Marking Announcements to BGP Collectors
draft-ymbk-grow-bgp-collector-communities-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2015-09-04
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                            R. Bush
Internet-Draft                                 Internet Initiative Japan
Obsoletes: 4384 (if approved)                                    E. Aben
Intended status: Best Current Practice                          RIPE NCC
Expires: March 7, 2016                                 September 4, 2015

                Marking Announcements to BGP Collectors
              draft-ymbk-grow-bgp-collector-communities-00

Abstract

   When BGP route collectors such as RIPE RIS and Route Views are used
   by operators and researchers, currently one can not tell if a path
   announced to a collector is from the ISP's customer cone, an internal
   route, or one learned from peering or transit.  This greatly reduces
   the utility of the collected data.  This document specifies the use
   of BGP communities to differentiate the kinds of views being
   presented to the collectors.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to
   be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] only when they appear in all
   upper case.  They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English
   words, without normative meaning.

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 March 7, 2016.

Bush & Aben               Expires March 7, 2016                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   Marking Announcements to BGP Collectors  September 2015

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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.

   This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
   be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Categories  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

1.  Introduction

   BGP route collectors such as RIPE RIS [ris] and Route Views [rviews]
   are used by both operators and researchers.  Unfortunately, one can
   not tell if a path announced to a collector is from the ISP's
   customer cone (one's own prefixes and the closure of those to whom
   transit is provided; i.e. what one would announce to a peer), an
   internal route, or an external route learned via peering or transit.
   This greatly reduces the utility of the collected data, and has been
   a cause of much pain over the years.  This document specifies the use
   of BGP communities to differentiate between these categories.

   In 2006, [RFC4384] attempted a similar goal but failed to gain
   traction in the operational community.  We believe this was due to
   its unnecessary complexity.  This document proposes a much simpler
   marking scheme and, if published, will obsolete [RFC4384].

Bush & Aben               Expires March 7, 2016                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft   Marking Announcements to BGP Collectors  September 2015

2.  Rationale

   When an operator uses a collector to look at an ISP's announcement of
   a prefix, it is very useful to know if the ISP also announced it to
   their customers and/or peers/transits.  Researchers want to
   differentiate similarly in order to understand expected route
Show full document text