BGP RFC 1771 PDF
July 18, 2020 | by admin
A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), March Canonical URL: https://www. ; File formats: Plain Text PDF; Status: DRAFT. Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia RFC RFC Network Working Group Request for Comments: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4). RFC A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) (Q). request for comments publication. RFC; A Border Gateway Protocol 4.
|Published (Last):||4 May 2012|
|PDF File Size:||12.85 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.86 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Border Gateway Protocol BGP is a standardized exterior gateway protocol designed to exchange routing and reachability information among autonomous systems AS on the Internet. BGP may be used for routing within an autonomous system. RFC corrected errors, clarified ambiguities and updated the specification with common industry practices. The major enhancement was the support for Classless Inter-Domain Routing and use of route aggregation to decrease the size of routing tables.
BGP4 has been in use on the Internet since BGP neighbors, called peers, are established by manual configuration among routers to create a TCP session on port A BGP speaker sends byte keep-alive messages every 60 seconds  to maintain the connection. Routers on the boundary of one AS exchanging information with another AS are called border or edge routers or simply eBGP peers and are typically connected directly, while iBGP peers can be interconnected through other intermediate routers.
Other deployment topologies are also possible, such as running eBGP peering inside a VPN tunnel, allowing two remote sites to exchange routing information in a secure and isolated manner. The main difference between iBGP and eBGP peering is in the way routes that were received from one peer are propagated to other peers.
For instance, new routes learned from an eBGP peer are typically redistributed to all iBGP peers as well as all other eBGP peers if transit mode is enabled on the router.
These route-propagation rules effectively require that all iBGP peers inside an AS are interconnected in a full mesh.
How routes are propagated can be controlled in detail via the route-maps mechanism. This mechanism consists of a set of rules. Each rule describes, for routes matching some given criteria, what action should be taken.
The action could be to drop the route, or it could be to modify some attributes of the route before inserting it in the routing table.
During the peering handshake, when OPEN messages are exchanged, BGP speakers can negotiate  optional capabilities of the session, including multiprotocol extensions and various recovery modes. Increasingly, BGP is used as a generalized signaling protocol to carry information about routes that may not be part of the global Internet, such as VPNs.
In order to make decisions in its operations with peers, a BGP peer uses a simple finite state machine FSM that consists of six states: For each peer-to-peer session, a BGP implementation maintains a state variable that tracks which of these six states the session is in. The BGP defines the messages that each peer should exchange in order to change the session from one state to another.
The first state is the “Idle” state. The second state is “Connect”. In the “Connect” state, the router waits for the TCP connection to complete and transitions to the “OpenSent” state if successful. If unsuccessful, it starts the ConnectRetry timer and transitions to 177 “Active” state upon expiration.
In the “Active” state, the router resets the ConnectRetry bg; to zero and returns to the “Connect” state. In the “OpenSent” state, the router sends an Open message and waits for one in return in order to transition to the “OpenConfirm” state.
Information on RFC » RFC Editor
Keepalive messages are exchanged and, upon successful receipt, the router is placed into the “Established” state. In the simplest arrangement, all routers within a single 171 and participating in BGP routing must be configured in a full mesh: This causes scaling problems, since the number of required connections grows quadratically with the number of routers involved. To alleviate the problem, BGP implements two options: Their structure is not visible to other BGP routers, although they usually can be interrogated with management commands on the local router.
The additional information tells the BGP process such things as whether individual entries belong in the Adj-RIBs for specific neighbors, whether the peer-neighbor route selection process made received policies eligible for the Loc-RIB, and whether Loc-RIB entries are eligible to be submitted to the local router’s routing table management process.
By rfx to be submittedBGP will submit the routes that it considers best to the main routing table process. Depending on the implementation of that process, the BGP route is not necessarily selected. For example, a directly connected prefix, learned from the router’s own hardware, is usually most preferred.
As long as that directly connected route’s interface is active, the BGP route to the destination will not be put into the routing table.
Border Gateway Protocol
Once the interface goes down, and there are no more preferred routes, the Loc-RIB route would be installed in the main routing table. Until recently, it was a common mistake to 17711 BGP carries policies. BGP actually carried the information with which rules inside BGP-speaking routers could make policy decisions. Some of the information carried that is explicitly intended to be used in policy decisions are communities and multi-exit discriminators MED.
Rfv first decision point for evaluating NLRI is that its next-hop attribute must be reachable or resolvable. Another way of saying the next-hop must be reachable is that there must be an active route, already in the main routing table of the router, to the prefix in which the next-hop address is reachable.
Next, for each neighbor, the BGP process applies various standard and implementation-dependent criteria to decide which routes conceptually should go into the Adj-RIB-In.
The neighbor could send several possible rfd to a destination, but the first level of preference is at the neighbor level. If so, it replaces them. If a given route is withdrawn by a neighbor, and there is no other route to that destination, the route is removed from the Loc-RIB, and no gfc sent, by BGP, to the main routing table manager. If the router does not have a route to that destination from any non-BGP source, 17771 withdrawn route will be removed from the main routing table.
After verifying that the next hop is reachable, if the route comes from an internal i. In the latter case the route selection process moves to the next tie breaker.
Such manipulation is outside the scope of the standard but is commonly used. The current standard however specifies that missing MEDs are to be treated as the lowest possible value. Since the current rule may cause different behavior than the vendor interpretations, BGP implementations that used the nonstandard default rc have a configuration feature that allows the old or standard rule to be selected. Once candidate routes are received from neighbors, the Loc-RIB software applies additional tie-breakers to routes to the same destination.
If there is more than one route still tied at this point, several BGP implementations offer a configurable option to load-share among the routes, accepting all or all up to some number. BGP communities are attribute tags that can be applied to incoming or outgoing prefixes to achieve some common goal RFC While it is common to say that BGP allows an administrator to set policies on how prefixes are handled by ISPs, this is generally not possible, strictly speaking.
Instead, an ISP generally publishes a list of well-known or proprietary communities with a description for each one, which essentially becomes an rrfc of how prefixes are to be treated.
Examples of common communities include local preference adjustments, geographic or peer type restrictions, DoS avoidance black holingand AS prepending options. The customer simply adjusts their configuration to include the correct community or communities for each route, and the ISP is responsible for controlling who the prefix is advertised to. The end user has no technical ability to enforce correct actions being taken by the ISP, though problems in this area are generally rare and accidental.
It should also be noted that the community attribute is transitive, but communities applied by the customer very rarely become propagated outside the next-hop AS. Not all ISPs give out their communities to the public, while some other do.
The BGP Extended Community Attribute was added inin order to extend the range of such attributes and to provide a community attribute structuring by means of a type field. The extended format consists of one or two octets for the type field followed by seven or six octets for the respective community attribute content. However, a bit in the type field within the attribute decides whether the encoded extended community is of a transitive or non-transitive nature.
The IANA registry therefore provides different number ranges for the attribute types. Due to the extended attribute range, its usage can be manifold. With the introduction of 32 bits AS numbers, some issues were immediately obvious with the community attribute that only defines a 16 bits ASN field, which prevents the matching between this field and the real ASN value. MEDs, defined in the main BGP standard, were originally intended to show to another neighbor AS the advertising AS’s preference as to which of several links are preferred for inbound traffic.
Another application of MEDs is to advertise the value, typically based on delay, of multiple AS that have presence at an IXPthat they impose to send traffic to some destination.
This full-mesh configuration requires that each router maintain a session to every rfv router. In rff networks, this number of sessions may degrade performance of routers, due to either a lack of memory, or high CPU process requirements.
Route reflectors and confederations both reduce the number of iBGP peers to each router and thus reduce processing overhead. Route reflectors are a pure performance-enhancing technique, while confederations also can be used to implement more bbgp policy.
Route reflectors  reduce the number of connections required in an AS. A single router or two for redundancy can be made a route reflector: Confederations are sets of autonomous systems.
In common practice,  only one of the confederation AS numbers is seen by the Internet as a whole. Confederations are used in very large networks where a large AS can be configured to encompass smaller more manageable internal ASs. Confederations can be used in conjunction with route reflectors. Both confederations and route reflectors can be subject to persistent oscillation unless specific design rules, affecting both BGP and the interior routing protocol, are followed. Nevertheless, these are common tools for experienced BGP network architects.
These tools may be combined, for example, as a hierarchy of route reflectors. The routing tables managed by a BGP implementation are adjusted continually to reflect actual changes in the network, such as links ggp and being restored or routers going down and coming back up. In the network as a whole it is normal for these changes to happen almost continuously, but for any particular router or link, changes are supposed to be relatively infrequent.
If a router is misconfigured or mismanaged then it may get into a rapid cycle between rff and up states. This pattern of repeated withdrawal and re-announcement known as route flapping can cause excessive activity in all the other routers that know about the broken link, as the same route is continually injected and withdrawn from the routing 17771. The BGP design is such that delivery of traffic may not function while routes are being updated.
On the Internet, a BGP routing change may cause outages for several minutes. A feature known as route flap damping RFC is built into many Rcc implementations in an attempt to mitigate the effects of route flapping. Without damping, the excessive activity can cause a heavy processing load on routers, which may in turn delay updates on other routes, and so affect overall routing stability.
With damping, a route’s flapping is exponentially decayed. At the first instance when a route becomes unavailable and quickly reappears, damping does not take effect, so as to maintain the normal fail-over times of BGP. At the second occurrence, BGP shuns that prefix for a certain length of time; subsequent occurrences are timed out exponentially. After the abnormalities have ceased and a suitable length of time has passed for the offending route, prefixes can be reinstated and its slate wiped clean.
Damping can also mitigate denial of service attacks; damping timings are highly customizable. This method also successfully avoids the overhead of route flap damping for iBGP sessions. However, subsequent research has shown that flap damping can actually lengthen convergence times in some cases, and can cause interruptions in connectivity even when links are not flapping.