BGP Interface Autoconfiguration via Router Hierarchy Comparison
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The manual configuration of BGP interfaces between edge routers in IP communication networks is error-prone and burdensome, particularly when adding new routing domains, as it requires precise IP and GRE address assignments and BGP identifier management, which can disrupt data packet routing across the network.
Innovation Solution
A method of autoconfiguring BGP interfaces using predefined 'low' and 'high' configuration files based on hierarchical levels of border routers, assigning default simulated BGP identifiers and virtual routing tables, and disabling loopback prevention to enable seamless interface configuration without operator communication.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Manufacturing precision
If manual configuration of BGP interfaces is performed, then precise IP and GRE address assignments can be achieved, but the configuration process becomes error-prone and burdensome for operators
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs self-configuration by automatically generating BGP interface configurations, IP addresses, and GRE addresses without requiring manual operator input. The border router autonomously assigns configuration parameters based on pre-defined templates and hierarchical level comparisons, eliminating human error while maintaining configuration precision.
Solution Approach 2:
The invention changes the configuration parameters from manually assigned values to automatically generated values based on hierarchical levels. By comparing the hierarchical levels of local and remote border routers, the system dynamically assigns appropriate configuration parameters (IP addresses, GRE addresses, BGP identifiers) without requiring manual intervention, thus reducing operator burden while maintaining precision.
2Adaptability or versatility
If manual configuration files are created for each junction, then specific routing requirements can be met, but the deployment time and complexity increase significantly
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary configuration by pre-defining configuration templates for different hierarchical levels before actual junction deployment. When a new junction is established, the border router automatically selects and applies the appropriate pre-defined templates based on hierarchical level comparison, eliminating the need to create configuration files from scratch for each junction and significantly reducing deployment time while maintaining routing flexibility.
Solution Approach 2:
The invention creates a universal configuration system where a single set of pre-defined templates serves multiple junctions across different hierarchical levels. The same template mechanism can be applied to any border router junction by comparing hierarchical levels, making the system universally applicable to all routing domain connections without requiring custom configuration files for each specific case.
3Reliability
If BGP loopback prevention is enabled, then routing security is maintained, but automated configuration becomes more complex due to address uniqueness requirements
Solution Approach 1:
The system applies local quality by enabling loopback prevention only where necessary - specifically when the hierarchical levels of border routers indicate potential routing loops. By comparing hierarchical levels, the system selectively applies loopback prevention measures only to configurations where they are needed, rather than universally applying them to all junctions, thus maintaining security while reducing overall configuration complexity.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
This method for configuring a junction (111), through which a BGP neighborhood is established and which extends between a local interface (113) of a local border router (102) and a remote interface (114) of a remote border router (112), includes the steps of: predefining a "low" configuration file (F1) and a "high" configuration file (F2); comparing a hierarchical level of the local router (102) and a hierarchical level of the remote router (112); and, if the local router has the lowest hierarchical level and the remote router has the highest hierarchical level, configuring the local interface with the "low" configuration file and the remote interface with the "high" configuration file, otherwise configuring the local interface with the "high" configuration file and the remote interface with the "low" configuration file.