Route Target Constrained Distribution of Routes with no Route Targets
draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (idr WG)
Last updated 2017-05-08
Replaces draft-rosen-idr-rtc-no-rt
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Other - see Comment Log
Document shepherd John Scudder
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to "John Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
IDR Working Group                                          E. Rosen, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                    Juniper Networks, Inc.
Updates: 4684 (if approved)                                     K. Patel
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Arccus
Expires: November 9, 2017                                        J. Haas
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                               R. Raszuk
                                                            Bloomberg LP
                                                             May 8, 2017

 Route Target Constrained Distribution of Routes with no Route Targets
                    draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-07.txt

Abstract

   There are a variety of BGP-enabled services in which the originator
   of a BGP route may attach one or more "Route Targets" to the route.
   By means of a procedure known as "RT Constrained Distribution" (RTC),
   a given BGP speaker (call it "B") can announce the set of RTs in
   which it has interest.  The implication is that if a particular route
   (call it "R") carries any RTs at all, BGP speaker B wants to receive
   route R if and only if B has announced interest in one of the RTs
   carried by R.  However, if route R does not carry any RTs at all,
   prior specifications do not make it clear whether B's use of RTC
   implies that it does not want to receive route R.  This has caused
   interoperability problems in the field, as some implementations of
   RTC do not allow B to receive R, but some services presuppose that B
   will receive R.  This document updates RFC 4684 by clarifying the
   effect of the RTC mechanism on routes that do not have any RTs.

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 November 9, 2017.

Rosen, et al.           Expires November 9, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            RTC Behavior w/o RTs                  May 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.  Some Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Default Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   A BGP route can carry a particular type of BGP path attribute known
   as an "Extended Communities Attribute" [RFC4360].  Each such
   attribute can contain a variable number of typed communities.
   Certain typed communities are known as "Route Targets" (RTs)
   ([RFC4360], [RFC4364]).

   [RFC4684] defines a procedure, known as "RT Constrained Distribution"
   (RTC) that allows a BGP speaker to advertise its interest in a
   particular set of RTs.  It does so by advertising "RT membership
   information".  (See [RFC4684] for details.)  It may advertise RT
   membership for any number of RTs.  By advertising membership for a
   particular RT, a BGP speaker declares that it is interested in
Show full document text