draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-06.txt   draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-07.txt 
Inter-Domain Routing A. Retana Inter-Domain Routing A. Retana
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track R. White Intended status: Standards Track R. White
Expires: October 22, 2015 Ericsson Expires: May 4, 2016 Ericsson
April 20, 2015 November 1, 2015
BGP Custom Decision Process BGP Custom Decision Process
draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-06 draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-07
Abstract Abstract
The BGP specification defines a Decision Process for installation of The BGP specification describes a Decision Process for selecting the
routes into the Loc-RIB. This process takes into account an best route. This process uses a series of steps, made up of path
extensive series of path attributes, which can be manipulated to attributes and other values, to first determine the Degree of
indicate preference for specific paths. It is cumbersome (if at all Preference of a route and later as tie breakers. While existing
possible) for the end user to define policies that will select, after mechanisms may achieve some of the same results described in this
partial comparison, a path based on subjective local (domain and/or document, they can only do so through extensive configuration such as
node) criteria. matching communities to explicit policy and/or route preference
configurations present on each BGP speaker within their
administrative domain (autonomous system). Implementing some
specific fine grained policies through such mechanisms is cumbersome,
if even possible.
This document defines a new Extended Community, called the Cost This document defines a new Extended Community, called the Cost
Community, which may be used in tie breaking during the best path Community, which may be used as part of the Decision Process. The
selection process. The end result is a local custom decision end result is a local Custom Decision Process.
process.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The BGP Cost Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. The BGP Cost Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Cost Community Point of Insertion Registry . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Cost Community Point of Insertion Registry . . . . . 7 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B.1. Changes between the -00 and -01 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 A.1. Changes between the -00 and -01 versions. . . . . . . . . 9
B.2. Changes between the -01 and -02 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 A.2. Changes between the -01 and -02 versions. . . . . . . . . 10
B.3. Changes between the -02 and -03 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 A.3. Changes between the -02 and -03 versions. . . . . . . . . 10
B.4. Changes between the -03 and -04 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 A.4. Changes between the -03 and -04 versions. . . . . . . . . 10
B.5. Changes between the -04 and -05 versions. . . . . . . . . 9 A.5. Changes between the -04 and -05 versions. . . . . . . . . 10
B.6. Changes between the -05 and -06 versions. . . . . . . . . 9 A.6. Changes between the -05 and -06 versions. . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A.7. Changes between the -06 and -07 versions . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
There are a number of metrics available within the BGP decision The BGP specification defines a Decision Process [RFC4271] for
process [RFC4271] which can be used to determine the exit point for selecting the best route. This process uses a series of steps, made
traffic, but there is no metric, or combination of metrics, which can up of path attributes and other values, to first determine the Degree
be used to break a tie among generally equal paths. of Preference of a route and later as tie breakers. While existing
mechanisms may achieve some of the same results described in this
o LOCAL_PREF: The LOCAL_PREF is an absolute tie breaker near the document, they can only do so through extensive configuration such as
beginning of the decision process. There is no way to configure matching communities to explicit policy and/or route preference
the LOCAL_PREF such that the MED, IGP metric, and other metrics configurations present on each BGP speaker within their
are considered before breaking a tie. administrative domain (autonomous system). Implementing some
specific fine grained policies through such mechanisms is cumbersome,
if even possible. For example:
o MED: The MULTI_EXIT_DISC is an indicator of which local entrance o Local Preference: The LOCAL_PREF is an attribute used to calculate
point an AS would like a peering AS to use; MED isn't suitable to the Degree of Preference in the Decision Process. There is no
break the tie between two equal cost paths learned from two peer secondary degree of preference indicator available that can be
ASes. MED is also compared before the IGP metric; there is no way considered after the MED, IGP metric, or other attributes.
to set the MED so a path with a higher IGP metric is preferred
over a path with a lower IGP metric.
o IGP Metric: It is possible, using the IGP metric, to influence o Multi-Exit Discriminator (MED): The MULTI_EXIT_DISC is an
individual paths with otherwise equal cost metrics, but only by indicator of which local entrance point an AS would like a peering
changing the next hop towards each path, and configuring the IGP AS to use. As the MED is compared before the IGP metric, there is
costs of reaching each next hop. This method is cumbersome, and no way to set the MED so a route with a higher IGP metric is
prone to confusion and error. preferred over one with a lower IGP metric.
The BGP specification defines a Decision Process for installation of o IGP Metric: It is possible, to influence individual routes, but
routes into the Loc-RIB. This process takes into account an only by changing the next hops, and configuring the IGP metric for
extensive series of path attributes, which can be manipulated to reaching them. This method is cumbersome and prone to confusion
indicate preference for specific paths. It is cumbersome (if at all and error.
possible) for the end user to define policies that will select, after
partial comparison, a path based on subjective local (domain and/or
node) criteria.
This document defines a new Extended Community, called the Cost This document defines a new Extended Community [RFC4360], called the
Community, which may be used in tie breaking during the best path Cost Community, which may be used as part of the Decision Process.
selection process. The end result is a custom decision process. The end result is a local Custom Decision Process.
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. The BGP Cost Community 3. The BGP Cost Community
The BGP Cost Community is an Opaque Extended Community [RFC4360] The BGP Cost Community is an Opaque Extended Community [RFC4360]
defined as follows: defined as follows:
Type Field: Type Field:
The value of the high-order octet of this Opaque Extended The value of the high-order octet is determined by provisioning
Community is 0x03 or 0x43. The value of the low-order octet of [RFC4360]. IANA has assigned the codepoint value 0x01 to 'Cost
the extended type field for this community is 0x01. Community' in both the Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-
Types registry and the Non-Transitive Opaque Extended Community
Sub-Types registry.
Value Field: Value Field:
The Value field contains three distinct sub-fields, described The Value field contains three distinct sub-fields, described
below: below:
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
| Point of Insertion (1 octet) | | Point of Insertion (1 octet) |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
| Community-ID (1 octet) | | Community-ID (1 octet) |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
| Cost (4 octets) | | Cost (4 octets) |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
skipping to change at page 4, line 13 skipping to change at page 4, line 16
below: below:
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
| Point of Insertion (1 octet) | | Point of Insertion (1 octet) |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
| Community-ID (1 octet) | | Community-ID (1 octet) |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
| Cost (4 octets) | | Cost (4 octets) |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
The Point of Insertion sub-field contains the value of the path The Point of Insertion (POI) sub-field indicates *after*, or
attribute *after* which this community MUST be considered during *instead of*, which step in the Decision Process the Cost
the best path selection process. Community MUST be considered.
The BGP decision process includes some steps that do not The value of the POI may reference a path attribute used in the
correspond to any path attribute; the following values are Decision Process. In this case the Cost Community is
defined: considered after, or instead of, the step where the path
attribute is considered.
The Decision Process includes some steps that do not correspond
to any path attribute; the following values are defined:
128 ABSOLUTE_VALUE - Indicates that the Cost Community MUST be 128 ABSOLUTE_VALUE - Indicates that the Cost Community MUST be
considered as the first step in determining the Degree of considered as the first step in determining the Degree of
Preference of a path. Preference of a route (Section 9.1.1 of [RFC4271]). If two
routes have the same Cost, then the rest of the Calculation
of Degree of Preference is to be followed.
129 IGP_COST - Indicates that the Cost Community MUST be 129 IGP_COST - Indicates that the Cost Community MUST be
considered after the interior (IGP) distance to the next-hop considered after the interior (IGP) distance to the next-hop
has been compared. has been compared.
130 EXTERNAL_INTERNAL - Indicates that the Cost Community MUST 130 EXTERNAL_INTERNAL - Indicates that the Cost Community MUST
be considered after the paths advertised by BGP speakers in be considered after Paragraph d of Section 9.1.2.2 of
a neighboring autonomous system (if any) have been selected. [RFC4271].
131 BGP_ID - Indicates that the Cost Community MUST be 131 BGP_ID - Indicates that the Cost Community MUST be
considered after the BGP Identifier (or ORIGINATOR_ID considered after the BGP Identifier (or ORIGINATOR_ID
[RFC4456]) has been compared. [RFC4456]) has been compared.
This document creates a new Cost Community Point of Insertion
Registry (Section 7.1) that includes the relevant path
attributes and these other values.
The Community-ID sub-field contains an identifier to distinguish The Community-ID sub-field contains an identifier to distinguish
between multiple instances of the Cost Community. The high-order between multiple instances of the Cost Community. The high-order
bit is reserved to indicate that the Cost Community MUST replace bit indicates that the Cost Community MUST replace the step
the path attribute specified by the Point of Insertion during the indicated by the POI in the Decision Process.
best path selection process.
The Cost sub-field contains a value assigned by the network If the high-order bit is set, the Cost in the Cost Community
administrator and that is significant to the local autonomous may replace the value of a path attribute at a specific step in
system. The lower cost MUST be preferred. The default value is the Decision Process, but not the attribute itself. For
0x7FFFFFFF (half the maximum value). example, if the high-order bit is set with the AS_PATH POI, the
AS_PATH attribute would still be used for loop prevention
[RFC4271], but the Cost would replace its length in the
Decision Process.
The high-order bit MUST be ignored when used with the
ABSOLUTE_VALUE POI.
If the Accumulated IGP Metric Attribute (AIGP) [RFC7311] is
used such that the "AIGP-enhanced interior cost" replaces the
"interior cost" tie breaker in the Decision Process, and the
high-order bit is set with the IGP_COST POI, then the Cost
Community SHOULD be ignored in favor of the process described
in Section 4.2 of [RFC7311].
The Cost sub-field is a 32-bit unsigned integer. It contains a
value assigned by the network administrator that is significant to
their administrative domain. The default Cost is 0x7FFFFFFF (half
the maximum).
If the Cost Community is inserted after a step in the Decision
Process, and is therefore only compared to other Cost
Communities, the lower Cost MUST be preferred.
If the Cost Community replaces a step in the Decision Process,
it MUST be treated exactly as the value it is replacing would
be treated. It is up to the network administrator to select
the appropriate Cost to use when replacing a specific step; the
method to do that is outside the scope of this document.
4. Operation 4. Operation
The network administrator may use the Cost Community to assign a The network administrator may use the Cost Community to assign a Cost
value to a path originated or learned from a peer in any part of the to a route originated, or learned from a peer, in any part of their
local domain. The Point of Insertion MUST also be specified using administrative domain. The POI MUST also be specified.
the values defined in Appendix A.
If a BGP speaker receives a path that contains the Cost Community, it If a BGP speaker receives a route that contains the Cost Community,
SHOULD consider its value at the Point of Insertion specified, when it MUST consider its Cost at the POI specified, during the Decision
calculating the best path [RFC4271]. Process.
If the Point of Insertion is not valid for the local best path If the POI is not valid for the local Decision Process
selection implementation, then the Cost Community SHOULD be silently implementation, then the Cost Community SHOULD be silently ignored.
ignored. Paths that do not contain the Cost Community (for a valid,
particular Point of Insertion) MUST be considered to have the default
value.
Multiple Cost Communities may indicate the same Point of Insertion. Multiple Cost Communities may indicate the same POI. All the Cost
In this case, the Cost Community with the lowest Community-ID is Communities for a specific POI MUST be considered starting with the
considered first. In other words, all the Cost Communities for a one(s) with the lowest Community-ID. If multiple Cost Communities,
specific Point of Insertion MUST be considered, starting with the one for the same POI, with the same Community-ID are received for the
with the lowest Community-ID. same route from the same peer, then all except the one with the
lowest Cost MUST be silently ignored.
Routes that do not contain the Cost Community (for a valid,
particular POI), or a Community-ID present in a route from another
peer, MUST be considered to have the default Cost.
If a range of routes is to be aggregated and the resultant aggregate If a range of routes is to be aggregated and the resultant aggregate
path attributes do not carry the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute, then the path attributes do not carry the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute, then the
resulting aggregate SHOULD have an Extended Communities path resulting aggregate SHOULD have an Extended Communities path
attribute which contains the set union of all the Cost Communities attribute which contains the set union of all the Cost Communities
from all of the aggregated routes. If multiple Cost Communities for from all of the aggregated routes. If multiple Cost Communities for
the same Point of Insertion (and with the same Community-ID) exist, the same POI (and with the same Community-ID) exist, then only the
then only the ones with the highest Cost SHOULD be included. ones with the highest Cost SHOULD be included.
If the non-transitive version of a Cost Community is received across If the non-transitive version of a Cost Community is received across
an Autonomous System boundary, then the receiver MUST strip it off an Autonomous System boundary, then the receiver MUST strip it off
the BGP update, and ignore it when running the selection process. the BGP update, and ignore it during the Decision Process.
5. Deployment Considerations 5. Deployment Considerations
The mechanisms described in this document may be used to modify the The mechanisms described in this document may be used to modify the
BGP path selection process arbitrarily. It is important that a Decision Process arbitrarily. It is important that a consistent
consistent path selection process be maintained across the local Decision Process be maintained across the local Autonomous System to
Autonomous System to avoid potential routing loops. In other words, avoid potential routing loops. In other words, all the nodes in the
if the Cost Community is used, all the nodes in the AS that may have AS that may have to consider the Cost Community at any POI MUST
to consider this new community at any Point of Insertion SHOULD be support the mechanisms described in this document.
aware of the mechanisms described in this document.
6. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security concerns to BGP or other
specifications referenced in this document.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to assign the type values indicated in Section 3 to the
Cost Community in the BGP Opaque Extended Community registry
[BGP_EXT].
Section 3 also defines a series of values to be used to indicate
steps in the best path selection process that do not map directly to
a path attribute. IANA is expected to maintain a registry for the
Cost Community Point of Insertion values. Values 1 through 127 are
to be assigned using the "Standards Action" policy or the Early
Allocation process [RFC7120]. Values 128 through 191 are to be
assigned using the "IETF Consensus" policy. Values 192 through 254
are to be assigned using the "First Come First Served" policy.
Values 0 and 255 are reserved for future use and SHOULD NOT be used.
All the policies mentioned are documented in [RFC5226].
Some of the values in this new registry match the values assigned in Any mechanism which allows the modification of the Decision Process
the BGP Path Attributes registry [BGP_PAR]. It is RECOMMENDED that is capable of forming persistent routing loops in the control plane.
an effort be made to assign the same values in both tables when Network administrators deploying the Cost Community MUST ensure that
applicable. The table in Appendix A shows the initial allocations each impacted router in the network supports them, including the POIs
for the new Cost Community Point of Insertion registry. deployed within their network. This is similar in scope to a network
administrator who uses communities [RFC1997] combined with filters or
other policies to modify the Decision Process of BGP speakers.
Consistency must be enforced at an administrative level.
8. Acknowledgements 6. Security Considerations
There have been many people who have shown their support and provided This document defines a new Extended Community, called the Cost
valuable input, comments and implementations -- the authors would Community, which may be used to customize the Decision Process. As
like to thank all of them! We would like to also thank Dan Tappan such, the considerations outlined in [RFC4360] and [RFC4271] do not
for the Opaque Extended Community type. change.
9. References To minimize the potential of creating routing loops (Section 5) or
otherwise affecting the Decision Process in unintended ways, the
propagation of Cost Communities MUST be disabled by default and MUST
be explicitly enabled by the network administrator. Furthermore, all
transitive Cost Communities received across an Autonomous System
boundary without explicit configuration MUST be stripped off the BGP
update, and ignored during the Decision Process.
9.1. Normative References An ill-designed policy deployment using the Cost Community (e.g. one
where there is no consistent POI support throughout the AS) may
result in persistent routing loops that could result in loss of
traffic. The design and implementation of policies for best route
selection are outside the scope of this document.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 7. IANA Considerations
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended IANA has assigned the codepoint value 0x01 to 'Cost Community' in
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. both the Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-Types registry and
the Non-Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-Types registry.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an Section 3 also defines a series of values to be used to indicate
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, steps in the Decision Process that do not map directly to a path
May 2008. attribute. IANA is expected to maintain a registry for the Cost
Community POI values.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code o Values 1 through 127 are to be assigned using the "Standards
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014. Action" policy or the Early Allocation process [RFC7120].
9.2. Informative References o Values 128 through 191 are to be assigned using the "IETF
Consensus" policy.
[BGP_EXT] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "BGP Extended o Values 192 through 254 are to be assigned using the "First Come
Communities", 2010, <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ First Served" policy.
bgp-extended-communities>.
[BGP_PAR] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "BGP Parameters", o Values 0 and 255 are reserved.
2010, <http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway All the policies mentioned are documented in [RFC5226].
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route The table in Section 7.1 shows the initial allocations for the new
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP Cost Community Point of Insertion registry.
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006.
Appendix A. Cost Community Point of Insertion Registry 7.1. Cost Community Point of Insertion Registry
The tables below document the initial Cost Community Point of The tables below document the initial Cost Community Point of
Insertion Registry Insertion Registry
+---------+-------------------------+ +---------+-------------------------+
| Range | Registration Procedure | | Range | Registration Procedure |
+---------+-------------------------+ +---------+-------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | | 0 | Reserved |
| 1-127 | Standards Action | | 1-127 | Standards Action |
| 128-191 | IETF Consensus | | 128-191 | IETF Consensus |
| 192-254 | First Come First Served | | 192-254 | First Come First Served |
| 255 | Reserved | | 255 | Reserved |
+---------+-------------------------+ +---------+-------------------------+
skipping to change at page 8, line 14 skipping to change at page 8, line 25
+--------+-------------------+--------------------------------+ +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| Value | Code | Reference | | Value | Code | Reference |
+--------+-------------------+--------------------------------+ +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
| 1 | ORIGIN | RFC4271 | | 1 | ORIGIN | RFC4271 |
| 2 | AS_PATH | RFC4271 | | 2 | AS_PATH | RFC4271 |
| 3 | Unassigned | | | 3 | Unassigned | |
| 4 | MULTI_EXIT_DISC | RFC4271 | | 4 | MULTI_EXIT_DISC | RFC4271 |
| 5 | LOCAL_PREF | RFC4271 | | 5 | LOCAL_PREF | RFC4271 |
| 6-25 | Unassigned | | | 6-25 | Unassigned | |
| 26 | AIGP | draft-ietf-idr-aigp | | 26 | AIGP | RFC7311 |
| 27-127 | Unassigned | | | 27-127 | Unassigned | |
| 128 | ABSOLUTE_VALUE | draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision | | 128 | ABSOLUTE_VALUE | draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision |
| 129 | IGP_COST | draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision | | 129 | IGP_COST | draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision |
| 130 | EXTERNAL_INTERNAL | draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision | | 130 | EXTERNAL_INTERNAL | draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision |
| 131 | BGP_ID | draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision | | 131 | BGP_ID | draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision |
+--------+-------------------+--------------------------------+ +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------+
Point of Insertion Codes Point of Insertion
Appendix B. Change Log 8. Acknowledgements
B.1. Changes between the -00 and -01 versions. There have been many people who have shown their support and provided
valuable input, comments and implementations -- the authors would
like to thank all of them! We would like to also thank Dan Tappan
for the Opaque Extended Community type. Bruno Decraene and Eric
Rosen thoroughly reviewed this document and helped improved its
quality significantly.
9. References
9.1. 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,
<http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[RFC7311] Mohapatra, P., Fernando, R., Rosen, E., and J. Uttaro,
"The Accumulated IGP Metric Attribute for BGP", RFC 7311,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7311, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7311>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.
Appendix A. Change Log
This section is to be removed before publication.
A.1. Changes between the -00 and -01 versions.
o Updated authors' contact information. o Updated authors' contact information.
o Editorial changes in the "Operations" and "Acknowledgement" o Editorial changes in the "Operations" and "Acknowledgement"
sections. sections.
B.2. Changes between the -01 and -02 versions. A.2. Changes between the -01 and -02 versions.
o Updated authors' contact information. o Updated authors' contact information.
o Added text to replace a step in the selection process. o Added text to replace a step in the selection process.
o Minor edits. o Minor edits.
B.3. Changes between the -02 and -03 versions. A.3. Changes between the -02 and -03 versions.
o No changes; just a refresh. o No changes; just a refresh.
B.4. Changes between the -03 and -04 versions. A.4. Changes between the -03 and -04 versions.
o Updated authors' contact information. o Updated authors' contact information.
B.5. Changes between the -04 and -05 versions. A.5. Changes between the -04 and -05 versions.
o Updated authors' contact information. o Updated authors' contact information.
B.6. Changes between the -05 and -06 versions. A.6. Changes between the -05 and -06 versions.
o Updated RFC 7120 reference (from RFC 4020). o Updated RFC 7120 reference (from RFC 4020).
A.7. Changes between the -06 and -07 versions
o The review from Bruno Decraene and Eric Rosen resulted in several
important changes related to the clarity and consistency of the
document.
o Added considerations for co-existence with AIGP.
o Security Considerations.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alvaro Retana Alvaro Retana
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Rd. 7025 Kit Creek Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA USA
Email: aretana@cisco.com Email: aretana@cisco.com
Russ White Russ White
Ericsson Ericsson
Apex, NC 27539
USA
Email: russw@riw.us Email: russw@riw.us
 End of changes. 56 change blocks. 
170 lines changed or deleted 264 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/