draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-02.txt   rfc8093.txt 
IDR J. Snijders Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Snijders
Internet-Draft NTT Request for Comments: 8093 NTT
Intended status: Standards Track December 29, 2016 Category: Standards Track February 2017
Expires: July 2, 2017 ISSN: 2070-1721
Deprecation of BGP Path Attribute values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 Deprecation of BGP Path Attribute
draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-02 Values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243
Abstract Abstract
This document requests IANA to mark BGP path attribute values 30, 31, This document requests IANA to mark BGP path attribute values 30, 31,
129, 241, 242, and 243 as "deprecated". 129, 241, 242, and 243 as "Deprecated".
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 2, 2017. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8093.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
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. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
It has been discovered that certain BGP Path Attribute values have It has been discovered that certain BGP Path Attribute values have
been used in BGP implementations which have been deployed in the wild been used in BGP implementations that have been deployed in the wild
while not being assigned by the IANA for such usage. Unregistered while not being assigned by IANA for such usage. Unregistered usage
usage of BGP Path Attribute values can lead to deployment problems of BGP Path Attribute values can lead to deployment problems for new
for new technologies. technologies.
The use of these unregistered values was noticed when BGP Large The use of these unregistered values was noticed when the BGP Large
Communities attribute [I-D.ietf-idr-large-community] was initially Communities attribute [RFC8092] was initially assigned value 30 by
assigned value 30 by IANA. It was subsequently discovered that a IANA. It was subsequently discovered that a widely deployed BGP-4
widely-deployed BGP-4 [RFC4271] implementation had released code [RFC4271] implementation had released code that used path attribute
which used path attribute 30 and which applied a "Treat-as-withdraw" 30 and that applied a "Treat-as-withdraw" [RFC7606] strategy to
[RFC7606] strategy to routes containing a valid Large Community routes containing a valid Large Community attribute, since it was
attribute, since it was expecting a different data structure. expecting a different data structure. Because these routes were
Because these routes were dropped, early adopters of Large dropped, early adopters of Large Communities were unreachable from
Communities were unreachable from parts of the Internet. As a parts of the Internet. As a workaround, a new Early IANA Allocation
workaround, a new Early IANA Allocation was requested. was requested.
The squatting of values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242 and 243 has been The squatting of values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 has been
confirmed by the involved vendors or through source code review. confirmed by the involved vendors or through source code review.
2. IANA Considerations 2. IANA Considerations
Per this document, IANA is requested to mark values 30, 31, 129, 241, IANA has marked values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 as "Deprecated"
242, and 243 as "deprecated" in the "BGP Path Attributes" registry in the "BGP Path Attributes" subregistry under the "Border Gateway
under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group. The Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry. The marking "Deprecated" means
marking "deprecated" meaning "use is not recommended" "use is not recommended" ([IANA-GUIDELINES]).
([I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis]).
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
There are no meaningful security consequences arising from this There are no meaningful security consequences arising from this
registry update. registry update.
4. Informative References 4. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-large-community] [IANA-GUIDELINES]
Heitz, J., Snijders, J., Patel, K., Bagdonas, I., and N.
Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities", draft-ietf-idr-large-
community-11 (work in progress), December 2016.
[I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis]
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", draft- Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", Work in
leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-18 (work in progress), September Progress, draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-18, September
2016. 2016.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. [RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015, RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements [RFC8092] Heitz, J., Ed., Snijders, J., Ed., Patel, K., Bagdonas,
I., and N. Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities Attribute",
RFC 8092, DOI 10.17487/RFC8092, February 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8092>.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to gratefully acknowledge Marlien Vijfhuizen The author would like to gratefully acknowledge Marlien Vijfhuizen
who helped discover the squatting of value 30, and Nick Hilliard for who helped discover the squatting of value 30, and Nick Hilliard for
editorial feedback. editorial feedback.
Author's Address Author's Address
Job Snijders Job Snijders
NTT Communications NTT Communications
Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 Theodorus Majofskistraat 100
Amsterdam 1065 SZ Amsterdam 1065 SZ
NL The Netherlands
Email: job@ntt.net Email: job@ntt.net
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
51 lines changed or deleted 47 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/