This is a draft that proposes a mechanism by which traffic can be re-routed to a pre-calculated repair egress PE if the primary egress PE becomes disconnected from the core (e.g. router crash) in a BGP free core without waiting for IGP or BGP to re-converge. The draft does not require any special routers to handle the traffic re-route and does not require core routers to have knowledge about BGP routes
The new version only contains editorial modifications I only got one comment from Rob Shakir. His primary concern is that the draft requires allocating multiple prefixes to each PE to be used as BGP Next-hops. This may be a problem for deployments with constrained address space, such as deployments that do not use private addresses as BGP next-hops in BGP_free cores We are working to address Rob's concern All comments are most welcomed Ahmed -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-bgp-edge-node-frr-01.txt Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:50:31 -0700 From: <[email protected]> To: Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) <[email protected]> CC: Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) <[email protected]> A new version of I-D, draft-bashandy-bgp-edge-node-frr-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Ahmed Bashandy and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-bashandy-bgp-edge-node-frr Revision: 01 Title: Scalable BGP FRR Protection against Edge Node Failure Creation date: 2011-10-26 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 17 Abstract: Consider a BGP free core scenario. Suppose the edge BGP speakers PE1, PE2,..., PEn know about a prefix P/p via the external routers CE1, CE2,..., CEm. If the edge router PEi crashes or becomes totally disconnected from the core, it desirable for a penultimate hop route "P" carrying traffic to the failed edge router PEi to immediately restore traffic by re-tunneling packets originally tunneled to PEi and destined to the prefix P/p to one of the other edge routers that advertised P/p, say PEj, until BGP re-converges. In doing so, it is highly desirable to keep the core BGP-free while not imposing restrictions on external connectivity. Thus (1) a core router should not be required to learn any BGP prefix, (2) the size of the forwarding and routing tables in the core routers should be independent of the number of BGP prefixes,(3) there should be no special router (or group of routers) that handles restoring traffic, and (4) there should be no restrictions on what edge routers advertise what prefixes. For labeled prefixes, (5) the penultimate hop router must swap the label advertised by the failed edge router PEi for the prefix P/p with the label advertised for the same prefix by the edge router PEj before re-tunneling the packet to PEj The IETF Secretariat
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
