[Search] [txt|xml|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01                                                         
Network Working Group                                            J. Haas
Internet-Draft                                    Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                           March 1, 2017
Expires: September 2, 2017

             Extended Experimental Path Attributes for BGP


   BGP's primary feature extension mechanism, Optional-Transitive Path
   Attributes, has proven to be a successful mechanism to permit BGP to
   be extended.  In order to ease various issues during the development
   of new BGP features, this document proposes an extended experimental
   Path Attribute to carry prototype features.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   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 September 2, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Haas                    Expires September 2, 2017               [Page 1]

Internet-DraftExtended Experimental Path Attributes for BGP   March 2017

   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.  Extended Experimental Path Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Error Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Moving to an Allocated Code Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Comparisons to Other Features  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix B.  Discussion to this Date  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   BGP's [RFC4271] primary feature extension mechanism, Optional-
   Transitive Path Attributes, has proven to be a successful mechanism
   to permit BGP to be extended.  It permits implementations to
   propagate unknown Path Attributes without understanding their
   contents, so long as they are syntactically valid.

   Path Attributes are encoded in BGP UPDATE messages using a single
   octet code-point.  While this code-point space is relatively small,
   the rate at which new BGP features are introduced has proven to be
   slow enough that the potential for exhaustion has not been a
   significant concern more than twenty years into the deployment of
   BGP-4.  This code point space is managed by IANA under the Standards
   Action policy [RFC5226], one of the more restrictive policies in
   IETF's repertoire.  Early allocation [RFC7120] provides some latitude
   for allocation of these code points compared to the original RFC 5226
   policy, but is reserved for features that are considered
   appropriately stable.

   Development work on the BGP protocol often requires a code point be
   assigned to a feature in progress.  While code point 255 has been

Haas                    Expires September 2, 2017               [Page 2]

Internet-DraftExtended Experimental Path Attributes for BGP   March 2017

   reserved to be Experimental ([RFC2042]), developers will often face
   collisions when attempting to do development on more than a single
   in-progress feature.  Once the feature has reached a level of
   stability, early allocation should be strongly pursued.  It may take
   some time, however, for features to reach that level of stability.

   Due to the general difficulty of getting a public code point during
   the development process, code point "squatting" (use of a code point
   that has not been officially allocated) is unfortunately common.  In
   many cases, this is done completely internally and has no impact on
   the Internet.  But sometimes accidents happen and pre-release
   features ship.  Prior to the deployment of the Revised BGP Error
   Handling Procedures [RFC7606], this could often be disastrous as
   different features, or different versions of the same feature,
   collided with each other and were interpreted as syntax errors and
   caused BGP peering sessions to reset per RFC 4271 error handling
   procedures.  While it is less disastrous for such collisions to
   happen in terms of stability of the Internet, what's needed is a way
   for BGP protocol development to proceed with a little more safety.

   This document proposes a new BGP Path Attribute, the BGP Extended
   Experimental Path Attribute.  This Attribute is intended to be used
   solely for BGP Protocol development and is not intended to replace
   the allocation policies for the BGP Protocol.

2.  Extended Experimental Path Attribute

   The Extended Experimental Path Attribute is an Optional-Transitive
   Path Attribute with a code of TBD.  Its contents are a series of TLVs
   in the following format:

       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
      |     Implementor IANA Private Enterprise Number (4 octets)     |
      |       Implementor Feature Code Point Number (4 octets)        |
      |   Version Number (2 octets)   |  Feature Length (2 octets)    |
      |               Feature Data (0 or more octets)                 |

   o  Implementor IANA Private Enterprise Number is a Private Enterprise
      Number (PEN) assigned by IANA.  [IANA-PEN]
   o  Feature Code Point Number is a code point space under the control
      of the holder of the PEN.
   o  Version Number is an unsigned number intended to convey the
      version of the feature covered by the Feature Code Point Number

Haas                    Expires September 2, 2017               [Page 3]

Internet-DraftExtended Experimental Path Attributes for BGP   March 2017

      for the implementor.  Implementors are encouraged to sequentially
      number versions of their feature beginning at 1.
   o  Feature Length is the length of the Feature Data.
   o  Feature Data will be encoded as a BGP Path Attribute value for the
      experimental feature.

3.  Usage

   A BGP implementor intending to introduce a new standards oriented
   Path Attribute will select a code point number for their new Path
   Attribute and assign an initial Version Number.  Whenever the format
   of the feature needs to change, the Version Number MUST also change.
   This prevents implementations understanding different versions of a
   pre-standards feature from improperly parsing the attribute.

   BGP Experimental features MUST require explicit configuration to
   recognize a specific Feature Code Point Number, for a given Version
   Number, for a given PEN.  If such configuration is not present, the
   TLV MUST be ignored.

   BGP Experimental features SHOULD NOT carry more than one Version
   Number of the same Feature Code Point in a given UPDATE.
   Implementations are encouraged to strip inconsistent Version Numbered
   TLVs for a given feature when appropriate.  For example, if the BGP
   speaker is configured to support Version Number 2 of an experimental
   feature, it may discard all TLVs for the Feature Code Point Number
   that are not 2.

   BGP implementations supporting the Extended Experimental Path
   Attribute SHOULD strip this attribute by default on external BGP
   sessions.  Explicit configuration SHOULD be required to permit a
   given PEN+FCPN+VN tuple into the network.

4.  Error Handling

   If the Extended Experimental Path Attribute is determined to be
   syntactically invalid, the Attribute discard behavior from [RFC7606]
   MUST be used.

5.  Moving to an Allocated Code Point

   Once an evolving BGP protocol feature reaches a reasonable level of
   stability, implementations MUST move to a Path Attribute Code Point
   allocated using the IETF sanctioned procedures.  Implementors that
   publish their PEN+FCN+VN allocations for a given version of their
   feature in progress are recommended to publish this binding as part
   of their allocation request to enable short term backward
   compatibility with their experimental work.

Haas                    Expires September 2, 2017               [Page 4]

Internet-DraftExtended Experimental Path Attributes for BGP   March 2017

   While it is possible for implementations of a new feature to rely on
   experimental deployment for some time, the procedures noted in
   Section 3 are intended to discourage this behavior by making inter-
   domain distribution of the experiment fail by default.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new security considerations into
   the BGP-4 protocol.  While the injection of unknown or badly
   formatted Optional-Transitive Path Attributes has been and remains an
   issue impacting the stability of the Internet, this proposal doesn't
   increase exposure to that issue.  It is rather expected that this
   proposal helps remediate the accidental attack surface that
   incremental BGP protocol work exposes to the Internet at large.

   [RFC7606] has mitigated the majority of the issues mentioned in the
   prior paragraph.  See that RFC for further information on the history
   of the problem.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document is primarily about issues related to IANA
   Considerations.  At some point, IANA will be requested to assign a
   BGP Path Attribute Code number, referenced as TBD early in the

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

              "IANA Private Enterprise Number", <http://pen.iana.org>.

   [RFC2042]  Manning, B., "Registering New BGP Attribute Types",
              RFC 2042, DOI 10.17487/RFC2042, January 1997,

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,

Haas                    Expires September 2, 2017               [Page 5]

Internet-DraftExtended Experimental Path Attributes for BGP   March 2017

   [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,

8.2.  Informative References

              Patel, K., Uttaro, J., Decraene, B., Henderickx, W., and
              J. Haas, "Constrain Attribute announcement within BGP",
              draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement-00 (work in
              progress), July 2016.

              Haas, J., "Code Point Management - IETF 97 Slides",
              November 2016,

              Haas, J., "Extended Experimental Path Attributes - IETF 97
              Slides", November 2016,

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,

   [RFC6368]  Marques, P., Raszuk, R., Patel, K., Kumaki, K., and T.
              Yamagata, "Internal BGP as the Provider/Customer Edge
              Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)",
              RFC 6368, DOI 10.17487/RFC6368, September 2011,

   [RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.

Appendix A.  Comparisons to Other Features

   Astute readers will note that this is not the first time BGP Path
   Attributes have been "tunneled" inside of other Path Attributes.
   [RFC6368] provided a mechanism by which an entire set of Path
   Attributes could be tunneled inside of attribute 128 for purposes of
   transparently passing received BGP Path Attributes in an Internet
   Layer 3 VPN context from one Customer Edge (CE) router to another.

Haas                    Expires September 2, 2017               [Page 6]

Internet-DraftExtended Experimental Path Attributes for BGP   March 2017

   [RFC6368] suffered from two issues:

   1.  During its initial development, 4-byte AS numbers were starting
       to be deployed.  This lead to a change in the packet format of
       the feature to accommodate the 4-byte ASes instead of the
       previous 2-byte versions.
   2.  While this feature was intended solely to be used in a VPN
       context, implementations that did not understand it similarly did
       not strip it.  This caused the VPN routes to carry attribute 128
       in an Internet context after they were delivered to the target CE

   Due to these two issues, routes containing one version of this
   feature that "escaped into the wild" eventually to be received by
   other BGP speakers supporting a different version of the feature.
   Each version would treat their opposite's encoding as a syntax error.
   This resulted in BGP peering sessions being reset.  This, and other
   similar issues, was a motivation for [RFC6368].

   The second issue noted above is the motivation for

Appendix B.  Discussion to this Date

   This proposal was originally well-received on the IDR mailing list
   and during its presentation at IETF.  Comments included comparison to
   existing mechanisms in LDP and IS-IS; Hannes Gredler notes that the
   IS-IS feature is not used.

   Another set of comments revolved around the structured format of the
   PEN+FCN+VN and "why couldn't we simply have a very large first-come,
   first-served code space".  While the author agrees that this would
   serve a very similar behavior, the author's belief after further
   consideration is that:

   o  Involving IANA, even when the process is very light weight, is
      part of our existing issue.  The Enterprise numbering space
      permits completely internal management during development of new
   o  There is no fundamental "burden" of multiple implementors
      rendezvousing around a common PEN+FCN+VN during interoperability
      testing.  The motivation after such testing should be to request a
      valid BGP Path Attribute code point using existing IETF

   Another comment was about the possibility of utilizing this mechanism
   as a long-term private BGP Path Attribute feature.  Such behavior may

Haas                    Expires September 2, 2017               [Page 7]

Internet-DraftExtended Experimental Path Attributes for BGP   March 2017

   be a valid use case, however, there remains a need to provide for
   automatic filtering of experimental work.

   This brings the final comment that both this new Path Attribute and
   potentially each of the experiments in the Feature Data should be
   covered by [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement] or something
   similar.  This would include additional procedure to provide for
   remote filtering of the TLVs defined in this document.  Progressing
   this document, and the use case of long term private Path Attributes
   as noted in the prior section, should be considered after the
   attribute-announcement draft receives further feedback.

Author's Address

   Jeffrey Haas
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1133 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089

   Email: jhaas@juniper.net

Haas                    Expires September 2, 2017               [Page 8]