BGP Large Communities
The information below is for an old version of the document.
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8092.
|Authors||Jakob Heitz , Job Snijders , Keyur Patel , Ignas Bagdonas , Nick Hilliard|
|Last updated||2016-11-14 (Latest revision 2016-11-13)|
|RFC stream||Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)|
GENART Last Call review (of -11) by Robert Sparks Ready with Nits
RTGDIR Early review (of -06) by Geoff Huston Has Issues
|Additional resources||Mailing list discussion|
|Stream||WG state||WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up|
|Document shepherd||John Scudder|
|IESG||IESG state||I-D Exists|
|Send notices to||"John Scudder" <email@example.com>|
IDR J. Heitz, Ed. Internet-Draft Cisco Intended status: Standards Track J. Snijders, Ed. Expires: May 18, 2017 NTT K. Patel Arrcus I. Bagdonas Equinix N. Hilliard INEX November 14, 2016 BGP Large Communities draft-ietf-idr-large-community-08 Abstract This document describes the BGP Large Communities attribute, an 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 with four-octet Autonomous System Numbers. 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 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 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 May 18, 2017. Heitz, et al. Expires May 18, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft BGP Large Communities November 2016 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 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. BGP Large Communities Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Canonical Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Reserved BGP Large Community values . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 5 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction BGP implementations typically support a routing policy language to control the distribution of routing information. Network operators attach BGP communities to routes to associate particular properties with these routes. These properties may include information such as the route origin location, or specification of a routing policy action to be taken, or one that has been taken, and is applied to all routes contained in a BGP Update Message where the Communities Attribute is included. Because BGP communities are optional transitive BGP attributes, BGP communities may be acted upon or otherwise used by routing policies in other Autonomous Systems (ASes) on the Internet. Heitz, et al. Expires May 18, 2017 [Page 2] Internet-Draft BGP Large Communities November 2016 BGP Communities attributes are a variable length attribute consisting of a set of one or more four-octet values, each of which specify a community [RFC1997]. Common use of the individual values of this attribute type split this single 32-bit value into two 16-bit values. The most significant word is interpreted as an Autonomous System Number (ASN) and the least significant word is a locally defined value whose meaning is assigned by the operator of the Autonomous System in the most significant word. Since the adoption of four-octet ASNs [RFC6793], the BGP Communities attribute can no longer accommodate the above encoding, as a two- octet word cannot fit a four-octet ASN. The BGP Extended Communities attribute [RFC4360] is also unsuitable. The six-octet length of the Extended Community value precludes the common operational practise of encoding four-octet ASNs in both the Global Administrator and the Local Administrator sub-fields. To address these shortcomings, this document defines a BGP Large Communities attribute encoded as an unordered set of one or more twelve-octet values, each consisting of a four-octet Global Administrator field and two four-octet operator-defined fields, each of which can be used to denote properties or actions significant to the operator of the Autonomous System assigning the values. 2. BGP Large Communities Attribute This document defines the BGP Large Communities attribute as an optional transitive path attribute of variable length. All routes with the BGP Large Communities attribute belong to the communities specified in the attribute. Each BGP Large Community value is encoded as a 12-octet quantity, as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Global Administrator | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Data Part 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Data Part 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Global Administrator: A four-octet namespace identifier. Local Data Part 1: A four-octet operator-defined value. Heitz, et al. Expires May 18, 2017 [Page 3] Internet-Draft BGP Large Communities November 2016 Local Data Part 2: A four-octet operator-defined value. The Global Administrator field is intended to allow different Autonomous Systems to define BGP Large Communities without collision. This field SHOULD either be one of the reserved values as defined below, or an Autonomous System Number (ASN). If it is a reserved value, then the Local Data Parts are as defined by the reserved value. If it is an ASN then the Local Data Parts are to be interpreted as defined by the owner of the ASN. There is no significance to the order in which twelve-octet Large Community Attribute values are encoded in a Large Communities attribute, A BGP speaker can transmit them in any order. Duplicate BGP Large Community values MUST NOT be transmitted. A receiving speaker MUST silently remove duplicate BGP Large Community values from a BGP Large Community attribute. 3. Aggregation If a range of routes is aggregated, then the resulting aggregate should have a BGP Large Communities attribute which contains all of the BGP Large Communities attributes from all of the aggregated routes. 4. Canonical Representation The canonical representation of BGP Large Communities is three separate unsigned integers in decimal notation in the following order: Global Administrator, Local Data 1, Local Data 2. Numbers MUST NOT contain leading zeros; a zero value MUST be represented with a single zero. Each number is separated from the next by a single colon. For example: 64496:4294967295:2, 64496:0:0. BGP Large Communities SHOULD be represented in the canonical representation. 5. Reserved BGP Large Community values The following Global Administrator values are reserved: 0, 65535, and 4294967295. Operators SHOULD NOT use these Global Administrator values. Although this document does not define any Special-Use BGP Large Communities, the Global Administrator values specified above could be used if there is a future need for them. Heitz, et al. Expires May 18, 2017 [Page 4] Internet-Draft BGP Large Communities November 2016 6. Error Handling The error handling of BGP Large Communities is as follows: o A BGP Large Communities attribute SHALL be considered malformed if the length of the BGP Large Communities Attribute value, expressed in octets, is not a non-zero multiple of 12. o A BGP UPDATE message with a malformed BGP 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 BGP 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 BGP Large Community values defined in Section 5. 7. Security Considerations This extension to BGP has similar security implications as BGP Communities [RFC1997]. This document does not change any underlying security issues associated with any other BGP Communities mechanism. Specifically, an AS relying on the BGP Large Communities 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 BGP Large Communities attribute. Specifying the mechanism to provide such trust is beyond the scope of this document. BGP Large Communities do not protect the integrity of each community value. Operators should be aware that it is possible for a BGP speaker to alter BGP Large Community Attribute values in a BGP Update Message. Protecting the integrity of the transitive handling of BGP Large Community attributes in a manner consistent with the intent of expressed BGP routing policies falls within the broader scope of securing BGP, and is not specifically addressed here. Network administrators should note the recommendations in Section 11 of BGP Operations and Security [RFC7454]. 8. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is intended to Heitz, et al. Expires May 18, 2017 [Page 5] Internet-Draft BGP Large Communities November 2016 assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist. As of today these vendors have produced an implementation of BGP Large Communities: o Cisco IOS XR o ExaBGP o GoBGP o BIRD o OpenBGPD o pmacct o Quagga The latest implementation news is tracked at http://largebgpcommunities.net/ . 9. IANA Considerations IANA has made an Early Allocation of the value 32 (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. Contributors The following people contributed significantly to the content of the document: John Heasley NTT Communications Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Adam Simpson Nokia Email: email@example.com Heitz, et al. Expires May 18, 2017 [Page 6] Internet-Draft BGP Large Communities November 2016 11. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Ruediger Volk, Russ White, Acee Lindem, Shyam Sethuram, Jared Mauch, Joel M. Halpern, Jeffrey Haas, Gunter van de Velde, Marco Marzetti, Eduardo Ascenco Reis, Mark Schouten, Paul Hoogsteder, Martijn Schmidt, Greg Hankins, Bertrand Duvivier, Barry O'Donovan, Grzegorz Janoszka, Linda Dunbar, Marco Davids, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Jeff Tantsura, Teun Vink, Adam Davenport, Theodore Baschak, Pier Carlo Chiodi, Nabeel Cocker, Ian Dickinson, Jan Baggen, Duncan Lockwood, David Farmer, Randy Bush, Wim Henderickx, Stefan Plug, Kay Rechthien, Rob Shakir, Warren Kumari, Gert Doering, Thomas King, Mikael Abrahamsson, Wesley Steehouwer, Sander Steffann, Brad Dreisbach, Martin Millnert, Christopher Morrow, Jay Borkenhagen, Arnold Nipper, Joe Provo, Niels Bakker, Bill Fenner, Tom Daly, Ben Maddison, Alexander Azimov, Brian Dickson, Peter van Dijk, Julian Seifert, Tom Petch, Tom Scholl, Arjen Zonneveld, Remco van Mook, Adam Chappell, Jussi Peltola, Kristian Larsson, Markus Hauschild, Richard Steenbergen, David Freedman, Richard Hartmann, Geoff Huston and Mach Chen for their support, insightful review and comments. 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>. [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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>. Heitz, et al. Expires May 18, 2017 [Page 7] Internet-Draft BGP Large Communities November 2016 12.2. Informative References [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>. [RFC7454] Durand, J., Pepelnjak, I., and G. Doering, "BGP Operations and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454, February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>. [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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>. 12.3. URIs  http://largebgpcommunities.net Authors' Addresses Jakob Heitz (editor) Cisco 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95054 USA Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Job Snijders (editor) NTT Communications Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 Amsterdam 1065 SZ The Netherlands Email: email@example.com Keyur Patel Arrcus, Inc Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Heitz, et al. Expires May 18, 2017 [Page 8] Internet-Draft BGP Large Communities November 2016 Ignas Bagdonas Equinix London UK Email: email@example.com Nick Hilliard INEX 4027 Kingswood Road Dublin 24 IE Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Heitz, et al. Expires May 18, 2017 [Page 9]