Revised Validation Procedure for BGP Flow Specifications
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid-08

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (idr WG)
Last updated 2019-06-10 (latest revision 2019-05-09)
Replaces draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state In WG Last Call
Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway, Other - see Comment Log
Document shepherd Susan Hares
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Network Working Group                                          J. Uttaro
Internet-Draft                                                      AT&T
Updates: 5575bis (if approved)                                J. Alcaide
Intended status: Standards Track                             C. Filsfils
Expires: November 10, 2019                                      D. Smith
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            P. Mohapatra
                                                        Sproute Networks
                                                             May 9, 2019

        Revised Validation Procedure for BGP Flow Specifications
                   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid-08

Abstract

   This document describes a modification to the validation procedure
   defined in RFC 5575bis for the dissemination of BGP flow
   specifications.  RFC 5575bis requires that the originator of the flow
   specification matches the originator of the best-match unicast route
   for the destination prefix embedded in the flow specification.  This
   allows only BGP speakers within the data forwarding path (such as
   autonomous system border routers) to originate BGP flow
   specifications.  Though it is possible to disseminate such flow
   specifications directly from border routers, it may be operationally
   cumbersome in an autonomous system with a large number of border
   routers having complex BGP policies.  The modification proposed
   herein enables flow specifications to be originated from a
   centralized BGP route controller.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   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 https://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 November 10, 2019.

Uttaro, et al.          Expires November 10, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Revised Flowspec Validation Procedure         May 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Revised Validation Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Motivation

   Step (a) of the validation procedure in [RFC5575bis], section 6 is
   defined with the underlying assumption that the flow specification
   NLRI traverses the same path, in the inter-domain and intra-domain
   route distribution graph, as that of the longest-match unicast route
   for the destination prefix embedded in the flow specification.

   In the case of inter-domain traffic filtering, for example, the flow
   specification originator at the egress border routers of ASN1 (RTR-D
   and RTR-E in figure 1) matches the EBGP neighbor that advertised the
   longest match destination prefix (RTR-F and RTR-G respectively).
   Similarly, at the ingress border routers of ASN1 (RTR-A and RTR-B in
   figure 1), the flow specification originator matches the egress IBGP
   border routers that had advertised the unicast route for the best-

Uttaro, et al.          Expires November 10, 2019               [Page 2]
Show full document text