Internet-Draft BGP node-ID EC extension October 2026
Qin, et al. Expires 15 April 2027 [Page]
Workgroup:
IDR
Internet-Draft:
draft-qwz-idr-nodeid-ec-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
F. Qin
China Mobile
R. Wang
China Mobile
Z. Zhang, Ed.
ZTE Corporation
D. Yuan
ZTE Corporation

BGP node-ID EC extension

Abstract

This document describes a new BGP extended community attribute for advertising the node-ID.

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 15 April 2027.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Each node in a network can be represented by an IP address with global reachability—an IPv4 address for IPv4 networks or an IPv6 address for IPv6 networks. However, in certain networks such as AI Fabric, using IP addresses to identify nodes may not be the most efficient approach; since the scale typically does not exceed 64k nodes, a 2-byte node-ID serves as a more efficient form of identification.

This means that within an network like AI Fabric, a unique node ID can be assigned to identify each forwarding node—such as the Leaf or Spine switches in a Clos or Fat-Tree topology. This identifier can be associated with the actual IP address, allowing the node ID to be used to represent the node during forwarding or fault response processes.

This document defines a new extended community attribute to advertise the node-ID.

1.1. 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 [RFC2119].

2. Format

A new Sub-Type for identifying the node-ID will be defined within the Transitive Opaque Extended Community ([RFC4360] and [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis]), with the following format:

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     0x03      |   Sub-Type    |            node-ID            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                           Reserved                            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1

3. Specification

Nodes in the network can be assigned a unique node-ID—either through manual configuration or via allocation from a controller.

When advertising the route for its loopback address, each node includes the node-ID in the extended community attribute.

This value cannot be modified by any node other than the source node that generated it.

Once all devices have advertised this information, every node becomes aware of the mappings between nodes and their respective node-IDs within the network.

Not every node in the network requires a node-ID; nodes that perform only forwarding functions do not need one assigned.

If a node's node-ID changes, BGP messages must be updated to carry the new ID; upon detecting the change based on the loopback address route, receiving devices update their stored mappings between nodes and node-IDs.

Based on the loopback address route and the node-ID, each forwarding node can generate forwarding table entries keyed by the node-ID.

4. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to allocate a new code points from the "Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-Types" registry.

Table 1: TABLE_1
Type Description Reference
TBD Node ID This Document

5. Security Considerations

This extension to BGP has similar security implications as BGP Extended Communities Attribute [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis].

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis]
Sangli, S. R. and N. Kao, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis-09, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis-09>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4360]
Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.

6.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses

Fengwei Qin
China Mobile
China
Ruixue Wang
China Mobile
China
Zheng Zhang (editor)
ZTE Corporation
China
Dongyu Yuan
ZTE Corporation
China