--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-large-community-01.txt 2016-10-08 11:15:54.478257798 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-large-community-02.txt 2016-10-08 11:15:54.498258310 -0700 @@ -1,33 +1,32 @@ IDR J. Heitz Internet-Draft Cisco Intended status: Standards Track K. Patel -Expires: April 4, 2017 Arrcus +Expires: April 11, 2017 Arrcus J. Snijders NTT I. Bagdonas Equinix A. Simpson Nokia - October 1, 2016 + October 8, 2016 Large BGP Communities - draft-ietf-idr-large-community-01 + draft-ietf-idr-large-community-02 Abstract This document describes the Large BGP Community attribute, an - extension to BGP (RFC 4271). This attribute provides a mechanism to - signal opaque information within separate namespaces to aid in - routing management. The attribute is suitable for use in 4-byte ASNs - (RFC 6793). + extension to BGP-4. This attribute provides a mechanism to signal + opaque information within separate namespaces to aid in routing + management. The attribute is suitable for use in 4-octet ASNs. 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]. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the @@ -36,21 +35,21 @@ 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 http://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 April 4, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -123,59 +122,56 @@ 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Global Administrator | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Data Part 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Data Part 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Global Administrator: A four-octet namespace identifier. This - SHOULD be an Autonomous System Number assigned by IANA. + SHOULD be an Autonomous System Number. Local Data Part 1: A four-octet operator-defined value. Local Data Part 2: A four-octet operator-defined value. The Global Administrator field is intended to allow different Autonomous Systems to define Large Communities without collision. Implementations MUST allow the operator to specify any value for the Global Administrator field. There is no significance to the order in which Large Communities are encoded in a path attributes field and a receiving speaker MAY retransmit them in an order different from which it received them. Duplicate Large Communities SHOULD NOT be transmitted. A receiving speaker SHOULD silently remove duplicate Large Communities from a BGP UPDATE message. - There are no routing semantics implied by the Global Administrator - field. - 3. Aggregation If a range of routes is aggregated and the resulting aggregates attribute section does not carry the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute, then the resulting aggregate should have a Large Communities path attribute which contains all of the large communities from all of the aggregated routes. 4. Textual Representation - BGP Communities [RFC1997] are usually represented in routing policy + BGP Communities [RFC1998] are usually represented in routing policy languages as two individual two-octet unsigned integers separated by a colon; for example, 64496:12345. BGP Large Communities implementations MUST represent Large Communities in a manner similar to their representation of BGP - Communities [RFC1997]. Large Communities MUST be represented as + Communities [RFC1998]. Large Communities MUST be represented as three separate four-octet unsigned integers in decimal format with no leading zeros. These integers MUST NOT be omitted, even when zero. For example, 64496:4294967295:2 or 64496:0:0. Vendors MAY provide other textual representations. For example, a vendor's routing policy language may use a separator other than a colon or may require keywords or characters prepending or postpending the Large Communities attribute. Such differences are permitted. However, each implementation MUST make a representation available that depicts the integers in decimal and in the following order: @@ -203,27 +199,24 @@ o A BGP UPDATE message with a malformed Large Communities attribute SHALL be handled using the approach of "treat-as-withdraw" as described in section 2 [RFC7606]. The BGP Large Communities Global Administrator field may contain any value, and a Large Communities attribute MUST NOT be considered malformed if the Global Administrator field contains an unallocated, unassigned or reserved ASN or is set to one of the reserved Large BGP Community values defined in Section 5. - A receiving speaker MUST NOT consider duplicate Large Communities - attributes in a BGP UPDATE message to be malformed. - 7. Security Considerations This extension to BGP has similar security implications as BGP - Communities [RFC1997] and BGP Extended Communities [RFC4360]. + Communities [RFC1997]. This document does not change any underlying security issues associated with any other BGP Communities mechanism. Specifically, an AS relying on the Large BGP Community attribute carried in BGP must have trust in every other AS in the path, as any intermediate Autonomous System in the path may have added, deleted or altered the Large BGP Community attribute. Specifying the mechanism to provide such trust is beyond the scope of this document. Network administrators should note the recommendations in Section 11 @@ -248,28 +241,31 @@ BGP Community: o Cisco IOS XR o ExaBGP o GoBGP o BIRD + o OpenBGPD + The latest implementation news is tracked at http://largebgpcommunities.net/ [1]. 9. IANA Considerations - IANA has assigned value 30 (LARGE_COMMUNITY Attribute) in the "BGP - Path Attributes" sub-registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol - (BGP) Parameters" registry. + IANA has made an Early Allocation of the value 30 (LARGE_COMMUNITY) + in the "BGP Path Attributes" registry under the "Border Gateway + Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group and is now asked to make that + Permanent. 10. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Ruediger Volk, Russ White, Acee Lindem, Shyam Sethuram, Jared Mauch, Joel M. Halpern, Nick Hilliard, Jeffrey Haas, John Heasley, Gunter van de Velde, Marco Marzetti, Eduardo Ascenco Reis, Mark Schouten, Paul Hoogsteder, Martijn Schmidt, Greg Hankins, Acee Lindem, Bertrand Duvivier, Barry O'Donovan, Grzegorz Janoszka, Linda Dunbar, Marco Davids, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Jeff Tantsura, Teun Vink, Adam Davenport, Theodore Baschak, @@ -301,23 +297,24 @@ DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, . [RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015, . 11.2. Informative References - [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended - Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, - February 2006, . + [RFC1998] Chen, E. and T. Bates, "An Application of the BGP + Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing", RFC 1998, + DOI 10.17487/RFC1998, August 1996, + . [RFC7454] Durand, J., Pepelnjak, I., and G. Doering, "BGP Operations and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454, February 2015, . [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, .