Last Modified: 2004-09-13
|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|
|Mar 04||Submit BGP MIB v2 to IESG as a Proposed 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|
|May 04||Submit 4-byte AS ID to IESG as a Proposed Standard|
|May 04||Submit Outbound Route Filter, Prefix and ASpath ORF draft to IESG as a Proposed Standard|
|May 04||Submit AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4 to IESG as a Proposed Standard|
|May 04||Submit Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 to IESG as a Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message to IESG as a Proposed Standard|
|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|
Sue Hares and Yakov Rekhter co-chaired the meeting. Yakov issued an initial OPEN, but a transmission failure of the microphone system caused his transport entity to time out. He retransmitted the OPEN and successfully peered with the attendees.
Sue reviewed the status of the core BGP documents under revision:
- Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)
- Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of
Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)
- BGP-4 Protocol Analysis
- BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis
- Experience with the BGP-4 Protocol
- BGP MIB V1 implementation survey
- BGP 4 Implementation Report
There is no new internal WG progress or action required; these are awaiting IESG review.
Also in the approval process are Graceful Restart and Extended Communities, both as Proposed Standards, and Cease Subcodes, to be a Draft Standard.
The IESG is waiting for an implementation report on confederations.
There was nothing to report on cooperative route filtering, 4-octet AS numbers, AS-based ORF, MIB 2, and AS-wide identifiers.
Equal Cost Multipath (Manav Bhatia, Joel Halpern)
This was a working report on differences, not a final. The problem that the ECMP proposal intends to solve is defining a mechanism by which an implementation that installs equal cost multipath routes, but only advertises one route, can readvertise the multiple routes without breaking policies. Its basic approach is to create synthetic AS-SETS in the readvertisements.
Potential benefits of the technique include avoiding certain cases of route reflector oscillation. The technique is consistent with multiprotocol extensions, using the AFI/SAFI relevant to the routes it is advertising: conventional IPv4 or VPN. It is not intended for load splitting across different AS.
The consensus was that not enough WG members had read it for consensus.
IPv6 over IPv4 MPLS (Francis LeFaucheur, presenter)
The draft presents a technique, which will be coordinated with V6OPS through the ADs, for providing IPv6 service over an existing IPv4 MPLS cloud, without the cloud needing to be V6-aware. The proposed solution is intended to require no protocll extensions (see draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgp-ipv6). It carris labels in MP-BGP. The requiriemens are stated in
Draft 04 is underway, and will clarify some MUST/SHOULD terminology, expand on the inter-AS cases, and add additional detail on security. Publication of this specification will involve coordinated documents between V6OPS and IDR, consistent where possible and different where necessary. For example, the V6OPS document will carry label SAFI/AFI while the IDR document will carry VPN SAFI/AFI.
After the editorial changes are complete, the document will go out for last call and implementation survey.
AS Edge Confederations (Sue Hares)
This was a discussion item; the I-D did not make the cutoff. The technique described is a method for using dynamic capabilities at the edge of AS confederations, with the confederation-AS typically in a ring topology. The example was given of a confederation of satellite-based confederation AS being accessed by an earth station. While the technique both is ad hoc and involves mobility, it is different in applicability from MANET and mobile IP, since its quantum of mobility is the AS, not either subnet or host.
This would typically be used in a low-bandwidth applkication where the edge (i.e., non-confederation) AS lose connectivity with one AS in the ring, but transfer connectivity to a differfent confederation-AS, using dynamic capabilities exchange. As operational requirements dictate, the non-confederation AS might switch back to the original upstream AS. Additional security may be required for this application.
John Scudder (): If you expect this change, why wait for dynamic capabilities? Why not configure immediately?
Sue: We don't want to drop the associated peers
Peter Lothberg: Why not use an IGP? Sue answered that an IGP gives insufficient policy control.
John Scudder: Pointed out that you cannot nest confederations, limitiing applicability. Sue reitierated this is neither MANET nor mobile IP.
Chandra -- is confederation AS too small a level of granularity? He asked why there could be additional security requirements, and Sue pointed out that TCP neither encrypts nor authenticates, and regular BGP security may be insufficient for some tactical applications.
Peter Lothberg: Is the policy for inter-AS links, AS, or AS confederation? WHat is the requirement? Sue replied the policy was for the confederation.
Russ White: Suggested avoided the security cookie. He felt it might be too ad hoc, and a general solution would be better.
John Scudder: agrees ad hoc may not be desirable -- worried about cloned AS.
Parantep (MCI): "neither confirm or deny IGP is aware", agreed to by Sue. Application may involve multiple IGP.
Peter Lothberg: Asked Sue to confirm this proposal is to solve a real problem, not just to demonstrate what could be done.
Sue suggested there be WG list discussion of updates.