Network Working Group F. Templin, Ed. Internet-Draft G. Saccone Intended status: Informational Boeing Research & Technology Expires: March 3, 2019 G. Dawra LinkedIn A. Lindem V. Moreno Cisco Systems, Inc. August 30, 2018 A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-00.txt Abstract The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is investigating mobile routing solutions for a worldwide Aeronautical Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services (ATN/IPS). The ATN/IPS will eventually replace existing communication services with an IPv6-based service supporting pervasive Air Traffic Management (ATM) for Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), Airline Operations Controllers (AOC), and all commercial aircraft worldwide. This informational document describes a simple and extensible mobile routing service based on industry-standard BGP to address the ATN/IPS requirements. 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 March 3, 2019. Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. ATN/IPS Routing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. ATN/IPS Radio Access Network (RAN) Model . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. ATN/IPS Route Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. BGP Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1 . Introduction ICAO] is now undertaking the development of a next-generation replacement for ATN/ OSI known as Aeronautical Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services (ATN/IPS). ATN/IPS will eventually provide an IPv6-based [RFC8200] service supporting pervasive ATM for Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), Airline Operations Controllers (AOC), and all Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 commercial aircraft worldwide. As part of the ATN/IPS undertaking, a new mobile routing service will be needed. This document presents an approach based on the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC4271]. Aircraft communicate via wireless aviation data links that typically support much lower data rates than terrestrial wireless and wired- line communications. For example, some Very High Frequency (VHF)- based data links only support data rates on the order of 32Kbps and an emerging L-Band data link that is expected to play a key role in future aeronautical communications only supports rates on the order of 1Mbps. Although satellite data links can provide much higher data rates during optimal conditions, like any other aviation data link they are subject to errors, delay, disruption, signal intermittence, degradation due to atmospheric conditions, etc. The well-connected ground domain ATN/IPS network should therefore treat each safety-of- flight critical packet produced by (or destined to) an aircraft as a precious commodity and strive for an optimized service that provides the highest possible degree of reliability. The ATN/IPS is an IPv6-based overlay network that assumes a worldwide connected Internetworking underlay for carrying tunneled ATM communications. The Internetworking underlay could be manifested as a private collection of long-haul backbone links (e.g., fiber optics, copper, SATCOM, etc.) interconnected by high-performance networking gear such as bridges, switches, and routers. Such a private network would need to connect all ATN/IPS participants worldwide, and could therefore present a considerable cost for a large-scale deployment of new infrastructure. Alternatively, the ATN/IPS could be deployed as a secured overlay over the existing global public Internet. For example, ATN/IPS nodes could be deployed as part of an SD-WAN or an MPLS-WAN that rides over the public Internet via secured tunnels. Further details of the Internetworking underlay design are out of scope for this document. The ATN/IPS further assumes that each aircraft will receive an IPv6 Mobile Network Prefix (MNP) that accompanies the aircraft wherever it travels. ICAO is further proposing to assign each aircraft an entire /56 MNP for numbering its on-board networks. ATCs and AOCs will likewise receive IPv6 prefixes, but they would typically appear in static (not mobile) deployments such as air traffic control towers, airline headquarters, etc. Throughout the rest of this document, we therefore use the term "MNP" when discussing an IPv6 prefix that is delegated to any ATN/IPS end system, including ATCs, AOCs, and aircraft. We also use the term Mobility Service Prefix (MSP) to refer to an aggregated prefix assigned to the ATN/IPS by an Internet assigned numbers authority, and from which all MNPs are delegated (e.g., up to 2**32 IPv6 /56 MNPs could be delegated from an IPv6 /24 MSP). Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 Connexion By Boeing [CBB] was an early aviation mobile routing service based on dynamic updates in the global public Internet BGP routing system. Practical experience with the approach has shown that frequent injections and withdrawals of MNPs in the Internet routing system can result in excessive BGP update messaging, slow routing table convergence times, and extended outages when no route is available. This is due to both conservative default BGP protocol timing parameters (see Section 6) and the complex peering interconnections of BGP routers within the global Internet infrastructure. The situation is further exacerbated by frequent aircraft mobility events that each result in BGP updates that must be propagated to all BGP routers in the Internet that carry a full routing table. We therefore consider an approach using a BGP overlay network routing system where a private BGP routing protocol instance is maintained between ATN/IPS Autonomous System (AS) Border Routers (ASBRs). The private BGP instance does not interact with the native BGP routing system in the connected Internetworking underlay, and BGP updates are unidirectional from "stub" ASBRs (s-ASBRs) to a small set of "core" ASBRs (c-ASBRs) in a hub-and-spokes topology. No extensions to the BGP protocol are necessary. The s-ASBRs for each stub AS connect to a small number of c-ASBRs via dedicated high speed links and/or tunnels across the Internetworking underlay using industry-standard encapsulations (e.g., Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784], IPsec [RFC4301], etc.). In particular, tunneling must be used when neighboring ASBRs are separated by many Internetworking underlay hops. The s-ASBRs engage in external BGP (eBGP) peerings with their respective c-ASBRs, and only maintain routing table entries for the MNPs currently active within the stub AS. The s-ASBRs send BGP updates for MNP injections or withdrawals to c-ASBRs but do not receive any BGP updates from c-ASBRs. Instead, the s-ASBRs maintain default routes with their c-ASBRs as the next hop, and therefore hold only partial topology information. The c-ASBRs connect to other c-ASBRs using internal BGP (iBGP) peerings over which they collaboratively maintain a full routing table for all active MNPs currently in service. Therefore, only the c-ASBRs maintain a full BGP routing table and never send any BGP updates to s-ASBRs. This simple routing model therefore greatly reduces the number of BGP updates that need to be synchronized among peers, and the number is reduced further still when intradomain routing changes within stub ASes are processed within the AS instead of being propagated to the core. BGP Route Reflectors (RRs) [RFC4456] can also be used to support increased scaling properties. Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 The remainder of this document discusses the proposed BGP-based ATN/ IPS mobile routing service. 2 . Terminology RFC4271]. The following terms are defined for the purposes of this document: Air Traffic Management (ATM) The worldwide service for coordinating safe aviation operations. Air Traffic Controller (ATC) A government agent responsible for coordinating with aircraft within a defined operational region via voice and/or data Command and Control messaging. Airline Operations Controller (AOC) An airline agent responsible for tracking and coordinating with aircraft within their fleet. Aeronautical Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services (ATN/IPS) A future aviation network for ATCs and AOCs to coordinate with all aircraft operating worldwide. The ATN/IPS will be an IPv6-based overlay network service that connects access networks via tunneling over an Internetworking underlay. Internetworking underlay A connected wide-area network that supports overlay network tunneling and connects Radio Access Networks to the rest of the ATN/IPS. Radio Access Network (RAN) An aviation radio data link service provider's network, including radio transmitters and receivers as well as supporting ground- domain infrastructure needed to convey a customer's data packets to the outside world. The term RAN is intended in the same spirit as for cellular operator networks and other radio-based Internet service provider networks. For simplicity, we also use the term RAN to refer to ground-domain networks that connect AOCs and ATCs without any aviation radio communications. Core Autonomous System Border Router (c-ASBR) A BGP router located in the hub of the ATN/IPS hub-and-spokes overlay network topology. Core Autonomous System The "hub" autonomous system maintained by all c-ASBRs. Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 Stub Autonomous System Border Router (s-ASBR) A BGP router configured as a spoke in the ATN/IPS hub-and-spokes overlay network topology. Stub Autonomous System A logical grouping that includes all Clients currently associated with a given s-ASBR. Client An ATC, AOC or aircraft that connects to the ATN/IPS as a leaf node. The Client could be a singleton host, or a router that connects a mobile network. Proxy A node at the edge of a RAN that acts as an intermediary between Clients and s-ASBRs. From the Client's perspective, the Proxy presents the appearance that the Client is communicating directly with the s-ASBR. From the s-ASBR's perspective, the Proxy presents the appearance that the s-ASBR is communicating directly with the Client. Mobile Network Prefix (MNP) An IPv6 prefix that is delegated to any ATN/IPS end system, including ATCs, AOCs, and aircraft. Mobility Service Prefix (MSP) An aggregated prefix assigned to the ATN/IPS by an Internet assigned numbers authority, and from which all MNPs are delegated (e.g., up to 2**32 IPv6 /56 MNPs could be delegated from a /24 MSP). 3 . ATN/IPS Routing System RFC6793]. Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 The c-ASBRs use iBGP to maintain a synchronized consistent view of all active MNPs currently in service. Figure 1 below represents the reference deployment. (Note that the figure shows details for only two s-ASBRs (s-ASBR1 and s-ASBR2) due to space constraints, but the other s-ASBRs should be understood to have similar Stub AS, MNP and eBGP peering arrangements.) The solution described in this document is flexible enough to extend to these topologies. ........................................................... . . . (:::)-. <- Stub ASes -> (:::)-. . . MNPs-> .-(:::::::::) .-(:::::::::) <-MNPs . . `-(::::)-' `-(::::)-' . . +-------+ +-------+ . . |s-ASBR1+-----+ +-----+s-ASBR2| . . +--+----+ eBGP \ / eBGP +-----+-+ . . \ \/ / . . \eBGP / \ /eBGP . . \ / \ / . . +-------+ +-------+ . . eBGP+-----+c-ASBR |...|c-ASBR +-----+eBGP . . +-------+ / +--+----+ +-----+-+ \ +-------+ . . |s-ASBR +/ iBGP\ (:::)-. /iBGP \+s-ASBR | . . +-------+ .-(::::::::) +-------+ . . . .-(::::::::::::::)-. . . . . (:::: Core AS :::) . . . +-------+ `-(:::::::::::::)-' +-------+ . . |s-ASBR +\ iBGP/`-(:::::::-'\iBGP /+s-ASBR | . . +-------+ \ +-+-----+ +----+--+ / +-------+ . . eBGP+-----+c-ASBR |...|c-ASBR +-----+eBGP . . +-------+ +-------+ . . / \ . . /eBGP \eBGP . . / \ . . +---+---+ +-----+-+ . . |s-ASBR | |s-ASBR | . . +-------+ +-------+ . . . . . . <------------ Internetworking Underlay --------------> . ............................................................ Figure 1: Reference Deployment In the reference deployment, each s-ASBR maintains routes for active MNPs that currently belong to its stub AS. In response to "Inter- domain" mobility events, each s-ASBR will dynamically announces new MNPs and withdraws departed MNPs in its eBGP updates to c-ASBRs. Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 Since ATN/IPS end systems are expected to remain within the same stub AS for extended timeframes, however, intra-domain mobility events (such as an aircraft handing off between cell towers) are handled within the stub AS instead of being propagated as inter-domain eBGP updates. Each c-ASBR configures a black-hole route for each of its MSPs. By black-holing the MSPs, the c-ASBR will maintain forwarding table entries only for the MNPs that are currently active, and packets destined to all other MNPs will correctly incur ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable messages [RFC4443] due to the black hole route. (This is the same behavior as for ordinary BGP routers in the Internet when they receive packets for which there is no route available.) The c-ASBRs do not send eBGP updates for MNPs to s-ASBRs, but instead originate a default route. In this way, s-ASBRs have only partial topology knowledge (i.e., they know only about the active MNPs currently within their stub ASes) and they forward all other packets to c-ASBRs which have full topology knowledge. Scaling properties of this ATN/IPS routing system are limited by the number of BGP routes that can be carried by the c-ASBRs. A 2015 study showed that BGP routers in the global public Internet at that time carried more than 500K routes with linear growth and no signs of router resource exhaustion [BGP]. A more recent network emulation study also showed that a single c-ASBR can accommodate at least 1M dynamically changing BGP routes even on a lightweight virtual machine. Commercially-available high-performance dedicated router hardware can support many millions of routes. Therefore, assuming each c-ASBR can carry 1M or more routes, this means that at least 1M ATN/IPS end system MNPs can be serviced by a single set of c-ASBRs and that number could be further increased by using RRs and/or more powerful routers. Another means of increasing scale would be to assign a different set of c-ASBRs for each set of MSPs. In that case, each s-ASBR still peers with one or more c-ASBRs from each set of c-ASBRs, but the s-ASBR institutes route filters so that it only sends BGP updates to the specific set of c-ASBRs that aggregate the MSP. In this way, each set of c-ASBRs maintains separate routing and forwarding tables so that scaling is distributed across multiple c-ASBR sets instead of concentrated in a single c-ASBR set. For example, a first c-ASBR set could aggregate an MSP segment A::/32, a second set could aggregate B::/32, a third could aggregate C::/32, etc. The union of all MSP segments would then constitute the collective MSP(s) for the entire ATN/IPS. In this way, each set of c-ASBRs services a specific set of MSPs that they inject into the Internetworking underlay native routing system, and each s-ASBR configures MSP-specific routes that list the correct Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 set of c-ASBRs as next hops. This design also allows for natural incremental deployment, and can support initial medium-scale deployments followed by dynamic deployment of additional ATN/IPS infrastructure elements without disturbing the already-deployed base. For example, a few more c-ASBRs could be added if the MNP service demand ever outgrows the initial deployment. 4 . ATN/IPS Radio Access Network (RAN) Model I-D.templin-aerolink]. Clients register all of their active data link connections with their serving s-ASBRs as discussed in Section 3. Clients may connect to s-ASBRs either directly, or via a Proxy at the edge of the RAN. Figure 2 shows the ATN/IPS RAN model where Clients connect to RANs via aviation data links. Clients register their RAN addresses with a nearby s-ASBR, where the registration process may be brokered by a Proxy at the edge of the RAN. Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 Data Link "A" +--------+ Data Link "B" +----------- | Client |-----------+ / +--------+ \ / \ / \ (:::)-. (:::)-. .-(:::::::::) <- Radio Access Networks -> .-(:::::::::) `-(::::)-' `-(::::)-' +-------+ +-------+ ... | Proxy | ............................ | Proxy | ... . +-------+ +-------+ . . ^^ ^^ . . || || . . || +--------+ || . . ++============> | s-ASBR | <============++ . . +--------+ . . | eBGP . . (:::)-. . . .-(::::::::) . . .-(::: ATN/IPS :::)-. . . (::::: BGP Routing ::::) . . `-(:: System ::::)-' . . `-(:::::::-' . . . . . . <------------- Internetworking Underlay -------------> . ............................................................ Figure 2: ATN/IPS RAN Architecture When a Client logs into a RAN, it specifies a nearby s-ASBR that it has selected to connect to the ATN/IPS. The login process is brokered by a Proxy at the border of the RAN, which then conveys the connection request to the s-ASBR via tunneling across the Internetworking underlay. The s-ASBR then registers the address of the Proxy as the address for the Client, and the Proxy forwards the s-ASBR's reply to the Client. If the Client connects to multiple RANs, the s-ASBR will register the addresses of all Proxies as addresses through which the Client can be reached. The s-ASBR represents all of its active Clients as MNP routes in the ATN/IPS BGP routing system. The s-ASBR's stub AS therefore consists of the set of all of its active Clients (i.e., the stub AS is a logical construct and not a physical construct). The s-ASBR injects the MNPs of its active Clients and withdraws the MNPs of its departed Clients via BGP updates to c-ASBRs. Since Clients are expected to remain associated with their current s-ASBR for extended periods, the level of MNP injections and withdrawals in the BGP routing system Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 will be on the order of the numbers of network joins, leaves and s-ASBR handovers for aircraft operations (see: Section 6). It is important to observe that fine-grained events such as Client mobility and Quality of Service (QoS) signaling are coordinated only by Proxies and the Client's current s-ASBRs, and do not involve other ASBRs in the routing system. In this way, intradomain routing changes within the stub AS are not propagated into the rest of the ATN/IPS BGP routing system. 5 . ATN/IPS Route Optimization Section 3, this can initially only be accommodated by including multiple tunnel segments in the forwarding path. In many cases, it would be desirable to eliminate extraneous tunnel segments from this "dogleg" route so that packets can traverse a minimum number of tunneling hops across the Internetworking underlay. ATN/IPS end systems could therefore employ a route optimization service such as that discussed in [I-D.templin-aerolink]. A route optimization example is shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 below. In the first figure, multiple tunneled segments between Proxys and ASBRs are necessary to convey packets between Clients associated with different s-ASBRs. In the second figure, the optimized route tunnels packets directly between Proxys without involving the ASBRs. Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 +---------+ +---------+ | Client1 | | Client2 | +---v-----+ +-----^---+ * * * * (:::)-. (:::)-. .-(:::::::::) <- Radio Access Networks -> .-(:::::::::) `-(::::)-' `-(::::)-' +--------+ +--------+ ... | Proxy1 | .......................... | Proxy2 | ... . +--------+ +--------+ . . ** ** . . ** ** . . ** ** . . +---------+ +---------+ . . | s-ASBR1 | | s-ASBR2 | . . +--+------+ +-----+---+ . . \ ** Dogleg ** / . . eBGP\ ** Route ** /eBGP . . \ **==============** / . . +---------+ +---------+ . . | c-ASBR1 | | c-ASBR2 | . . +---+-----+ +----+----+ . . +--------------+ . . iBGP . . . . <------------- Internetworking Underlay -------------> . ............................................................ Figure 3: Dogleg Route Before Optimization Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 +---------+ +---------+ | Client1 | | Client2 | +---v-----+ +-----^---+ * * * * (:::)-. (:::)-. .-(:::::::::) <- Radio Access Networks -> .-(:::::::::) `-(::::)-' `-(::::)-' +--------+ +--------+ ... | Proxy1 | .......................... | Proxy2 | ... . +------v-+ +--^-----+ . . * * . . *================================* . . . . +---------+ +---------+ . . | s-ASBR1 | | s-ASBR2 | . . +--+------+ +-----+---+ . . \ / . . eBGP\ /eBGP . . \ / . . +---------+ +---------+ . . | c-ASBR1 | | c-ASBR2 | . . +---+-----+ +----+----+ . . +--------------+ . . iBGP . . . . <------------- Internetworking Underlay -------------> . ............................................................ Figure 4: Optimized Route 6 . BGP Protocol Considerations RFC4456]. The number of aircraft in operation at a given time worldwide is likely to be significantly less than 1M, but we will assume this number for a worst-case analysis. Assuming a worst-case average 1 Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 hour flight profile from gate-to-gate with 10 service region transitions per flight, the entire system will need to service at most 10M BGP updates per hour (2778 updates per second). This number is within the realm of the peak BGP update messaging seen in the global public Internet today [BGP2]. Assuming a BGP update message size of 100 bytes (800bits), the total amount of BGP control message traffic to a single c-ASBR will be less than 2.5Mbps which is a nominal rate for modern data links. Industry standard BGP routers provide configurable parameters with conservative default values. For example, the default hold time is 90 seconds, the default keepalive time is 1/3 of the hold time, and the default MinRouteAdvertisementinterval is 30 seconds for eBGP peers and 5 seconds for iBGP peers (see Section 10 of [RFC4271]). For the simple mobile routing system described herein, these parameters can and should be set to more aggressive values to support faster neighbor/link failure detection and faster routing protocol convergence times. For example, a hold time of 3 seconds and a MinRouteAdvertisementinterval of 0 seconds for both iBGP and eBGP. Each c-ASBR will be using eBGP both in the ATN/IPS and the Internetworking Underlay with the ATN/IPS unicast IPv6 routes resolving over Internetworking Underlay routes. Consequently, c-ASBRs and potentially s-ASBRs will need to support separate local ASes for the two BGP routing domains and routing policy or assure routes are not propagated between the two BGP routing domains. From a conceptual and operational standpoint, the implementation should provide isolation between the two BGP routing domains (e.g., separate BGP instances). 7 . Implementation Status 8 . IANA Considerations 9 . Security Considerations RFC4301], TLS [RFC5246], etc. Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 ATN/IPS ASBRs present targets for Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks. This concern is no different than for any node on the open Internet, where attackers could send spoofed packets to the node at high data rates. This can be mitigated by connecting ATN/IPS ASBRs over dedicated links with no connections to the Internet and/or when ASBR connections to the Internet are only permitted through well-managed firewalls. ATN/IPS s-ASBRs should institute rate limits to protect low data rate aviation data links from receiving DDoS packet floods. This document does not include any new specific requirements for mitigation of DDoS. 10 . Acknowledgements 11 . References 11.1 . Normative References 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>. [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>. [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>. Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS August 2018 Appendix A . Change Log draft-templin-atn-bgp' becomes 'draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp' Authors' Addresses Fred L. Templin (editor) Boeing Research & Technology P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 USA Email: fltemplin@acm.org Greg Saccone Boeing Research & Technology P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 USA Email: gregory.t.saccone@boeing.com Gaurav Dawra LinkedIn USA Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com Acee Lindem Cisco Systems, Inc. USA Email: acee@cisco.com Victor Moreno Cisco Systems, Inc. USA Email: vimoreno@cisco.com Templin, et al. Expires March 3, 2019 [Page 17]