RFC 6774: Distribution of Diverse BGP Paths
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The BGP4 protocol specifies the selection and propagation of a single best path for each prefix. As defined and widely deployed today, BGP has no mechanisms to distribute alternate paths that are not considered best path between its speakers. This behavior results in a number of disadvantages for new applications and services. The main objective of this document is to observe that by simply adding a new session between a route reflector and its client, the Nth best path can be distributed. This document also compares existing solutions and proposed ideas that enable distribution of more paths than just the best path. This proposal does not specify any changes to the BGP protocol definition. It does not require a software upgrade of provider edge (PE) routers acting as route reflector clients. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6774
- Published
- November 2012
- Authors
- R. Raszuk; R. Fernando; K. Patel; D. McPherson; K. Kumaki
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 22
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6769Simple Virtual Aggregation (S-VA)Current
October 2012
- RFC 6768ATM-Based xDSL Bonded Interfaces MIBCurrent
February 2013
- RFC 6781DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2Current
December 2012
- RFC 6767Ethernet-Based xDSL Multi-Pair Bonding (G.Bond/Ethernet) MIBCurrent
February 2013
- RFC 6782Wireline Incremental IPv6Current
November 2012
- RFC 6766xDSL Multi-Pair Bonding Using Time-Division Inverse Multiplexing (G.Bond/TDIM) MIBCurrent
February 2013
- RFC 6765xDSL Multi-Pair Bonding (G.Bond) MIBCurrent
February 2013
- RFC 6791Stateless Source Address Mapping for ICMPv6 PacketsCurrent
November 2012
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?