draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-25.txt   draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-26.txt 
IDR Working Group C. Loibl IDR Working Group C. Loibl
Internet-Draft next layer Telekom GmbH Internet-Draft next layer Telekom GmbH
Obsoletes: 5575,7674 (if approved) S. Hares Obsoletes: 5575,7674 (if approved) S. Hares
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: November 21, 2020 R. Raszuk Expires: February 13, 2021 R. Raszuk
Bloomberg LP Bloomberg LP
D. McPherson D. McPherson
Verisign Verisign
M. Bacher M. Bacher
T-Mobile Austria T-Mobile Austria
May 20, 2020 August 12, 2020
Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules
draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-25 draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-26
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a Border Gateway Protocol Network Layer This document defines a Border Gateway Protocol Network Layer
Reachability Information (BGP NLRI) encoding format that can be used Reachability Information (BGP NLRI) encoding format that can be used
to distribute traffic Flow Specifications. This allows the routing to distribute traffic Flow Specifications. This allows the routing
system to propagate information regarding more specific components of system to propagate information regarding more specific components of
the traffic aggregate defined by an IP destination prefix. the traffic aggregate defined by an IP destination prefix.
It also specifies BGP Extended Community encoding formats, that can It also specifies BGP Extended Community encoding formats, that can
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 November 21, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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 27, line 38 skipping to change at page 27, line 38
| 10 | Packet length | [this document] | | 10 | Packet length | [this document] |
| 11 | DSCP | [this document] | | 11 | DSCP | [this document] |
| 12 | Fragment | [this document] | | 12 | Fragment | [this document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+ +-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Table 4: Registry: Flow Spec Component Types Table 4: Registry: Flow Spec Component Types
In order to manage the limited number space and accommodate several In order to manage the limited number space and accommodate several
usages, the following policies defined by [RFC8126] are used: usages, the following policies defined by [RFC8126] are used:
+--------------+-------------------------------+ +--------------+------------------------+
| Type Values | Policy | | Type Values | Policy |
+--------------+-------------------------------+ +--------------+------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | | 0 | Reserved |
| [1 .. 12] | Defined by this specification | | [1 .. 127] | Specification Required |
| [13 .. 127] | Specification required | | [128 .. 254] | Expert Review |
| [128 .. 255] | First Come First Served | | 255 | Reserved |
+--------------+-------------------------------+ +--------------+------------------------+
Table 5: Flow Spec Component Types Policies Table 5: Flow Spec Component Types Policies
Guidance for Experts:
128-254 requires Expert Review as the registration policy. The
Experts are expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of
the requested code points. The Experts must also verify that
any specification produced in the IETF that requests one of
these code points has been made available for review by the IDR
working group and that any specification produced outside the
IETF does not conflict with work that is active or already
published within the IETF. It must be pointed out that
introducing new component types may break interoperability with
existing implementations of this protocol.
11.3. Extended Community Flow Specification Actions 11.3. Extended Community Flow Specification Actions
The Extended Community Flow Specification Action types defined in The Extended Community Flow Specification Action types defined in
this document consist of two parts: this document consist of two parts:
Type (BGP Transitive Extended Community Type) Type (BGP Transitive Extended Community Type)
Sub-Type Sub-Type
For the type-part, IANA maintains a registry entitled "BGP Transitive For the type-part, IANA maintains a registry entitled "BGP Transitive
skipping to change at page 34, line 28 skipping to change at page 34, line 33
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
15.2. Informative References 15.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6] [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6]
Loibl, C., Raszuk, R., and S. Hares, "Dissemination of Loibl, C., Raszuk, R., and S. Hares, "Dissemination of
Flow Specification Rules for IPv6", draft-ietf-idr-flow- Flow Specification Rules for IPv6", draft-ietf-idr-flow-
spec-v6-11 (work in progress), April 2020. spec-v6-13 (work in progress), July 2020.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., [RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009, Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 25 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/