create multiple sessions No comments ------------------------- Kapoor SSA - Gargi, Scott Wainner see ppt for info ------------------------- Kapoor Tunnel SAFI combined w/ SSA preso, same ppt Gargi did technical side and changes to docs: more TLVs to express encap: MPLS, IPsec, GRE in IPsec, L2TPv3 in IPsec added application scenarios: MPLS over IP tunnels Scott presented motivations Combined comments: Sue Hares: Can you explain status of this mechanism w/in each of these groups (on referenced drafts)? What is approved, required, etc. We need to see something from those chairs that the ref'ed drafts are "blessed." Scott Wainner: Walked through Gargi: We have chicken and egg to get this done. Encoding first or formats first? Intro work on L3VPN list. Yakov Rekhter: Very reasonable model where must have both WGs review dependent docs. Bill Fenner: Must work w/ other WG for encoding. Yakov Rekhter: Two possible models - first: semantics or encoding need to be done in L3VPN; second: L2/L3VPN WGs tell us semantics and IDR produces encoding. Rahul Aggarwal: there were two problems in the past: 1) Motivation wasn't clear 2) Authors of draft-raggarwa-ppvpn-tunnel-encap and authors of the drafts presented at this IDR meeting were unable to come up with a joint proposal. Suggested that since motivations are clearer now, this work should be discussed again in the L3VPN WG. Pedro Roque: Disagree w/ motivations. IGP can provide reachability. I think you use BGP as signaling protocol which is not a problem. But, presentation states that BGP needs to know this information. Please clarify the layering split. Yakov Rekhter: Can this move to L3VPN SOLUTION: Joint Last Call in IDR and L3VPN. ------------------------- SAFI Space Partition In reply to Jeff Haas email on list. Bill Fenner to send notes on how to alloc SAFI space. Proposal: take private use space and turn it into reserved and perhaps 16 or so as private use. Reserved is reserved so we can decide later on FCFS or otherwise managed. Are folks using private space? Do we need to skip some? Yakov Rekhter: How long will it take to use up first come first served? Bill Fenner: We should be able to straighten this out quickly and IANA is keeping up. 30 days deadline. Danny McPherson: Needs to be uniform across all WGs and Areas. Make it IETF aligned. Pedro Roque: I do not want to see vendor specific space go away altogether. There is much more usage than one case alluded to. Today is only practical alternative, cannot be locked out. Can it be shown to work before we assume 30 days? Bill Fenner: There are publications on these agreements and promises that it will be done in 30 days. FCFS is you get it now .... no draft, no wait. Chandra: Cannot get rid of vendor space. AF/SAFI has lost meaning and is a way to differentiate addrs between two peers. Just need opaque space that we can use between two peers. Gargi: Must have vendor space perhaps reduced is ok. Second, IANA is faster but, it seems to required Routing ADs having lunch w/ IANA. Yakov Rekhter: IANA must have strict 30 days max as rule. Bill Fenner: We are working on this and the stats show that 30 days is being met. |