draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-01.txt   draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-02.txt 
Network Working Group D. Rao Network Working Group D. Rao
Internet-Draft P. Mohapatra Internet-Draft P. Mohapatra
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: April 29, 2010 J. Haas Expires: January 27, 2011 J. Haas
Arbor Networks Juniper Networks
October 26, 2009 July 26, 2010
Generic Subtype for BGP Four-octet AS specific extended community Generic Subtype for BGP Four-octet AS specific extended community
draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-01.txt draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-02.txt
Abstract
Maintaining the current best practices with communities, ISPs and
enterprises that are assigned a 4-octet AS number may want the BGP
UPDATE messages they receive from their customers or peers to include
a 4-octet AS specific extended community. This document defines a
new sub-type within the four-octet AS specific extended community to
facilitate this practice.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. 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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on January 27, 2011.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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 in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Abstract include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
Maintaining the current best practices with communities, ISPs and described in the Simplified BSD License.
enterprises that are assigned a 4-octet AS number may want the BGP
UPDATE messages they receive from their customers or peers to include
a 4-octet AS specific extended community. This document defines a
new sub-type within the four-octet AS specific extended community to
facilitate this practice.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Generic Sub-type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Generic Sub-type Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
skipping to change at page 3, line 32 skipping to change at page 3, line 32
corresponding LOCAL_PREF on their advertisements to the IBGP mesh. corresponding LOCAL_PREF on their advertisements to the IBGP mesh.
In this way, customers can put into practice topologies like active- In this way, customers can put into practice topologies like active-
backup. backup.
When such a provider is assigned a four-octet AS number, the existing When such a provider is assigned a four-octet AS number, the existing
mechanism of using communities is not sufficient since the AS portion mechanism of using communities is not sufficient since the AS portion
of the RFC 1997 community cannot exceed two bytes. The natural of the RFC 1997 community cannot exceed two bytes. The natural
alternative is to extend the same mechanism using extended alternative is to extend the same mechanism using extended
communities since it allows for encoding eight bytes of information. communities since it allows for encoding eight bytes of information.
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-as4octet-ext-community] defines a format for a four- [RFC5668] defines a format for a four-octet AS specific extended
octet AS specific extended community with a designated type field. community with a designated type field. That document defines two
That document defines two sub-types: Four-octet specific Route Target sub-types: Four-octet specific Route Target extended community and
extended community and Four-octet specific Route Origin extended Four-octet specific Route Origin extended community. This document
community. This document specifies a generic sub-type for the four- specifies a generic sub-type for the four-octet AS specific extended
octet AS specific extended community to provide benefits such as the community to provide benefits such as the one cited above as the
one cited above as the Internet migrates to four-octet AS space. Internet migrates to four-octet AS space.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Generic Sub-type Definition 2. Generic Sub-type Definition
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
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 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 31 skipping to change at page 5, line 31
---- ----- ---- -----
transitive generic four-octet AS specific 0x0204 transitive generic four-octet AS specific 0x0204
non-transitive generic four-octet AS specific 0x4204 non-transitive generic four-octet AS specific 0x4204
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
There are no additional security risks introduced by this design. There are no additional security risks introduced by this design.
7. Normative References 7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-as4octet-ext-community]
Rekhter, Y., Sangli, S., and D. Tappan, "Four-octet AS
Specific BGP Extended Community",
draft-ietf-l3vpn-as4octet-ext-community-03 (work in
progress), March 2009.
[RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP [RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP
Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996. Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.
[RFC1998] Chen, E. and T. Bates, "An Application of the BGP [RFC1998] Chen, E. and T. Bates, "An Application of the BGP
Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing", RFC 1998, Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing", RFC 1998,
August 1996. August 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
[RFC4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-octet AS [RFC4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-octet AS
Number Space", RFC 4893, May 2007. Number Space", RFC 4893, May 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC5668] Rekhter, Y., Sangli, S., and D. Tappan, "4-Octet AS
Specific BGP Extended Community", RFC 5668, October 2009.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dhananjaya Rao Dhananjaya Rao
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive 170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: dhrao@cisco.com Email: dhrao@cisco.com
Pradosh Mohapatra Pradosh Mohapatra
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive 170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: pmohapat@cisco.com Email: pmohapat@cisco.com
Jeffrey Haas Jeffrey Haas
Arbor Networks Juniper Networks
2727 S. State St. 1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA USA
Email: jhaas@arbor.net Email: jhaas@pfrc.org
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 39 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/