| || BGP RFC - Border Gateway Protocol RFC's (IETF) |
Current BGP-4 RFC is RFC 4271 (obsoletes:
| RFC 6198 || Requirements for the Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions |
| || Show complete RFC 6198 (Apr 2011) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 6198 |
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is heavily used in Service Provider networks for both Internet and BGP/MPLS VPN services. For resiliency purposes, redundant routers and BGP sessions can be deployed to reduce the consequences of an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) or BGP session breakdown on customers' or peers' traffic. However, simply taking down or even bringing up a BGP session for maintenance purposes may still induce connectivity losses during the BGP convergence. This is no longer satisfactory for new applications (e.g., voice over IP, online gaming, VPN). Therefore, a solution is required for the graceful shutdown of a (set of) BGP session(s) in order to limit the amount of traffic loss during a planned shutdown. This document expresses requirements for such a solution.
| RFC 6115 || Recommendation for a Routing Architecture |
| || Show complete RFC 6115 (Feb 2011) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 6115 |
It is commonly recognized that the Internet routing and addressing architecture is facing challenges in scalability, multihoming, and inter-domain traffic engineering. This document presents, as a recommendation of future directions for the IETF, solutions that could aid the future scalability of the Internet. To this end, this document surveys many of the proposals that were brought forward for discussion in this activity, as well as some of the subsequent analysis and the architectural recommendation of the chairs. This document is a product of the Routing Research Group.
| RFC 6039 || Issues with Existing Cryptographic Protection Methods for Routing Protocols |
| || Show complete RFC 6039 (Oct 2010) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 6039 |
Routing protocols have been extended over time to use cryptographic mechanisms to ensure that data received from a neighboring router has not been modified in transit and actually originated from an authorized neighboring router. The cryptographic mechanisms defined to date and described in this document rely on a digest produced with a hash algorithm applied to the payload encapsulated in the routing protocol packet. This document outlines some of the limitations of the current mechanism, problems with manual keying of these cryptographic algorithms, and possible vectors for the exploitation of these limitations.
| RFC 6037 || Cisco Systems' Solution for Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs |
| || Show complete RFC 6037 (Oct 2010) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 6037 |
This document describes the MVPN (Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs) solution designed and deployed by Cisco Systems. The procedures specified in this document are largely a subset of the generalized MVPN framework recently standardized by the IETF. However, as the deployment of the procedures specified herein predates the publication of IETF standards (in some cases by over five years), an implementation based on these procedures differs in some respects from a fully standards-compliant implementation. These differences are pointed out in the document.
| RFC 5701 || IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended Community Attribute |
| || Show complete RFC 5701 (Nov 2009) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 5701 |
Current specifications of BGP Extended Communities (RFC 4360) support the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, but do not support an IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community. The lack of an IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community may be a problem when an application uses the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, and one wants to use this application in a pure IPv6 environment. This document defines a new BGP attribute, the IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community, that addresses this problem. The IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community is similar to the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, except that it carries an IPv6 address rather than an IPv4 address.
| RFC 5575 || Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules |
| || Show complete RFC 5575 (Aug 2009) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 5575 |
This document defines a new Border Gateway Protocol Network Layer Reachability Information (BGP NLRI) encoding format that can be used to distribute traffic flow specifications. This allows the routing system to propagate information regarding more specific components of the traffic aggregate defined by an IP destination prefix. Additionally, it defines two applications of that encoding format: one that can be used to automate inter-domain coordination of traffic filtering, such as what is required in order to mitigate (distributed) denial-of-service attacks, and a second application to provide traffic filtering in the context of a BGP/MPLS VPN service. The information is carried via the BGP, thereby reusing protocol algorithms, operational experience, and administrative processes such as inter-provider peering agreements.
| RFC 5512 || The BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute |
| || Show complete RFC 5512 (Apr 2009) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 5512 |
In certain situations, transporting a packet from one Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) speaker to another (the BGP next hop) requires that the packet be encapsulated by the first BGP speaker and decapsulated by the second. To support these situations, there needs to be some agreement between the two BGP speakers with regard to the "encapsulation information", i.e., the format of the encapsulation header as well as the contents of various fields of the header. The encapsulation information need not be signaled for all encapsulation types. In cases where signaling is required (such as Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3) or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) with key), this document specifies a method by which BGP speakers can signal encapsulation information to each other. The signaling is done by sending BGP updates using the Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the IPv4 or IPv6 Address Family Identifier (AFI). In cases where no encapsulation information needs to be signaled (such as GRE without key), this document specifies a BGP extended community that can be attached to BGP UPDATE messages that carry payload prefixes in order to indicate the encapsulation protocol type to be used.
| RFC 5195 || BGP-Based Auto-Discovery for Layer-1 VPNs |
| || Show complete RFC 5195 (Jun 2008) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 5195 |
The purpose of this document is to define a BGP-based auto-discovery mechanism for Layer-1 VPNs (L1VPNs). The auto-discovery mechanism for L1VPNs allows the provider network devices to dynamically discover the set of Provider Edges (PEs) having ports attached to Customer Edge (CE) members of the same VPN. That information is necessary for completing the signaling phase of L1VPN connections. One main objective of a L1VPN auto-discovery mechanism is to support the "single-end provisioning" model, where addition of a new port to a given L1VPN would involve configuration changes only on the PE that has this port and on the CE that is connected to the PE via this port.
| RFC 5065 || Autonomous System Confederations for BGP |
| || Show complete RFC 5065 (Aug 2007) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 5065 |
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is an inter-autonomous system routing protocol designed for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) networks. BGP requires that all BGP speakers within a single autonomous system (AS) must be fully meshed. This represents a serious scaling problem that has been well documented in a number of proposals. This document describes an extension to BGP that may be used to create a confederation of autonomous systems that is represented as a single autonomous system to BGP peers external to the confederation, thereby removing the "full mesh" requirement. The intention of this extension is to aid in policy administration and reduce the management complexity of maintaining a large autonomous system. This document obsoletes RFC 3065.
| RFC 4781 || Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP with MPLS |
| || Show complete RFC 4781 (Jan 2007) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4781 |
A mechanism for BGP that helps minimize the negative effects on routing caused by BGP restart has already been developed and is described in a separate document ("Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP"). This document extends this mechanism to minimize the negative effects on MPLS forwarding caused by the Label Switching Router's (LSR's) control plane restart, and specifically by the restart of its BGP component when BGP is used to carry MPLS labels and the LSR is capable of preserving the MPLS forwarding state across the restart. The mechanism described in this document is agnostic with respect to the types of the addresses carried in the BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field. As such, it works in conjunction with any of the address families that could be carried in BGP (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, etc.).
| RFC 4724 || Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP |
| || Show complete RFC 4724 (Jan 2007) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4724 |
This document describes a mechanism for BGP that would help minimize the negative effects on routing caused by BGP restart. An End-of-RIB marker is specified and can be used to convey routing convergence information. A new BGP capability, termed "Graceful Restart Capability", is defined that would allow a BGP speaker to express its ability to preserve forwarding state during BGP restart. Finally, procedures are outlined for temporarily retaining routing information across a TCP session termination/re-establishment. The mechanisms described in this document are applicable to all routers, both those with the ability to preserve forwarding state during BGP restart and those without (although the latter need to implement only a subset of the mechanisms described in this document).
| RFC 4659 || BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN |
| || Show complete RFC 4659 (Sep 2006) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4659 |
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use its packet-switched backbone to provide Virtual Private Network (VPN) services for its IPv6 customers. This method reuses, and extends where necessary, the "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" method for support of IPv6. In BGP/MPLS IP VPN, "Multiprotocol BGP" is used for distributing IPv4 VPN routes over the service provider backbone, and MPLS is used to forward IPv4 VPN packets over the backbone. This document defines an IPv6 VPN address family and describes the corresponding IPv6 VPN route distribution in "Multiprotocol BGP". This document defines support of the IPv6 VPN service over both an IPv4 and an IPv6 backbone, and for using various tunneling techniques over the core, including MPLS, IP-in-IP, Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) and IPsec protected tunnels. The inter-working between an IPv4 site and an IPv6 site is outside the scope of this document.
| RFC 4384 || BGP Communities for Data Collection |
| || Show complete RFC 4384 (Feb 2006) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4384 |
BGP communities (RFC 1997) are used by service providers for many purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the scope of redistribution of routes within a provider's network and to its peers and customers. With the advent of large-scale BGP data collection (and associated research), it has become clear that the information carried in such communities is essential for a deeper understanding of the global routing system. This memo defines standard (outbound) communities and their encodings for export to BGP route collectors.
| RFC 4364 || BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) |
| || Show complete RFC 4364 (Feb 2006) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4364 |
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use an IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for its customers. This method uses a "peer model", in which the customers' edge routers (CE routers) send their routes to the Service Provider's edge routers (PE routers); there is no "overlay" visible to the customer's routing algorithm, and CE routers at different sites do not peer with each other. Data packets are tunneled through the backbone, so that the core routers do not need to know the VPN routes. This document obsoletes RFC 2547.
| RFC 4277 || Experience with the BGP-4 Protocol |
| || Show complete RFC 4277 (Jan 2006) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4277 |
The purpose of this memo is to document how the requirements for publication of a routing protocol as an Internet Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4). This report satisfies the requirement for "the second report", as described in Section 6.0 of RFC 1264. In order to fulfill the requirement, this report augments RFC 1773 and describes additional knowledge and understanding gained in the time between when the protocol was made a Draft Standard and when it was submitted for Standard.
| RFC 4276 || BGP-4 Implementation Report |
| || Show complete RFC 4276 (Jan 2006) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4276 |
This document reports the results of the BGP-4 implementation survey. The survey had 259 questions about implementations' support of BGP-4 as specified in RFC 4271. After a brief summary of the results, each response is listed. This document contains responses from the four implementers that completed the survey (Alcatel, Cisco, Laurel, and NextHop) and brief information from three that did not (Avici, Data Connection Ltd., and Nokia). The editors did not use exterior means to verify the accuracy of the information submitted by the respondents. The respondents are experts with the products they reported on.
| RFC 4274 || BGP-4 Protocol Analysis |
| || Show complete RFC 4274 (Jan 2006) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4274 |
The purpose of this report is to document how the requirements for publication of a routing protocol as an Internet Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4). This report satisfies the requirement for "the second report", as described in Section 6.0 of RFC 1264. In order to fulfill the requirement, this report augments RFC 1774 and summarizes the key features of BGP-4, as well as analyzes the protocol with respect to scaling and performance.
| RFC 4273 || Definitions of Managed Objects for BGP-4 |
| || Show complete RFC 4273 (Jan 2006) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4273 |
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community In particular, it describes managed objects used for managing the Border Gateway Protocol Version 4 or lower. The origin of this memo is from RFC 1269 "Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway Protocol (Version 3)", which was updated to support BGP-4 in RFC 1657. This memo fixes errors introduced when the MIB module was converted to use the SMIv2 language. This memo also updates references to the current SNMP framework documents. This memo is intended to document deployed implementations of this MIB module in a historical context, to provide clarifications of some items, and to note errors where the MIB module fails to fully represent the BGP protocol. Work is currently in progress to replace this MIB module with a new one representing the current state of the BGP protocol and its extensions. This document obsoletes RFC 1269 and RFC 1657.
| RFC 4272 || BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis |
| || Show complete RFC 4272 (Jan 2006) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4272 |
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), along with a host of other infrastructure protocols designed before the Internet environment became perilous, was originally designed with little consideration for protection of the information it carries. There are no mechanisms internal to BGP that protect against attacks that modify, delete, forge, or replay data, any of which has the potential to disrupt overall network routing behavior. This document discusses some of the security issues with BGP routing data dissemination. This document does not discuss security issues with forwarding of packets.
| RFC 4271 || A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) |
| || Show complete RFC 4271 (Jan 2006) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4271 |
This document discusses the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol. The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This network reachability information includes information on the list of Autonomous Systems (ASes) that reachability information traverses. This information is sufficient for constructing a graph of AS connectivity for this reachability from which routing loops may be pruned, and, at the AS level, some policy decisions may be enforced. BGP-4 provides a set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). These mechanisms include support for advertising a set of destinations as an IP prefix, and eliminating the concept of network "class" within BGP. BGP-4 also introduces mechanisms that allow aggregation of routes, including aggregation of AS paths. This document obsoletes RFC 1771.
| RFC 4264 || BGP Wedgies |
| || Show complete RFC 4264 (Nov 2005) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 4264 |
It has commonly been assumed that the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is a tool for distributing reachability information in a manner that creates forwarding paths in a deterministic manner. In this memo we will describe a class of BGP configurations for which there is more than one potential outcome, and where forwarding states other than the intended state are equally stable. Also, the stable state where BGP converges may be selected by BGP in a non-deterministic manner. These stable, but unintended, BGP states are termed here "BGP Wedgies".
| RFC 3913 || Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP): Protocol Specification |
| || Show complete RFC 3913 (Sep 2004) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 3913 |
This document describes the Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP), a protocol for inter-domain multicast routing. BGMP builds shared trees for active multicast groups, and optionally allows receiver domains to build source-specific, inter-domain, distribution branches where needed. BGMP natively supports "source-specific multicast" (SSM). To also support "any-source multicast" (ASM), BGMP requires that each multicast group be associated with a single root (in BGMP it is referred to as the root domain). It requires that different ranges of the multicast address space are associated (e.g., with Unicast-Prefix-Based Multicast addressing) with different domains. Each of these domains then becomes the root of the shared domain- trees for all groups in its range. Multicast participants will generally receive better multicast service if the session initiator's address allocator selects addresses from its own domain's part of the space, thereby causing the root domain to be local to at least one of the session participants.
| RFC 2519 || A Framework for Inter-Domain Route Aggregation |
| || Show complete RFC 2519 (Feb 1999) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 2519 |
This document presents a framework for inter-domain route aggregation and shows an example router configuration which 'implements' this framework. This framework is flexible and scales well as it emphasizes the philosophy of aggregation by the source, both within routing domains as well as towards upstream providers, and it also strongly encourages the use of the 'no-export' BGP community to balance the provider-subscriber need for more granular routing information with the Internet's need for scalable inter-domain routing.
| RFC 2439 || BGP Route Flap Damping |
| || Show complete RFC 2439 (Nov 1998) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 2439 |
A usage of the BGP routing protocol is described which is capable of reducing the routing traffic passed on to routing peers and therefore the load on these peers without adversely affecting route convergence time for relatively stable routes. This technique has been implemented in commercial products supporting BGP. The technique is also applicable to IDRP. The overall goals are: (1) to provide a mechanism capable of reducing router processing load caused by instability, (2) in doing so prevent sustained routing oscillations, (3) to do so without sacrificing route convergence time for generally well behaved routes. This must be accomplished keeping other goals of BGP in mind: (a) pack changes into a small number of updates, (b) preserve consistent routing, (c) minimal addition space and computational overhead. An excessive rate of update to the advertised reachability of a subset of Internet prefixes has been widespread in the Internet. This observation was made in the early 1990s by many people involved in Internet operations and remains the case. These excessive updates are not necessarily periodic so route oscillation would be a misleading term. The informal term used to describe this effect is "route flap". The techniques described here are now widely deployed and are commonly referred to as "route flap damping".
| RFC 1998 || An Application of the BGP Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing |
| || Show complete RFC 1998 (Aug 1996) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 1998 |
This document presents an application of the BGP community attribute  in simplifying the implementation and configuration of routing policies in the multi-provider Internet. It shows how the community based configuration can be used to replace the AS-based customization of the BGP "LOCAL_PREF" attribute, a common method used today. Not only does the technique presented simplifies configuration and management at the provider level, it also represents a paradigm shift in that it gives the potential for the customer to control its own routing policy with respect to its service provider, as well as providing the ability for policy configuration to be done at a prefix based granularity rather than the more common AS based granularity.
| RFC 1930 || Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS) |
| || Show complete RFC 1930 (Mar 1996) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 1930 |
This memo discusses when it is appropriate to register and utilize an Autonomous System (AS), and lists criteria for such. ASes are the unit of routing policy in the modern world of exterior routing, and are specifically applicable to protocols like EGP (Exterior Gateway Protocol, now at historical status; see [EGP]), BGP (Border Gateway Protocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS routing; see [BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol, which the Internet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see [IDRP]). It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the RDI, or Routing Domain Identifier.
| RFC 1773 || Experience with the BGP-4 protocol |
| || Show complete RFC 1773 (Mar 1995) Show all RFCs that refer to RFC 1773 |
The purpose of this memo is to document how the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4). This report documents experience with BGP. This is the second of two reports on the BGP protocol. As required by the Internet Architecure Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the first report will present a performance analysis of the BGP protocol. The remaining sections of this memo document how BGP satisfies General Requirements specified in Section 3.0, as well as Requirements for Draft Standard specified in Section 5.0 of the "Internet Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria" document.