



Internet Engineering Task Force                                  E. Chen
Internet-Draft                                        Palo Alto Networks
Updates: 4271 (if approved)                                      J. Yuan
Intended status: Standards Track                  Individual Contributor
Expires: 6 July 2026                                      2 January 2026


              Deterministic Route Redistribution into BGP
                      draft-chen-bgp-redist-08.txt

Abstract

   In this document we present several examples of non-deterministic
   routing behavior involving route redistribution into BGP.  To
   eliminate such non-deterministic behavior, we propose an enhancement
   to BGP route selection that would take into account the
   administrative distance under certain conditions.  Additionally, We
   recommend lowering the LOCAL_PREF value in implementation for the
   redistributed backup route when appropriate.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119]
   [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown
   here.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 July 2026.







Chen & Yuan                Expires 6 July 2026                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            Route Redistribution              January 2026


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  On a Single Router  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  In a Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  The Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Enhancement to BGP Route Selection  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Setting the LOCAL_PREF Value  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   A routing protocol usually downloads its best (or active) route to
   the routing table, also known as Routing Information Base (RIB),
   which in turn selects the best (or active) route to program the
   forwarding table.

   When comparing routes from different routing protocols, RIB typically
   uses the "administrative distance" [ADMIN-DIS] [CISCO-AD]
   [JUNIPER-AD] (abbreviated as "admin-distance" hereafter) as the tie
   breaker.  The convention is that a route with a lower admin-distance
   is more preferred, and that is assumed in this document when specific
   admin-distance values are given as examples.  The admin-distance
   associated with a route in RIB is commonly used to implement various
   routing schemes such as designating primary and backup routes in a
   network.




Chen & Yuan                Expires 6 July 2026                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            Route Redistribution              January 2026


   On the other hand, the route selection in BGP [RFC4271] involves
   comparing the LOCAL_PREF, AS_PATH and other BGP attributes.  The
   bestpath in BGP usually becomes the candidate for downloading to the
   RIB, and for advertising to BGP neighbors.

   It is common to redistribute routes from other routing protocols
   (such as "static routing" [STATIC-R]) into BGP for route propagation.
   This topic is briefly discussed in Sect. 9.4 [RFC4271].  A
   redistributed route is usually assigned the same LOCAL_PREF value as
   the one for IBGP routes, and has an empty AS_PATH attribute.

   The interaction between RIB and BGP follows these general rules:

   *  A local route may be redistributed into BGP only if it is active
      in RIB based on the admin-distance.

   *  Only the bestpath in BGP is downloaded to RIB.

   Currently the admin-distance does not play any role in BGP route
   selection as specified in [RFC4271].  Due to the lack of such
   correlation between RIB and BGP, when a backup route (based on the
   admin-distance) is redistributed into BGP as shown in the next
   section, routing may converge to different paths depending on the
   order of path arrival.  Such non- deterministic routing behavior is
   clearly detrimental to network design and operations.

   To eliminate the non-deterministic routing behavior involving route
   redistribution into BGP, we propose an enhancement to BGP route
   selection that would take into account the admin-distance under
   certain conditions.  Additionally, We recommend lowering the
   LOCAL_PREF value in implementation for the redistributed backup route
   when appropriate.

   The proposed enhancement and recommendation are backward compatible,
   and can be deployed on a per-router basis.

   While static routing is used as examples in the document, the
   proposed enhancement and recommendation also apply when a route is
   redistributed from other routing protocols into BGP.

2.  The Problem

   In this section several examples are presented to illustrate the non-
   deterministic routing behavior involving route redistribution into
   BGP.






Chen & Yuan                Expires 6 July 2026                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            Route Redistribution              January 2026


2.1.  On a Single Router

   Consider an example in which there are two paths for the same
   destination on a single router.  As shown in the following table, the
   primary path A is received from an external BGP neighbor, and the
   backup path B is a static route and is configured for redistribution
   into BGP.

       Path   Type     Admin_Distance   LOCAL_PREF   AS_PATH
       -----------------------------------------------------
       A      EBGP           20            100        65535
       B      Static        150            100         --

   Depending on the order of path arrival, the path that arrives first
   would be selected as the bestpath in both RIB and BGP.

   More specifically, if Path A is received in BGP and is downloaded to
   RIB first, it would remain as the best in RIB (due to the admin-
   distance) even after Path B is installed in RIB later.  In this case,
   Path A would be selected as the best in both RIB and BGP.

   If Path B appears in RIB and is redistributed into BGP first, it
   would remain as the best in BGP (due to its local origin or a shorter
   AS-PATH) even after Path A is received in BGP later.  In this case,
   Path B would be selected as the best in both RIB and BGP.

2.2.  In a Network

   Consider the following example in which Routers R1, R2 and R3 are
   part of a provider's network and IBGP sessions are maintained among
   them.  There are two customer connections, a primary connection on R1
   and a backup connection on R2.  The customer route X is statically
   routed on both R1 and R2, and is redistributed into BGP.  On R2, the
   backup path for X is configured with a less preferred admin-distance
   than the one for IBGP paths.

                                +----+
                                | R3 |
                                +----+
                               /      \
                              /  ibgp  \
                        +----+          +----+
                        | R1 |----------| R2 |
                        +----+          +----+
                          |                |
                          |                |
                          |                |
                          X                X



Chen & Yuan                Expires 6 July 2026                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            Route Redistribution              January 2026


   While R1 consistently selects the local static route as the best one,
   the route selection on R2 would be non-deterministic.  As shown in
   the following figure, there are potentially two BGP paths A and B for
   X on R2, with Path A learned from R1 and Path B locally
   redistributed.

       Path   Type     Admin_Distance   LOCAL_PREF   AS_PATH
       -----------------------------------------------------
       A      IBGP          200            100         --
       B      Static        230            100         --

   Depending on the order of arrival of these two paths, the path that
   arrives first would be selected as the bestpath in both RIB and BGP.

   More specifically, if Path A is received in BGP and is downloaded to
   RIB first, it would remain as the best in RIB (due to the admin-
   distance) even after Path B is installed in RIB later.  In this case,
   Path A would be selected as the best in both RIB and BGP.

   If Path B appears in RIB and is redistributed into BGP first, it
   would remain as the best in BGP (due to its local origin or a lower
   IGP metric) even when Path A is received in BGP later.  In this case,
   Path B would be selected as the best in both RIB and BGP.

   The non-deterministic route selection on R2 could lead other routers,
   such as R3, to converge to different paths, resulting in
   unpredictable routing behavior in the network and inconsistency from
   the intended routing design.

   A network using BGP route reflection [RFC4456] without multiple-paths
   [RFC7911], or BGP confederation [RFC5065], may experience additional
   cases of network-wide "non-deterministic" routing behavior.  For
   example in the following figure, when both R1 and R2 advertise their
   respective local routes to the route reflector (RR) simultaneously,
   the RR would use the "IGP metric" to choose the bestpath between the
   two IBGP paths.  As a result the network may or may not converge to
   the primary path.














Chen & Yuan                Expires 6 July 2026                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            Route Redistribution              January 2026


                                +----+
                                | RR |
                                +----+
                               /      \
                              /        \
                        +----+          +----+
                        | R1 |          | R2 |
                        +----+          +----+
                          |                |
                          |                |
                          |                |
                          X                X

3.  The Proposed Solution

   To eliminate the non-deterministic routing behavior involving route
   redistribution into BGP, we propose an enhancement to BGP route
   selection that would take into account the admin-distance under
   certain conditions.  Additionally, We recommend lowering the
   LOCAL_PREF value in implementation for the redistributed backup route
   in the absence of configuration adjustment on any BGP attributes that
   could influence route selection in a network.

3.1.  Enhancement to BGP Route Selection

   To make it deterministic on a single router regarding the route being
   sourced and advertised to the network, we propose that the following
   procedure be added prior to the step that compares the degrees of
   preference of routes and identifies the route that has the highest
   degree of preference, as described in Sect. 9.1.1 [RFC4271] for BGP
   route selection:

      When comparing a locally redistributed route with another route
      that is either locally aggregated or is received from a BGP
      neighbor, favor the one with a more preferred admin-distance.
      The admin-distance for a BGP route is obtained as follows:

          For a locally redistributed route, it is inherited from the
          route being redistributed from RIB.

          For a non-redistributed route, it is of the same value as the
          admin-distance assigned to the route for the purpose of RIB
          installation (regardless of whether it is actually installed
          in RIB).







Chen & Yuan                Expires 6 July 2026                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            Route Redistribution              January 2026


   As the admin-distance is not propagated by BGP, comparing the admin-
   distance may not be sufficient when IBGP paths are involved.  To
   influence route selection in a network, the LOCAL_PREF or other
   relevant BGP attributes should also be adjusted as described in the
   next section.

3.2.  Setting the LOCAL_PREF Value

   To designate a non-BGP route as a backup route in the network, it
   should be assigned a less preferred admin-distance than the value for
   IBGP routes.  When such a route is redistributed into BGP, it should
   be treated as a backup route in the whole network by using one or
   more of the BGP attributes to influence route selection, namely,
   LOCAL_PREF, AS_PATH, MULTI_EXIT_DISC, and ORIGIN [RFC4271].
   Configuration can be used to achieve the intended outcome.

   In the absence of configuration that adjusts any of the
   aforementioned BGP attributes for the redistributed backup route, we
   RECOMMEND that a lower LOCAL_PREF value (e.g., half of the default
   LOCAL_PREF value for IBGP routes) be assigned in implementation.

   The adjustment of the LOCAL_PREF for the redistributed backup route
   would ensure the intended primary/backup roles are maintained for the
   routes involved.  Furthermore, the adjustment would eliminate the
   non-deterministic behavior in the common deployment with a pair of
   primary/backup connections in a network, as described earlier in this
   document.

   However, in scenarios where route redistribution is a part of a more
   complex deployment involving more than just a pair of primary/backup
   connections in a network, additional configuration adjustments will
   be necessary and can be built following the general guidelines
   discussed in this document.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no request for IANA.

5.  Security Considerations

   The solution proposed in this document does not change the underlying
   security or confidentiality issues inherent in the existing BGP
   [RFC4271].

6.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Naiming Shen, Acee Lindem, Robert Raszuk,
   Jeffrey Haas and Jakob Heitz for inputs and discussions.



Chen & Yuan                Expires 6 July 2026                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            Route Redistribution              January 2026


   We would also like to thank Jeffrey Haas for making us aware of the
   procedure that compares the "Route Preference" in the BGP Path
   Selection by Juniper Networks [JUNIPER-BGP].  In essence the
   enhancement to the BGP route selection proposed in this document is
   similar to that procedure.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [ADMIN-DIS]
              Wikipedia, "Administrative Distance",
              <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_distance>.

   [CISCO-AD] Cisco Systems, "Describe Administrative Distance",
              <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/border-
              gateway-protocol-bgp/15986-admin-distance.html>.

   [JUNIPER-AD]
              Juniper Networks, "Understanding Route Preference Values
              (Administrative Distance)",
              <https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/
              junos/routing-overview/bgp/topics/concept/routing-
              protocols-default-route-preference-values.html>.

   [JUNIPER-BGP]
              Juniper Networks, "Understanding BGP Path Selection", <htt
              ps://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/
              bgp/topics/topic-map/bgp-overview.html#id-10119586>.






Chen & Yuan                Expires 6 July 2026                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            Route Redistribution              January 2026


   [RFC4456]  Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
              Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
              (IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.

   [RFC5065]  Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous
              System Confederations for BGP", RFC 5065,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5065, August 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5065>.

   [RFC7911]  Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
              "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.

   [STATIC-R] Wikipedia, "Static routing",
              <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_routing>.

Authors' Addresses

   Enke Chen
   Palo Alto Networks
   United States of America
   Email: enchen@paloaltonetworks.com


   Jenny Yuan
   Individual Contributor
   United States of America
   Email: jennyyuan1000@yahoo.com





















Chen & Yuan                Expires 6 July 2026                  [Page 9]
