Subject: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-bgp-edge-node-frr-00.txt

From: Ahmed Bashandy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:42:50 -0700

Hi,

The draft proposes a mechanism by which traffic can be rerouted, without waiting for BGP or IGP to re-converge, to another PE in a BGP-free core when the egress PE becomes totally disconnected from the core (e.g. edge router crashes). The proposal does not require any special router(s) to handle rerouting traffic and does not require core routers to know about BGP routes or replication of BGP routes to any other edge router.

All comments are welcomed

Thanks

Ahmed

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-bgp-edge-node-frr-00.txt
Date: 	Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:48:17 -0700
From: 	<[email-masked]>
To: 	Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) <[email-masked]>
CC: 	Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-bashandy-bgp-edge-node-frr-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Ahmed Bashandy and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:        draft-bashandy-bgp-edge-node-frr
Revision:        00
Title:           Scalable BGP FRR Protection against Edge Node Failure
Creation date:   2011-07-10
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
&#39;&#39;P      &#39;&#39; 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