The 'via' keyword in RPSL Policy Specifications
draft-snijders-rpsl-via-00

Network Working Group                                        J. Snijders
Internet-Draft                                        Atrato IP Networks
Intended status: Informational                               N. Hilliard
Expires: December 4, 2013                                           INEX
                                                            June 4, 2013

            The 'via' keyword in RPSL Policy Specifications
                       draft-snijders-rpsl-via-00

Abstract

   This document defines the 'via' keyword which can be used in RPSL
   policy specifications to publish desired routing policy regarding
   non-adjacent networks.

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 30, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.

Snijders & Hilliard    Expires November 30, 2013                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         The 'via' keyword in RPSL                May 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Import and Export Via Syntax and Semantics  . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Example Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Grammar Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix B.  Support and Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix C.  Document Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   The Routing Policy Specification Language [RFC4012] allows operators
   to specify routing policies regarding directly adjacent networks
   through various import and export attributes.  These attributes only
   apply to directly adjacent networks.

   This document proposes to extend RPSL according to the following
   goals and requirements:

      Provide a way to describe what an adjacent network could use as
      routing policy towards its adjacent networks.

      The extension should be backward compatible with minimal impact on
      existing tools and processes, following Section 10 of [RFC2622].

   The addition of a 'via' keyword in import and export related
   attributes will especially help participants of Multi-Lateral Peering
   services to inform the intermediate autonomous system what routing
   policy should be applied towards other participants.

2.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

3.  Background

Snijders & Hilliard    Expires November 30, 2013                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         The 'via' keyword in RPSL                May 2013

   The via keyword specifically benefits operators whom were assigned a
   32 bit AS Number and transit providers when participating in Multi-
   Lateral Peering Agreements facilitated by a Route Server.

   Often Route Server operators overload BGP Communities [RFC1997]) to
   facilitate signalling of desired routing policy between the
   participants and the Route Server.  Because BGP Communities have a
   length of 32 bit, it is not possible to signal a 32 bit AS Number
   coupled with an action.  In practise this means Route Server
   participants whom use a 32 bit AS Number cannot specifically be
   included or excluded during path distribution calculations on the
   Route Server unless a mapping system is applied.

   Transit providers often uphold a routing policy which intents that
   the transit provider does not want to exchange paths with its
   downstream customers through Route Servers.  The via keyword allows
   transit providers to participate in Multi-Lateral Peering services
   while instructing Route Server operators through a simple routing
   policy specification that paths should not be distributed to
   downstream customers and reducing the likelyhood of Path Hiding on
   the Route Server.

4.  Import and Export Via Syntax and Semantics

   The via keyword can be used with the following policy attributes:

       import: 
       export: 
       mp-import: 
       mp-export:

   The syntax for these attributes is as follows:

Snijders & Hilliard    Expires November 30, 2013                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         The 'via' keyword in RPSL                May 2013

   Attribute  Value                                         Type
   import     [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]   optional,
              [via <peering-1>]                             optional,
              from <peering-2> [action <action-1>]
              . . .
              [via <peering-3>]                             optional,
              from <peering-N> [action <action-N>]
              accept <filter>
   export     [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]   optional,
              [via <peering-1>]                             optional,
              to <peering-2> [action <action-1>]
              . . .
              [via <peering-3>]                             optional,
              to <peering-N> [action <action-N>]
              announce <filter>

   mp-import  [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]   optional,
              [afi <afi-list>]                              multi-valued
              [via <peering-1>]                             optional,
              from <mp-peering-2> [action <action-1>; ... <action-N>;]
              . . .
              [via <peering-3>]                             optional,
              from <mp-peering-M> [action <action-1>; ... <action-N>;]
              accept <mp-filter> [;]

   mp-export  [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]   optional,
              [afi <afi-list>]                              multi-valued
              [via peering-1>]                              optional,
              to <mp-peering-2> [action <action-1>; ... <action-N>;]
              . . .
              [via peering-3>]                              optional,
              to <mp-peering-M> [action <action-1>; ... <action-N>;]
              announce <mp-filter> [;]

                                 Figure 1

   The via keyword is optional, and should be ignored by implementations
   which do not support interpretation of the via keyword.

   In the above example <peering-1> and <peering-3> are directly
   adjacent networks, for instance a Multi-Lateral Peering service.
   <peering-2> is a non-adjacent network.

5.  Example Usage

   Putting it all together:

Snijders & Hilliard    Expires November 30, 2013                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         The 'via' keyword in RPSL                May 2013

      aut-num: AS5580
      import: via AS6777
                   from AS15562
                   action pref = 2;
                   accept AS-SNIJDERS
      import: via AS6777
                   from AS5580:AS-CUSTOMERS
                   accept NOT ANY
      import: via AS6777 from AS15562
                   from AS1
                   from AS2
                   via AS3 from AS4
                   accept PeerAS
      mp-import: afi ipv6.unicast via AS6777
                   from AS15562 accept AS-SNIJDERS
      mp-import: via AS6777
                   from AS65551 accept AS-SET-FROM-32BIT-ASN
      export: via AS6777
                   to AS15562 action community.={5580:40};
                   announce AS-ATRATO
      export: via AS5580:AS-ROUTESERVERS
                   to AS5580:AS-CUSTOMERS announce NOT ANY
      mp-export: afi ipv6.unicast via AS6777
                   to AS15562 announce AS-ATRATO
      mp-export: via AS6777
                   to AS65551 announce AS-ATRATO

                                 Figure 2

   In the above examples AS5580 and AS15562 are Route Server
   participants.  AS65551 is a participant whom has been assigned a 32
   bit AS Number.  AS6777 functions as a Route Server and AS-SET AS5580
   :AS-ROUTESERVERS contains a list of Route Server AS Numbers.  AS-SET
   AS5580:AS-CUSTOMERS contains a list of downstream transit customers
   from AS5580.

6.  Security Considerations

   There are no security considerations for this specification.

7.  IANA Considerations

   The new set of mechanisms for route servers does not require any new
   allocations from IANA.

8.  Acknowledgments

Snijders & Hilliard    Expires November 30, 2013                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         The 'via' keyword in RPSL                May 2013

   The authors would like to thank Remko van Mook for confirming that
   'via' is a better keyword than 'through' or 'thru'.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1997]  Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP
              Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2622]  Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
              Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., and M. Terpstra,
              "Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622,
              June 1999.

   [RFC4012]  Blunk, L., Damas, J., Parent, F., and A. Robachevsky,
              "Routing Policy Specification Language next generation
              (RPSLng)", RFC 4012, March 2005.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.hilliard-ix-bgp-route-server-operations]
              Hilliard, N., Jasinska, E., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker,
              "Internet Exchange Route Server Operations", draft-
              hilliard-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-02 (work in
              progress), December 2012.

Appendix A.  Grammar Rules

   HERE BE DRAGONS

Appendix B.  Support and Commitment

   (RFC Editor - this Appendix can be removed upon publication as RFC)

   Route Server operators whom believe this is a viable solution:

   o  ECIX

   o  EQUINIX

   Software projects which will receive patches to support the via
   keyword:

   o  RADB

Snijders & Hilliard    Expires November 30, 2013                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         The 'via' keyword in RPSL                May 2013

   o  RIPE WHOIS

   Software that might need a patch:

   o  irrtoolset

   o  rpsltools

Appendix C.  Document Change Log

   (RFC Editor - this Appendix can be removed upon publication as RFC)

   1.  Initial document.

   2.  Changes to draft-snijders-rpsl-via-01.txt

       a.  derp derp

Authors' Addresses

   Job Snijders
   Atrato IP Networks
   Tupolevlaan 103a
   Schiphol-Rijk  1119 PA
   NL

   Email: job.snijders@atrato.com

   Nick Hilliard
   INEX
   4027 Kingswood Road
   Dublin  24
   IE

   Email: nick@inex.ie

Snijders & Hilliard    Expires November 30, 2013                [Page 7]