Internet-Draft BGP FSv2 Basic IP May 2024
Hares, et al. Expires 13 November 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
IDR Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-hares-idr-fsv2-ip-basic-02
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
S. Hares
Hickory Hill Consulting
D. Eastlake
Futurewei Technologies
C. Yadlapalli
ATT
S. Maduscke
Verizon

BGP Flow Specification Version 2 - for Basic IP

Abstract

BGP flow specification version 1 (FSv1), defined in RFC 8955, RFC 8956, and RFC 9117 describes the distribution of traffic filter policy (traffic filters and actions) distributed via BGP. During the deployment of BGP FSv1 a number of issues were detected, so version 2 of the BGP flow specification (FSv2) protocol addresses these features. In order to provide a clear demarcation between FSv1 and FSv2, a different NLRI encapsulates FSv2.

The IDR WG requires two implementation Implementers feedback on FSv2 was that FSv2 has a correct design, but that breaking FSv2 into a progression of documents would aid deployment of the draft. The IDR WG requires two implementation so This document is the first of the series of documents indicating the basic FSv2 with user ordering of filters added to FSv1 IP Filters and IP actions.

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 https://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 13 November 2024.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Version 2 of BGP flow specification was original defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2] (BGP FSv2). In this document it will be refered to as FSv2.

The FSv2 specification was consider technically correct, but it contains more than the initial implementers desired. Why? The IDR WG requires two implementations of any specification. Therefore, the original FSv2 draft will remain a WG draft, but the content will be split out into functions that implementers can incrementally deploy.

This draft provides the FSv2 specification for transmitting user-ordered Basic IP filters with FSv2 actions in set of Extended Communities. These extended communities have either the pre-defined set of ordering and interactions, or a implementation specific set ordering. FSv2 filters and actions are defined in setion 3.

FSv2 is an update to BGP Flow specification version 1 (BGP FSv1). BGP FSv1 as defined in [RFC8955], [RFC8956], and [RFC9117] specified 2 SAFIs (133, 134) to be used with IPv4 AFI (AFI = 1) and IPv6 AFI (AFI=2). In this document it will be refered to as FS

This document specifies 2 new SAFIs (TBD1, TBD2) for FSv2 to be used with 5 AFIs (1, 2, 6, 25, and 31) to allow user-ordered lists of traffic match filters for user-ordered traffic match actions encoded in Communities (Wide or Extended).

FSv1 and FSv2 use different AFI/SAFIs to send flow specification filters. Since BGP route selection is performed per AFI/SAFI, this approach can be termed “ships in the night” based on AFI/SAFI.

1.1. Why Flow Specification v2

Modern IP routers have the capability to forward traffic and to classify, shape, rate limit, filter, or redirect packets based on administratively defined policies. These traffic policy mechanisms allow the operator to define match rules that operate on multiple fields within header of an IP data packet. The traffic policy allows actions to be taken upon a match to be associated with each match rule. These rules can be more widely defined as “event-condition-action” (ECA) rules where the event is always the reception of a packet.

BGP ([RFC4271]) flow specification as defined by [RFC8955], [RFC8956], [RFC9117] specifies the distribution of traffic filter policy (traffic filters and actions) via BGP to a mesh of BGP peers (IBGP and EBGP peers). The traffic filter policy is applied when packets are received on a router with the flow specification function turned on. The flow specification protocol defined in [RFC8955], [RFC8956], and [RFC9117] will be called BGP flow specification version 1 (BGP FSv1) in this draft.

Some modern IP routers also include the abilities of firewalls which can match on a sequence of packet events based on administrative policy. These firewall capabilities allow for user ordering of match rules and user ordering of actions per match.

Multiple deployed applications currently use BGP FSv1 to distribute traffic filter policy. These applications include: 1) mitigation of Denial of Service (DoS), 2) traffic filtering in BGP/MPLS VPNS, and 3) centralized traffic control for networks utilizing SDN control of router firewall functions, 4) classifiers for insertion in an SFC, and 5) filters for SRv6 (segment routing v6).

During the deployment of BGP flow specification v1, the following issues were detected:

  • lack of consistent TLV encoding prevented extension of encodings,

  • inability to allow user defined order for filtering rules,

  • inability to order actions to provide deterministic interactions or to allow users to define order for actions, and

  • no clearly defined mechanisms for BGP peers which do not support flow specification v1.

Networks currently cope with some of these issues by limiting the type of traffic filter policy sent in BGP. Current Networks do not have a good workaround/solution for applications that receive but do not understand FSv1 policies.

FSv1 is a critical component of deployed applications. Therefore, this specification defines how FSv2 will interact with BGP peers that support either FSv2, FSv1, FSv2 and FSv1,or neither of them. It is expected that a transition to FSv2 will occur over time as new applications require FSv2 extensibility and user-defined ordering for rules and actions or network operators tire of the restrictions of FSv1 such as error handling issues and restricted topologies.

Section 2 contains a Primer on FSv1, FSv2, and the FSv2 seriess of specifications. Section 3 contains the encoding rules for FSv2 and user-based encoding sent via BGP. Section 4 describes how to validate and order FSv2 NLRI. Sections 5-8 discusses scalability, optional security additions, security considerations, and IANA considerations.

1.2. Definitions and Acronyms

  • AFI - Address Family Identifier

  • AS - Autonomous System

  • BGPSEC - secure BGP [RFC8205] updated by [RFC8206]

  • BGP Session ephemeral state - state which does not survive the loss of BGP peer session.

  • Configuration state - state which persist across a reboot of software module within a routing system or a reboot of a hardware routing device.

  • DDOs - Distributed Denial of Service.

  • Ephemeral state - state which does not survive the reboot of a software module, or a hardware reboot. Ephemeral state can be ephemeral configuration state or operational state.

  • FSv1 - Flow Specification version 1 [RFC8955] [RFC8956]

  • FSv2 - Flow Specification version 2 (this document)

  • NETCONF - The Network Configuration Protocol [RFC6241].

  • RESTCONF - The RESTCONF configuration Protocol [RFC8040]

  • RIB - Routing Information Base.

  • ROA - Route Origin Authentication [RFC6482]

  • RR - Route Reflector.

  • SAFI – Subsequent Address Family Identifier

1.3. RFC 2119 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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals as shown here.

2. Flow Specification Version 2 Primer

A BGP Flow Specification (v1 or v2) is an n-tuple containing one or more match criteria that can be applied to IP traffic, traffic encapsulated in IP traffic or traffic associated with IP traffic. The following are examples of such traffic: IP packet or an IP packet inside a L2 packet (Ethernet), an MPLS packet, and SFC flow.

A given Flow Specification NLRI may be associated with a set of path attributes depending on the particular application, and attributes within that set may or may not include reachability information (e.g., NEXT_HOP). FSv1 and FSv2-DDOS use only the Extended Community to encode a set of pre-determined actions. The full FSv2 uses either Extended Communities or Wide Communities to encode actions.

A particular application is identified by a specific AFI/SAFI (Address Family Identifier/Subsequent Address Family Identifier) and corresponds to a distinct set of RIBs. Those RIBs should be treated independently of each other in order to assure noninterference between distinct applications.

BGP processing treats the NLRI as a key to entries in AFI/SAFI BGP databases. Entries that are placed in the Loc-RIB are then associated with a given set of semantics which are application dependent. Standard BGP mechanisms such as update filtering by NLRI or by attributes such as AS_PATH or large communities apply to the BGP Flow Specification defined NLRI-types.

Network operators can control the propagation of BGP routes by enabling or disabling the exchange of routes for a particular AFI/SAFI pair on a particular peering session. As such, the Flow Specification may be distributed to only a portion of the BGP infrastructure.

2.1. Flow Specification v1 (FSv1) Overview

The FSv1 NLRI defined in [RFC8955] and [RFC8956] include 13 match conditions encoded for the following AFI/SAFIs:

  • IPv4 traffic: AFI:1, SAFI:133

  • IPv6 Traffic: AFI:2, SAFI:133

  • BGP/MPLS IPv4 VPN: AFI:1, SAFI: 134

  • BGP/MPLS IPv6 VPN: AFI:2, SAFI: 134

If one considers the reception of the packet as an event, then BGP FSv1 describes a set of Event-MatchCondition-Action (ECA) policies where:

  • event is the reception of a packet,

  • condition stands for “match conditions” defined in the BGP NLRI as an n-tuple of component filters, and

  • the action is either: the default condition (accept traffic), or a set of actions (1 or more) defined in Extended BGP Community values [RFC4360].

The flow specification conditions and actions combine to make up FSv1 specification rules. Each FSv1 NLRI must have a type 1 component (destination prefix). Extended Communities with FSv1 actions can be attached to a single NLRI or multiple NLRIs in a BGP message

Within an AFI/SAFI pair, FSv1 rules are ordered based on the components in the packet (types 1-13) ordered from left-most to right-most and within the component types by value of the component. Rules are inserted in the rule list by component-based order where an FSv1 rule with existing component type has higher precedence than one missing a specific component type,

Since FSv1 specifications ([RFC8955], [RFC8956], and [RFC9117]) specify that the FSv1 NLRI MUST have a destination prefix (as component type 1) embedded in the flow specification, the FSv1 rules with destination components are ordered by IP Prefix comparison rules for IPv4 ([RFC8955]) and IPv6 ([RFC8956]). [RFC8955] specifies that more specific prefixes (aka longest match) have higher precedence than that of less specific prefixes and that for prefixes of the same length the lower IP number is selected (lowest IP value). [RFC8955] specifies that if the offsets within component 1 are the same, then the longest match and lowest IP comparison rules from [RFC8955] apply. If the offsets are different, then the lower offset has precedence.

These rules provide a set of FSv1 rules ordered by IP Destination Prefix by longest match and lowest IP address. [RFC8955] also states that the requirement for a destination prefix component “MAY be relaxed by explicit configuration” Since the rule insertions are based on comparing component types between two rules in order, this means the rules without destination prefixes are inserted after all rules which contain destination prefix component.

The actions specified in FSv1 are:

  • accept packet (default),

  • traffic flow limitation by bytes (0x6),

  • traffic-action (0x7),

  • redirect traffic (0x8),

  • mark traffic (0x9), and

  • traffic flow limitation by packets (12, 0xC)

Figure 1 shows a diagram of the FSv1 logical data structures with 5 rules. If FSv1 rules have destination prefix components (type=1) and FSv1 rule 5 does not have a destination prefix, then FSv1 rule 5 will be inserted in the policy after rules 1-4.


     +--------------------------------------+
     | Flow Specification (FS)              |
     |  Policy                              |
     +--------------------------------------+
         ^               ^              ^
         |               |              |
         |               |              |
+--------^----+  +-------^-------+     +-------------+
|   FS Rule 1 |  |   FS Rule 2   | ... |  FS rule 5  |
+-------------+  +---------------+     +-------------+
                    :          :
                    :          :
                 ...:          :........
                 :                     :
       +---------V---------+      +----V-------------+
       |  Rule Condition   |      |   Rule Action    |
       |  in BGP NLRIs     |      | in BGP extended  |
       | AFIs: 1 and 2     |      | Communities      |
       | SAFI 133, 134     |      |                  |
       +-------------------+      +------------------+
           :     :    :                 :      :    :
      .....:     .    :.....       .....:      .    :.....
      :          :         :       :           :         :
 +----V---+  +---V----+ +--V---+ +-V------+ +--V-----++--V---+
 |  Match |  | match  | |match | | Action | | action ||action|
 |Operator|  |Variable| |Value | |Operator| |variable|| Value|
 |*1      |  |        | |      | |(subtype| |        ||      |
 +--------+  +--------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------++------+

   *1 match operator may be complex.

   Figure 2-1: BGP Flow Specification v1 Policy

2.2. FSv2 Overview

FSv2 allows the user to order the flow specification rules and the actions associated with a rule. Each FSv2 rule may have one or more match conditions and one or more associated actions. The IDR WG draft [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2] contains the complete solution for FSv2. However, this complete solution makes implementation of these features a large task so, please see the next section on how the complete solution is broken into a series of solutions. This section describres the complete solution.

The original FSv2 specification [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2] supports the components and actions for the following:

  • IPv4 (AFI=1, SAFI=TBD1) [defined in FSv2-DDOS],

  • IPv6 (AFI=2, SAFI=TBD2) [defined in FSv2-DDOS],

  • L2 (AFI=6, SAFI=TDB1) [defined in FSv2-L2],

  • BGP/MPLS IPv4 VPN: (AFI=1, SAFI=TBD2),

  • BGP/MPLS IPv6 VPN: (AFI=2, SAFI=TBD2),

  • BGP/MPLS L2VPN (AFI=25, SAFI=TDB2) [defined in FSv2-L2],

  • SFC: (AFI=31, SAFI=TBD1) [defined in FSv2-SFC], and

  • SFC VPN (AFI=31, SAFI=TBD2) [defined in FSv2-SFC].

An IDR specification for tunneled traffic is in [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3]. This Draft was original target for FSv1, and will be considered for FSv2. The series of FSv2 support the same scope of functionality in a series of documents.

FSv2 operates in the ships-in-the night model with FSv1 so network operators can manipulate which the distribution of FSv2 and FSv1 using configuration parameters. Since the lack of deterministic ordering was an FSv1 problem, this specification provides rules and protocol features to keep filters in a deterministic order between FSv1 and FSv2.

The basic principles regarding ordering of flow specification filter rules are:

  • 1) Rule-0 (zero) is defined to be 0/0 with the “permit-all” action.

  • 2) FSv2 rules are ordered based on user-specified order.

    • The user-specified order is carried in the FSv2 NLRI and a numerical lower value takes precedence over a numerically higher value. For rules received with the same order value, the FSv1 rules apply (order by component type and then by value of the components).

  • 3) FSv2 rules are added starting with Rule 1 and FSv1 rules are added after FSv2 rules

    • For example, BGP Peer A has FSv2 data base with 10 FSv2 rules (1-10). FSv1 user number is configured to start at 301 so 10 FSv1 rules are added at 301-310.

  • 4) An FSv2 peer may receive BGP NLRI routes from a FSv1 peer or a BGP peer that does not support FSv1 or FSv2. The capabilities sent by a BGP peer indicate whether the AFI/SAFI can be received (FSv1 NLRI or FSv2 NLRI).

  • 5) Associate a chain of actions to rules based on user-defined action number (1-n). (optional)

    • If no actions are associated with a filter rule, the default is to drop traffic the filter rules match

    • An action chain of 1-n actions can be associated with a set of filter rules can via Extended Communities or a Community attribute with a FSv2 type. Only the Community attribute allows for user-defined order for the actions. If an implementation allows for FSv2 actions with user-ordering and Extended Community actions, the by default the Extended Community are ordered after the user-ordered actions. This FSv2 action order default can be changed by the Action Chain Ordering FSv2 action.

Figure 2-2 provides a logical diagram of the FSv2 structure


       +--------------------------------+
       |          Rule Group            |
       +--------------------------------+
         ^          ^                  ^
         |          |---------         |
         |                   |         ------
         |                   |               |
+--------^-------+   +-------^-----+     +---^-----+
|      Rule1     |   |     Rule2   | ... |  Rule-n |
+----------------+   +-------------+     +---------+
                      :  :   :    :
    :.................:  :   :    :
    :        |...........:   :    :
 +--V--+ +--V-------+        :    :
 |order| |identifier| .......:    :
 +-----+ +----------+ :           :
                      :           :
   +------------------V--+  +-----V----------------+
   |Rule Match condition |  | Rule Action          |
   +---------------------+  +----------------------+
    :      :     :    :       :      :   :   :   |
 +--V--+   :     :    :    +--V---+  :   :   :   V
 | Rule|   :     :    :    |action|  :   :   :  +-----------+
 | name|   :     :    :    |order |  :   :   :  |action name|
 +-----+   :     :    :    +------+  :   :   :  +-----------+
           :     :    :              :   :   :.............
           :     :    :              :   :                :
      .....:     .    :.....       ..:   :......          :
      :          :         :       :           :          :
 +----V---+  +---V----+ +--V---+ +-V------+ +--V-----+ +--V---+
 |  Match |  | match  | |match | | Action | | action | |action|
 |Operator|  |variable| |Value | |Operator| |Variable| | Value|
 +--------+  +--------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------+ +------+

   Figure 2-2: BGP FSv2 Data storage

2.3. Flow Specification v2 (FSv2) Series of Specifications

The full FSV2 information is contained in [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2].

Feedback from the implementers indicate that the Flow Specification v2 needs to broken into drafts based on the use cases the technology supports. These include IPv4/IPv6 IP Basic Filters for DDOS, IPv4/IPv6 filters beyond DDOS, BGP/MPLS IPv4 VPN, BGP/MPLS IPv6 VPN, BGP/MPLS L2VPN, Segment routing (SRMPLS, SRv6), SFC, SFC VPN, L2, L2 VPNs, and tunneled traffic (e.g., nv03 WG tunnels).

The following is the list of planned drafts:

The sections below describe each draft.

2.3.1. FSv2 IP Basic

The FSv2 IP Basic (draft-hares-idr-fsv2-ip-basic) defines the NLRI format for IP Basic Filters (Type = 1), Extended Community actions supported by [RFC8955] and [RFC8956], and user ordering of IP Filters. This FSv2 draft defines the order that these basic Extended Community actions defined in [RFC8955] and [RFC8956] are preformed. This specification also defines which actions mmay interact.

This draft provides the basic functions all other FSv2 drafts will extend. All FSv2 implementations must have the IP Basic functionality.

Current implementations of FSv1 define their own rules for ordering of actions and interactions. It is anticipated that implementation will define configuration knobs to allow the implementation specific ordering of actions or allow/prevent some actions to occur at the same time. These configuration knobs will aid the transition between FSv1 and FSv2 implementations.

2.3.2. FSv2 More IP Filters:

The FSv2 More IP Filters draft ([I-D.hares-idr-fsv2-more-ip-filters]) contains

  • Format for Extended IP filters TLV (Version and Comnponent SubTLVs),

  • New IDR Approved Filter Components (TTL, SID, NRP IP), and

  • New Proposed IP Filter components (IP Payloads and Group ID).

The IDR WG group needs to decide if this draft should contain the following:

  • just the format for the Extended IP filters TLV and an example, or

  • the format for the Extended IP Filters plus a small set of initial filters.

FSv2 IP filters may be proposed to be included in this draft or extend this draft. Any filters relating to the IPv6 header for SRv6 should be added to this draft.

2.3.3. FSv2 More IP Actions

The FSv2 More iP actions ([I-D.hares-idr-fsv2-more-ip-actions] describes describes how FSv2 actions can be described as either:

FSv2 Extended Community Actions:
These actions specify generic, IPv4, or IPv6 (v4 and v6) without user ordering. Each Extended Community actions will be required to provide interactions with other Actions and abide by the FSv2 order of actions. It is anticipated that vendors will want to provide configuration knobs to alter the FSv2 basic component ordering to ease transition from FSv1 action ordering to FSv2 action ordering.
FSv2 Actions in the Community Attribute (Type 2 TLV):
The Community attribute can specify "wide community (TLV type 1) or FSv2 actions (TLV type 2). This draft specifies the FSv2 action TLV format with user ordered actions and dependency. FSv2 actions do not require specifying the wide community (TLV type 1). User-ordered FSv2 actions MUST use the Community attribute to specify user ordering of actions or user defined dependency between actions. A small set of required actions will be specified in this draft. The FSv2 user ordered actions taken precedence over the FSv2 Extended Community actions. It is anticipated that vendors will want to provide configuration knobs to change the precedence between Extended Community Actions and FSv2 Community actions to ease operational transitions to user-ordered actions.

2.3.4. FSv2 Non-IP Filters

The FSv2 Non-IP Filters( (draft-hares-idr-fsv2-non-IP-Filters) defines the FSv2 NLRI formats for Non-IP filter rules at the top layer. These Non-IP filter rules include the following:

MPLS filters:
This document contains MPLS component filters to match labels. Original IDR work is found in [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2] from [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match]. Additional work from SR-MPLS is included in this category. A simple set of MPLS Label match components are provided in this draft.
FSv2 L2 filters:
The current FSv2 work on L2 includes work on L2VPNs ([I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn]). Other drafts have suggested extending this to cover the reduced latency L2 use case (detnet). This draft provides a discussion of how to integrate this work initially done for FSv1 into the FSv2 user-ordered filters.
FSV2 filters SFC direction:
Network Service Header (NSH) is defined in [RFC8300]. Flow specification filters were not defined in [RFC9015], but the FSv2 provide a template for adding NSH filters.
Tunnels Defined by nv03 group
An IDR draft was approved for FSv1 encoding of tunnel overlays (see [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3]). This draft contains a discussion of how to integrate this work initially done for FSv1 into the FSv2 user-ordered filters.

2.3.5. FSv2 Non-IP Actions

The FSv2 Non-IP Actions (draft-hares-idr-fsv2-non-ip-actions) describes how to define FSv2 non-IP actions for MPLS, SR-MPLS, L2, SFC and tunnels in Extended Communities and the FSv2 User-Defined Action. Examples will be given based on the following existingh work:

FSV2 actions for MPLS:
MPLS actions to push, pop, swap labels. Original IDR work is found in [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2] from [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label]. New MPLS actions for
FSV2 actions for SFC:
SFC classifier actions based on Action with Service Path identifier (SPI), Service Index (SI), and Service function type (SFT). The original description of the action is in [RFC9015] in section 7.4.
FSv2 L2VPN actions:
The L2 filters for packets in L2 or L2VPN Actions were defined for FSv1 in ([I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn]).
Tunnels actions
The tunnel actions were defined for FSv1 in [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3].

3. FSv2 NLRI Formats and Actions

3.1. FSv2 NLRI Format

The BGP FSv2 uses an NRLI with the format for AFIs for IPv4 (AFI = 1), IPv6 (AFI = 2), L2 (AFI = 6), L2VPN (AFI=25), and SFC (AFI=31) with SAFIs TBD1 and TBD2 to support transmission of the flow specification which supports user ordering of traffic filters and actions for IP traffic and IP VPN traffic.

This NLRI information is encoded using MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes defined in [RFC4760]. When advertising FSv2 NLRI, the length of the Next-Hop Network Address MUST be set to 0. Upon reception, the Network Address in the Next-Hop field MUST be ignored.

Implementations wishing to exchange flow specification rules MUST use BGP's Capability Advertisement facility to exchange the Multiprotocol Extension Capability Code (Code 1) as defined in [RFC4760], and indicate a capability for FSv1, FSv2 (Code TBD3), or both.

The AFI/SAFI NLRI for BGP Flow Specification version 2 (FSv2) has the format:

 +--------------------------------+
 | NLRI length (2 octets)         |
 +--------------------------------+
 | TLVs+                          |
 | +============================+ |
 | | order (4 octets)           | |
 | +----------------------------+ |
 | | identifier (4 octets)      | |
 | +----------------------------+ |
 | + FSv2 Filter type (2 octet) + |
 | +----------------------------+ |
 | + length TLVs (2 octet)      + |
 | + ---------------------------+ |
 | + value (variable)           + |
 | +----------------------------+ |
 +-------------------------------+

 Figure 3-1 - NLRI format for FSv2

where:

  • TLV+ - indicates the repetition of the TLV field

  • NLRI length: length of field including all SubTLVs in octets.

  • order: flow-specification global rule order number (4 octets).

  • identifier: identifier for the rule (used for NM/Logging) (4 octets)

  • FSv2 Filter type: contains a type for FSv2 TLV format of the NRLI (2 octets) which can be:

    • 0 - reserved,

    • 1 - IP Basic Filter Rules

    • 2 - Extended IP Filter rules

    • 3 - MPLS Traffic Rules

    • 4 - L2 traffic rules

    • 5- SFC Traffic rules

    • 6 - Tunneled traffic

  • length-TLV: is the length of the value part of the Sub-TLV,

  • value: value depends on the type of FSv2 Filter type. For example, the IP Traffic Rules defines the

All FSv2 function must recognize valid Filter Types, even if the handling of the Filter types are not supported by the implementation. The TLV allows all FSv2 Filter types to be passed, even if the Filter rules cannot be installed.

Note: This specification only defines the IP Basic Filter Rules that all FSv2 must support.

3.2. Basic IP Filters

3.2.1. IP header SubTLV (type=1(0x01))

The format of the IP header TLV value field is shown in figure 3-2. The IP header for the VPN case is specified in section 3.5.

 +-------------------------------+
 | NLRI length (2 octets)        |
 +-------------------------------+
 | TLVs+                         |
 | +===========================+ |
 | | order (4 octets)          | |
 | +---------------------------+ |
 | | identifier (4 octets)     | |
 | +---------------------------+ |
 | + FSv2 Filter type = 1      + |
 | +---------------------------+ |
 | + length TLVs (2 octet)     + |
 | + --------------------------+ |
 | + value (variable)          + |
 | +---------------------------+ |
 +-------------------------------+

Figure 3-2 NLRI format for FSv2 IP Filter Type

Where: Each value field has the format:


 +--------------------------------+
 | + ---------------------------+ |
 | + Components TLVs (variable) + |
 | +----------------------------+ |
 +--------------------------------+

  Where the Component TLVs are:

   +----------------------------+
   |  Component Type (1 octet)  |
   +----------------------------+
   |  length (1 octet)          |
   + ---------------------------+
   |  value (variable)          |
   +----------------------------+

Figure 3-3 – IP header Component TLVs

Where:

Many of the components use the operators [numeric_op] and [bitmask_op] defined in [RFC8955]

The list of valid SubTLV types appears in Table 2.

Table 3-1 IP SubTLV Types for IP filters
          for IP Basic FSv2
SubTLV
-type     Definition
======    ============
   1 -    IP Destination prefix
   2 -    IP Source prefix
   3 –    IPv4 Protocol /
          IPv6 Upper Layer Protocol
   4 –    Port
   5 –    Destination Port
   6 –    Source Port
   7 –    ICMPv4 type / ICMPv6 type
   8 –    ICMPv4 code / ICPv6 code
   9 –    TCP Flags
  10 –    Packet length
  11 –    DSCP
  12 –    Fragment
  13 –    Flow Label
  14 -    TTL
  15-63   reserved for IP Extensions
          (standards action)

  64-127  Reserved for Non-IP Filters
 128-191  Reserved for Standard Action
 192-249  FCFS
 250-255  Reserved

Current Non-IP Filters for short term reference.

Table 3-2 IP SubTLV types for non-IP Filters

SubTLV   IP SubTLV types
-type    Definition
======   ===========
  64      Parts of SID
  65      MPLS LAbel Match-1
  66      MPLS Label Match-2
  67-127  Match reserved for Non-IP
  128-191 reserved (standards action)
  192-249 FCFS
  250-    FSv2 Filter Error handling
 251-255  Reserved

Ordering within the TLV in FSv2: The transmission of SubTLVs within a flow specification rule MUST be sent ascending order by SubTLV type. If the SubTLV types are the same, then the value fields are compared using mechanisms defined in [RFC8955] and [RFC8956] and MUST be in ascending order. NLRIs having TLVs which do not follow the above ordering rules MUST be considered as malformed by a BGP FSv2 propagator. This rule prevents any ambiguities that arise from the multiple copies of the same NLRI from multiple BGP FSv2 propagators. A BGP implementation SHOULD treat such malformed NLRIs as "Treat-as-withdraw" [RFC7606].

See [RFC8955], [RFC8956], and [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6]. for specific details.

3.2.2. Components for FSv2 supporting IP Basic FSV2

3.2.2.1. IP Destination Prefix (type = 1)

IPv4 Name: IP Destination Prefix (reference: [RFC8955])

IPv6 Name: IPv6 Destination Prefix (reference: [RFC8956])

IPv4 length: Prefix length in bits

IPv4 value: IPv4 Prefix (variable length)

IPv6 length: length of value

IPv6 value: [offset (1 octet)] [pattern (variable)] [padding(variable)]

If IPv6 length = 0 and offset = 0, then component matches every address. Otherwise, length must be offset "less than" length "less than" 129 or component is malformed.

3.2.2.2. IP Source Prefix (type = 2)

IPv4 Name: IP Source Prefix (reference: [RFC8955])

IPv6 Name: IPv6 Source Prefix (reference: [RFC8956])

IPv4 length: Prefix length in bits

IPv4 value: Source IPv4 Prefix (variable length)

IPv6 length: length of value

IPv6 value: [offset (1 octet)] [pattern (variable)][padding(variable)]

If IPv6 length = 0 and offset = 0, then component matches every address. Otherwise, length must be offset < length < 129 or component is malformed.

3.2.2.3. IP Protocol (type = 3)

IPv4 Name: IP Protocol IP Source Prefix (reference: [RFC8955])

IPv6 Name: IPv6 Upper-Layer Protocol: (reference: [RFC8956])

IPv4 length: variable

IPv4 value: [numeric_op, value]+

IPv6 length: variable

IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value}+

where the value following each numeric_op is a single octet.

3.2.2.4. Port (type = 4)

IPv4/IPv6 Name: Port (reference: [RFC8955]), [RFC8956])

Filter defines: a set of port values to match either destination port or source port.

IPv4 length: variable

IPv4 value: [numeric_op, value]+

IPv6 length: variable

IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+

where the value following each numeric_op is a single octet.

Note-1: (from FSV1) In the presence of the port component (destination or source port), only a TCP (port 6) or UDP (port 17) packet can match the entire flow specification. If the packet is fragmented and this is not the first fragment, then the system may not be able to find the header. At this point, the FSv2 filter may fail to detect the correct flow. Similarly, if other IP options or the encapsulating security payload (ESP) is present, then the node may not be able to describe the transport header and the FSv2 filter may fail to detect the flow.

The restriction in note-1 comes from the inheritance of the FSv1 filter component for port. If better resolution is desired, a new FSv2 filter should be defined.

Note-2: FSv2 component only matches the first upper layer protocol value.

3.2.2.5. Destination Port (type = 5)

IPv4/IPv6 Name: Destination Port (reference: [RFC8955]), [RFC8956])

Filter defines: a list of match filters for destination port for TCP or UDP within a received packet

Length: variable

Component Value format: [numeric_op, value]+

3.2.2.6. Source Port (type = 6)

IPv4/IPv6 Name: Source Port (reference: [RFC8955]), [RFC8956])

Filter defines: a list of match filters for source port for TCP or UDP within a received packet

IPv4/IPv6 length: variable

IPv4/Ipv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+

3.2.2.7. ICMP Type (type = 7)

IPv4: ICMP Type (reference: [RFC8955])

Filter defines: Defines: a list of match criteria for ICMPv4 type

IPv6: ICMPv6 Type (reference: [RFC8956])

Filter defines: a list of match criteria for ICMPv6 type.

IPv4/IPv6 length: variable

IPv4/IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+

3.2.2.8. ICMP Code (type = 8)

IPv4: ICMP Type (reference: [RFC8955])

Filter defines: a list of match criteria for ICMPv4 code.

IPv6: ICMPv6 Type (reference: [RFC8956])

Filter defines: a list of match criteria for ICMPv6 code.

IPv4/IPv6 length: variable

IPv4/IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+

3.2.2.9. TCP Flags (type = 9)

IPv4/IPv6: TCP Flags Code (reference: [RFC8955])

Filter defines: a list of match criteria for TCP Control bits

IPv4/IPv6 length: variable

IPv4/IPv6 value: [bitmask_op, value]+

Note: a 2 octets bitmask match is always used for TCP-Flags

3.2.2.10. Packet length (type = 10 (0x0A))

IPv4/IPv6: Packet Length (reference: [RFC8955], [RFC8956])

Filter defines: a list of match criteria for length of packet (excluding L2 header but including IP header).

IPv4/IPv6 length: variable

IPv4/IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+

Note:[RFC8955] uses either 1 or 2 octet values.

3.2.2.11. DSCP (Differentiaed Services Code Point)(type = 11 (0x0B))

IPv4/IPv6: DSCP Code (reference: [RFC8955], [RFC8956])

Filter defines: a list of match criteria for DSCP code values to match the 6-bit DSCP field.

IPv4/IPv6 length: variable

IPv4/IPv6 value: [numeric_op, value]+

Note: This component uses the Numeric Operator (numeric_op) described in [RFC8955] in section 4.2.1.1. Type 11 component values MUST be encoded as single octet (numeric_op len=00).

The six least significant bits contain the DSCP value. All other bits SHOULD be treated as 0.

3.2.2.12. Fragment (type = 12 (0x0C))

IPv4/IPv6: Fragment (reference: [RFC8955], [RFC8956])

Filter defines: a list of match criteria for specific IP fragments.

Length: variable

Component Value format: [bitmask_op, value]+

Bitmask values are:

      0    1   2   3   4   5   6  7
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |LF |FF |IsF| DF|
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                 Figure 3-4

Where:

  • DF (don’t fragment): match If IP header flags bit 1 (DF) is 1.

  • IsF(is a fragment other than first: match if IP header fragment offset is not 0.

  • FF (First Fragment): Match if [RFC0791] IP Header Fragment offset is zero and Flags Bit-2 (MF) is 1.

  • LF (last Fragment): Match if [RFC7091] IP header Fragment is not 0 And Flags bit-2 (MF) is 0

  • 0: MUST be sent in NLRI encoding as 0, and MUST be ignored during reception.

3.2.2.13. Flow Label(type = 13 (0xOD))

IPv4/IPv6: Fragment (reference: [RFC8956])

Filter defines: a list of match criteria for 20-bit Flow Label in the IPv6 header field.

Length: variable

Component Value format: [numeric_op, value]+

3.2.2.14. TTL (type=14 (0x0E))

TTL: Defines matches for 8-bit TTL field in IP header

Encoding: <[numeric_op, value]+>

where: value is a 1 octet value for TTL.

ordering: by full value of number_op concatenated with value

conflict: none

reference: draft-bergeon-flowspec-ttl-match-00.txt

3.3. FSv2 Actions for IP Basic

The full FSV2 [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2] specifies that FSv2 actions can be sent in Extended Communities or a Community attribute with the FSv2 community type. The IP Basic FSv2 only allows FSv2 actions to be sent in an Extended Community (FSv2-EC)

The Extended Community encodes the Flow Specification actions in the Extended IPv4 Community format [RFC4360] or in the extended IPv6 Community format [RFC5701]. The FSv2-EC actions cannot be ordered by the user and some FSv2-EC interact. . This section defines the FSv2-EC actions for FSv2 IP Basic by defining existing FSv2-EC action formats, the interaction between actions, and the default order of actions.

The FSv2 Action Chain Ordering Extended Community (AO-EC) signals if the defaults for the FSv2 Extended Community action ordering and interactions are being ignored, and an implementation specific ordering being used instead. This Action Chain Ordering Extended Community aids the transition between FSv1 actions which are ordered uniquely by each implementation, and the FSv2 actions which use a global default.

The implementer and the operator deploying need to be aware of default order of actions and the interactions between any set of FSv2 actions.

The Community attribute [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities] describes an attribute with flexible format for specifying community information. The flexible format defines a short common header followed by type-specific community. FSv2 [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2] defines a new type of Community denoted as a FSv2 Action for the Community Attribute (FSv2-CA) This FSv2 More IP Actions [I-D.hares-idr-fsv2-more-ip-actions]) defines the format of the FSv2-CA.

3.3.1. FSv2 Extended Community Actions inherited from FSv1

This section reviews FSv1 actions in Extended Communities (IPv4 and IPv6) and conflicts FSv1 actions. The FSv2 IP Basic uses these basic FSv1 with one addition Action Ordering Extended Community.

This section first describes the following Information elated to FSv2 Actions in Extended Communities:

3.3.1.1. Encoding FSv2 Actions in Generic Transitive Communities

The FSv2 actions encoded in Generic Transitive communities inherit the FSv1 actions in Generic Transitive communities.

The Extended Community encodes the Flow Specification actions in the Extended Community format as generic transitive extended communities per [RFC4360] per [RFC8955], [RFC9117], and [RFC9184].

The format of the these actions can be:

Generic Transitive Extended Community (0x80):
where the Sub-Types are defined in the Generic Transitive Extended Community Sub-Types registry.
Generic Transitive Extended Community Part 2(0x81):
where the Sub-Types are defined in the Generic Transitive Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types registry.
Transitive Four-Octet AS-Specific Extended Communit(0x82):
where the Sub-Types defined in the Generic Transitive Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types registry.
Generic Transitive Extended Community Part 3 (0x83):
where the Sub-Types defined in the Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-Types" registry.

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Type high    |  Type low(*)  |                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+          Value (6 octets)     |
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 3-5
Table 3-3 Generic Transitive Extended Community
          Part 1 - (0x80)

IPv4 Extended Communities (Type 0x80)
Value   Description                    Name   Reference
=====   =======================        =====  ==========
0x01    FSv2 Action Chain Ordering     ACO    [This document]
0x06    FSv2 traffic-rate-byte         TRB    [RFC8955]
0x07    Flow spec traffic-action       TAIS   [RFC8955]
0x08    Flow spec rt-redirect          RDIP   [RFC8955]
        AS-2 octet format
0x09    Flow spec Remark DSCP          TMDS   [RFC8955]
0x0C    Flow Spec Traffic-rate-packets TRP    [RFC8955]
0xOD    Flow Spec for SFC classifiers  SFCC   [RFC9015]

Table 3-4 Generic Transitive Extended Community
          Part 2 (0x81)

IPv4 Extended Communities FSv2 action (Type 0x81)
Value   Description                  Name  Reference
=====   =======================      ===== ==========
0x08    Flow spec rt-redirect        RDIP  [RFC8955]

Table 3-5 Generic Transitive Extended Community
                  Part 3 (Type 0x82)

Value   Description                  Name  Reference
=====   =======================      ====  ==========
0x08    Flow spec rt-redirect        RDIP  [RFC8955]
        AS-4 octet format

Table 3-6: Traffic Action bits

Bit     Name                Name  Reference
=====   ===============     ====  ==========
 47          Terminal Action    TAct  [RFC8955]
 46      Sample             Samp  [RFC8955]
 45      Copy               Copy  [this document]
 44      Drop               drop  [this document]

              Figure 3-13
3.3.1.2. Encoding Path Forwarding in IPv4 Transitive Extended Communities

FSv2 needs to refine the following Transitive Extended Communities that are not "Transitive Generic Communities" to a specific set of functions. These features provide overlapping functions. While some of these features are implemented, these actions should be be reviewed.

There are three types of functions:

  • Active filters on interfaces in group for inbound or outbound data traffic

  • Redirect to an IP address. Optionally perform a traffic action (copy)

  • Redirect to an Indirection ID of a specific type. Optionally perform a traffic action (copy).

Table 3-7 Transitive Extended Community types (T-EC-types)

sub-type   FSv1 Description                Name
========   ==================              ====
0x07       FS Interface set                Ifset
0x08       FS Redirect/Mirror              RIPv4
0x09       FS Redirect to Indirection ID   RGID


References:

3.3.1.3. Encoding FSv2 Actions in IPv6 Extended Community

The IPv6 Extended Community encodes the Flow Specification actions in the Extended Community format [RFC5701] per [RFC8956], [RFC9117], and [RFC9184] in the transitive opaque format.


  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Type         |  Sub-type     |   Global Administrator        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|
 |         Global Administrator (cont.)                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |         Global Administrator (cont.)                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |         Global Administrator (cont.)                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | Global Administrator (cont.)  |   Local Administrator         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 3-6

The 20 octets of value are given in the following format:


Global Administrator: IPv6 address assigned by Internet Registry
Local Administrator:  2 bytes of Local Administrator
Table 3-8 transitive IPv6-Address-Specific Actions
Value   Description                         Name
=====   =======================             =====
0x01    Flow Spec Action Chain              ACO
0x0C    Flow Spec redirect-v6-flag          RD6F
0x0D    Flow Spec rt-redirect IPv6 format   RDv6
        IPv6 format


References:

3.3.1.4. Conflicts between FSv2 actions inherited from FSv1 Actions
Table 3-9: Conflicts between FSv2 Transitive Generic IPv4 actions

IPv4 Extended Communities (Type 0x80)
Value   Name  Conflicts with
=====   ===== ========================
0x01    ACO   none
0x06    TRB   TRP
0x07    TAIS  duplication also done in
              RDIP, RIPv4, RGID
0x08    RDIP  redirection done in
              RIPv4, RGID
              copy done in TAIS
0x09    TMDS  none
0x0C    TRP   TRB
0xOD    SFCC  none

Table 3-10 Transitive IPv6-Address-Specific Actions
Value   Name   Conflicts with
=====   ====== =================
0x01    ACO    none
0x0C    RD6F   RDv6
0x0D    RDv6   RD6F

3.3.2. Default Ordering for FSv2 Extended Community Actions

One of the issue that started the FSv2 work was the fact that actions interacted. These interactions might occur when both actions performed their duties which caused conflicting results. One example of a potentially unexpected interaction is when the FSv2 for rate limiting by packet (TRP) combines with the FSv2-EC action for rate limiting by byte (TRB).

The default order is the numerical order of the action type as shown in table x-x for IPv4 and table x-x for IPv6.

Table 3-11 Default Order of FSv2-EC IPv4 Actions

IPv4 Extended Communities (Type 0x80)
Value   Description                    Name
=====   =======================        =====
0x01    FSv2 Action Chain Ordering     ACO
0x06    FSv2 traffic-rate-byte         TRB
0x07    Flow spec traffic-action       TAIS
0x07    FS Interface set
0x08    Flow spec rt-redirect          RDIP
0x08    FS Redirect/Mirror             RDIPv4
0x08    FS Redirect/Mirror             RDIPv4
0x09    FS Redirect to Path ID         RD
0x09    Flow spec Remark DSCP          TMDS
0x0C    Flow Spec Traffic-rate-packets TRP
0xOD    Flow Spec for SFC classifiers  SFCC

Note: If FS Interface is widely deployed
it would be good to move it to another
type.
Table 3-12 default order for FSv2-EC IPv6 actions
Value   Name   Conflicts with
=====   ====== =================
0x01    ACO    none
0x0C    RD6F   RDv6
0x0D    RDv6   RD6F

3.3.3. Action Chain Ordering FSv2 Extended Community (ACO FSv2-EC)

One of the issues with FSv1 is the lack of a clear definition on what happens if multiple actions interact. One way a FSv2 action can interact is if two actions try to do different things with the packet. A second way an FSv2 action can interact is if the first action fails. For example, if the first action was copy (via a mirror action) and the second action is the packet. If the first action fails, should the second action still occur? The correct answer depends on the FSv2 application. If the order of the two actions is drop the packet and then mirror, the mirror function would not copy any packets.

The default ordering of the FSv2-EC actions makes a default action chain for the FSv2 actions supported by the IP Basic. The addition of the FSv2-EC action For Action Chain ordering provides a deterministic way of determining what happens if an action fails.

The orginal specification FSv2 [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2] first defined the concept of an action chain to address the issues of interaction between user-order actions. A FSv2-CA action will be defined for FSv2 Action Chain Ordering (ACO). An implementation which implements both the the FSv2-CA ACO action the FSv2-EC ACO action, MUST give precedence to the ACO action AND provide a logging entry regarding any conflict between the two actions.

The FSv2-EC also provides a flag for "Implementation specific ordering." This flag is useful to aid transition between the FSv1 implementations and FSv2 implementations of IP Basic. In FSv1 implementations configurations or implementation defaults set the order for actions. In FSv2 there is a default order for actions and interactions. New FSv2-Action need to define

The AC-Failure types are:

  • 0x00 – default – stop on failure

  • 0x01 – continue on failure (best effort on actions)

  • 0x02 – conditional stop on failure (depends on AC-Failure-value/policy)

  • 0x03 – rollback do all or nothing (depends on AC-Failure-value/policy)

Editors note: The following options for encoding ACO exist.

Option 1:
redefine bits in Traffic Action subtype
Option 2:
create a new Extended Community
3.3.3.1. FSV2 Basic DDOS Actions
3.3.3.1.1. New Actions for FSv2 DDOS

There are two options for encoding the Action chain.

3.3.3.1.1.1. Option 1: Action Chain operation IPv4 Extended (ACO)(1, 0x01)
   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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Type high    |  Type low(01) |ACO-dependency |  AC-Failure   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |          AC-Failure-value (cont.)                             |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 3-7

where:

  • ACO Dependency - The order dependency within the Action chain.

    • 0 = default order and interaction. For FSv2-EC this means a pre-defined order and inter-dependency.

    • 1 = Implementation specific order and interaction.

  • AC-failure-type – 1 octet byte that determines the action on failure

    • Actions may succeed or fail and an Action chain must deal with it. The default value stored for an action chain that does not have this action chain is “stop on failure”.

    • where:

      • AC-Failure types are:

        • 0x00 – default – stop on failure

        • 0x01 – continue on failure (best effort on actions)

        • 0x02 – conditional stop on failure – depending on AC-Failure-value

        • 0x03 – rollback – do all or nothing - depending in AC-Failure-value

  • AC-Failure values: TBD

3.3.3.1.1.2. Option 2: Action Chain operation encoded in IPv4 Traffic Action (0x07)
   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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  Type high    |  Type low(07) |traffic action field  (zero)   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |          AC-Failure-value (cont.)                   |ACF|I|S|T|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 3-8

 Where
 ACO - is the Action Chain failure types (0x00 to 0x03)
       00 - stop on failure
           01 - continue on failure
           02 - conditional stop on failure (by policy)
           03 - rollback on failure (with policy)
 I - Implementation ordering and interaction
      0 - Default FSv2 ordering and interation
          1 - Implementation defined user
 S - Sample flag
 T - Terminal action
3.3.3.1.2. Interactions between FSv2 DDOS actions
Table 3-13 - All FSv2 IPv4 Action types for IP DDOS

 Action  Name  Description             May Interacts
 ======  ====  ======================  ===============
   01    ACO   Action Chain Operation  none
   06    TRB   Traffic Rate limited    TRP
                by Bytes
   07    TA    Traffic Action          none
               (terminal/sample/ACO)
   08    RDIP  Redirect IPv4           none
   09    TM    Mark DSCP value         none
   12    TRP   Traffic Rate limited    TRB
                by Packets

Table 3-14 – All FSv2 IPv6 Action types for IP DDOS

 Action  Name  Description             May Interacts
 ======  ====  ======================  ===============
   01    ACO   Action Chain Operation  none
   06    TRB   Traffic Rate limited    TRP
                by Bytes
   07    TA    Traffic Action          none
               (terminal/sample/ACO)
   08    RDIP  Redirect IPv4           none
   09    TM    Mark DSCP value         none
   12    TRP   Traffic Rate limited    TRB
                by Packets

3.3.3.2. Summary of all FSv2 Actions (informative only)

This table is informative only. It will moved to an appendix.

Table 3-15 -  All IP Actions in Extended Communities

 Action   Name: Description
 ======   ===========
   00     reserved
   01     ACO:  action chain operation
   02     reserved
   03     TAIS: traffic actions per interface group
   04     LkBW: Link bandwidth
          (draft-ietf-idr-linkbandwidth-07) [non-transitive]
                  [juniper link bandwidth] [transitive]

   06     TRB:  traffic rate limited by bytes
   07     TA: traffic action (terminal/sample)
   08     RDIP: Redirect IPv4
   09     TM: mark DSCP value
   10     TBA (to be assigned)
   11     TBA (to be assigned)
   12     TRP: traffic rate limited by packets
   13     TISFC: SFC Classifier
   14     RDIID: redirect to Indirection-id (move from 0x00)

   31     TISFC: SFC classifier II (this document)
   32     MPLSLA: MPLS label action
   33     VLAN: VLAN-Action (0x16)[draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-17]
   34     TPID: TPID-Action (0x17)[draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-17]
   24-254 TBA (to be assigned)
   255    reserved



 Table 3-16 IPv6 Extended Communities (Type 1)

Value   Description                  Name   Reference
=====   =======================      =====  ==========
0x01    Flow Spec Action Chain       ACO    [This document]
0x0C    Flow Spec redirect-v6-flag   RD6F   [ID-redirect-IP]
0x0D    Flow Spec rt-redirect        RD6    [RFC8956]
        IPv6 format

4. Validation and Ordering of NLRI

4.1. Validation of FSv2 NLRI

The validation of FSv2 NLRI adheres to the combination of rules for general BGP FSv1 NLRI found in [RFC8955], [RFC8956], [RFC9117], and the specific additions made for SFC NLRI [RFC9015], and L2VPN NLRI [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn].

To provide clarity, the full validation process for flow specification routes (FSv1 or FSv2) is described in this section rather than simply referring to the relevant portions of these RFCs. Validation only occurs after BGP UPDATE message reception and the FSv2 NLRI and the path attributes relating to FSv2 (Extended community and Wide Community) have been determined to be well-formed. Any MALFORMED FSv2 NRLI is handled as a “TREAT as WITHDRAW” [RFC7606].

4.1.1. Validation of FS NLRI (FSv1 or FSv2)

Flow specifications received from a BGP peer that are accepted in the respective Adj-RIB-In are used as input to the route selection process. Although the forwarding attributes of the two routes for tbe same prefix may be the same, BGP is still required to perform its path selection algorithm in order to select the correct set of attributes to advertise.

The first step of the BGP Route selection procedure (section 9.1.2 of [RFC4271] is to exclude from the selection procedure routes that are considered unfeasible. In the context of IP routing information, this is used to validate that the NEXT_HOP Attribute of a given route is resolvable.

The concept can be extended in the case of the Flow Specification NLRI to allow other validation procedures.

The FSv2 validation process validates the FSv2 NLRI with following unicast routes received over the same AFI (1 or 2) but different SAFIs:

  • Flow specification routes (FSv1 or FSv2) received over SAFI=133 will be validated against SAFI=1,

  • Flow Specification routes (FSv1 or FSv2) received over SAFI=134 will be validated against SAFI=128, and

  • Flow Specification routes (FSv1 or FSv2) [AFI =1, 2] received over SAFI=77 will be validated using only the Outer Flow Spec against SAFI = 133.

The FSv2 validates L2 FSv2 NLRI with the following L2 routes received over the same AFI (25), but a different SAFI:

  • Flow specification routes (FSv1 or FSv2)received over SAFI=135 are validated against SAFI=128.

In the absence of explicit configuration, a Flow specification NLRI (FSv1 or FSv2) MUST be validated such that it is considered feasible if and only if all of the conditions are true:

  • a) A destination prefix component is embedded in the Flow Specification,

  • b) One of the following conditions holds true:

    • 1. The originator of the Flow Specification matches the originator of the best-math unicast route for the destination prefix embedded in the flow specification (this is the unicast route with the longest possible prefix length covering the destination prefix embedded in the flow specification).

    • 2. The AS_PATH attribute of the flow specification is empty or contains only an AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE segment [RFC5065].

      • 2a.This condition should be enabled by default.

      • 2b.This condition may be disabled by explicit configuration on a BGP Speaker,

      • 2c.As an extension to this rule, a given non-empty AS_PATH (besides AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE segments) MAY be permitted by policy].

  • c) There are no “more-specific” unicast routes when compared with the flow destination prefix that have been received from a different neighbor AS than the best-match unicast route, which has been determined in rule b.

However, part of rule a may be relaxed by explicit configuration, permitting Flow Specifications that include no destination prefix component. If such is the case, rules b and c are moot and MUST be disregarded.

By “originator” of a BGP route, we mean either the address of the originator in the ORIGINATOR_ID Attribute [RFC4456] or the source address of the BGP peer, if this path attribute is not present.

A BGP implementation MUST enforce that the AS in the left-most position of the AS_PATH attribute of a Flow Specification Route (FSv1 or FSv2) received via the Exterior Border Gateway Protocol (eBGP) matches the AS in the left-most position of the AS_PATH attribute of the best-match unicast route for the destination prefix embedded in the Flow Specification (FSv1 or FSv2) NLRI.

The best-match unicast route may change over time independently of the Flow Specification NLRI (FSv1 or FSv2). Therefore, a revalidation of the Flow Specification MUST be performed whenever unicast routes change. Revalidation is defined as retesting rules a to c as described above.

4.1.2. Validation of Flow Specification Actions

Flow Specifications may be mapped to actions using Extended Communities or a Wide Communities. The FSv2 actions in Extended Communities and Wide communities can be associated with large number of NLRIs.

The ordering of precedence for these actions in the case when the user-defined order is the same follows the precedence of the FSv2 NLRI action TLV values (lowest to highest). User-defined order is the same when the order value for action is the same. All Extended Community actions MUST be translated to the user-defined order data format for internal comparison. By default, all Extended Community actions SHOULD be translated to a single value.

Actions may conflict, duplicate, or complement other actions. An example of conflict is the packet rate limiting by byte and by packet. An example of a duplicate is the request to copy or sample a packet under one of the redirect functions (RDIPv4, RDIPv6, RDIID, ) Each FSv2 actions in this document defines the potential conflicts or duplications. Specifications for new FSv2 actions outside of this specification MUST specify interactions or conflicts with any FSv2 actions (that appear in this specification or subsequent specifications).

Well-formed syntactically correct actions should be linked to a filtering rule in the order the actions should be taken. If one action in the ordered list fails, the default procedure is for the action process for this rule to stop and flag the error via system management. By explicit configuration, the action processing may continue after errors.

Implementations MAY wish to log the actions taken by FS actions (FSv1 or FSv2).

4.1.3. Error handling and Validation

The following two error handling rules must be followed by all BGP speakers which support FSv2:

  • FSv2 NLRI having TLVs which do not have the correct lengths or syntax must be considered MALFORMED.

  • FSv2 NLRIs having TLVs which do not follow the above ordering rules described in section 4.1 MUST be considered as malformed by a BGP FSv2 propagator.

The above two rules prevent any ambiguity that arises from the multiple copies of the same NLRI from multiple BGP FSv2 propagators.

A BGP implementation SHOULD treat such malformed NLRIs as ‘Treat-as-withdraw’ [RFC7606]

An implementation for a BGP speaker supporting both FSv1 and FSv2 MUST support the error handling for both FSv1 and FSv2.

4.2. Ordering for Flow Specification v2 (FSv2)

Flow Specification v2 allows the user to order flow specification rules and the actions associated with a rule. Each FSv2 rule has one or more match conditions and one or more actions associated with that match condition.

This section describes how to order FSv2 filters received from a peer prior to transmission to another peer. The same ordering should be used for the ordering of forwarding filtering installed based on only FSv2 filters.

Section 7.0 describes how a BGP peer that supports FSv1 and FSv2 should order the flow specification filters during the installation of these flow specification filters into FIBs or firewall engines in routers.

The BGP distribution of FSv1 NLRI and FSv2 NLRI and their associated path attributes for actions (Wide Communities and Extended Communities) is “ships-in-the-night” forwarding of different AFI/SAFI information. This recommended ordering provides for deterministic ordering of filters sent by the BGP distribution.

4.2.1. Ordering of FSv2 NLRI Filters

The basic principles regarding ordering of rules are simple:

  • 1) Rule-0 (zero) is defined to be 0/0 with the “permit-all” action

    • BGP peers which do not support flow specification permit traffic for routes received. Rule-0 is defined to be “permit-all” for 0/0 which is the normal case for filtering for routes received by BGP.

    • By configuration option, the “permit-all” may be set to “deny-all” if traffic rules on routers used as BGP must have a “route” AND a firewall filter to allow traffic flow.

  • 2) FSv2 rules are ordered based on the user-defined order numbers specified in the FSv2 NLRI (rules 1-n).

  • 3) If multiple FSv2 NLRI have the same user-defined order, then the filters are ordered by type of FSv2 NRLI filters (see Table 1, section 4) with lowest numerical number have the best precedence.

    • For the same user-defined order and the same value for the FSv2 filters type, then the filters are ordered by FSv2 the component type for that FSv2 filter type (see Tables 3-6) with the lowest number having the best precedence.

    • For the same user-defined order, the same value of FSv2 Filter Type, and the same value for the component type, then the filters are ordered by value within the component type. Each component type defines value ordering.

    • For component types inherited from the FSv1 component types, there are the following two types of comparisons:

      • FSv1 component value comparison for the IP prefix values, compares the length of the two prefixes. If the length is different, the longer prefix has precedence. If the length is the same, the lower IP number has precedence.

      • For all other FSv1 component types, unless specified, the component data is compared using the memcmp() function defined by [ISO_IEC_9899]. For strings with the same length, the lowest string memcmp() value has precedence. For strings of different lengths, the common prefix is compared. If the common string prefix is not equal, then the string with the lowest string prefix has higher precedence. If the common prefix is equal, the longest string is considered to have higher precedence

Notes:

  • Since the user can define rules that re-order these value comparisons, this order is arbitrary and set to provide a deterministic default.

4.2.2. Ordering of the Actions

The FSv2 specification allows for actions to be associated by:

  • a) a Wide Community path attribute, or

  • b) an Extended Community path attribute.

Actions may be ordered by user-defined action order number from 1-n (where n is 2**16-2 and the value 2**16-1 is reserved.

Byy default, extended community actions are associated with default order number 32768 [0x8000] or a specific configured value for the FSv2 domain.

Action user-order number zero is defined to have an Action type of “Set Action Chain operation” (ACO) (value 0x01) that defines the default action chain process. For details on “set action chain operation” see section 3.2.1 or section 5.2.1 below.

If the user-defined action number for two actions are the same, then the actions are ordered by FSv2 action types (see Table 3 for a list of action types). If the user-defined action number and the FSv2 action types are the same, then the order must be defined by the FSv2 action.

4.2.2.1. Action Chain Operation (ACO)

The “Action Chain Operation” (ACO) changes the way the actions after the current action in an action chain are handled after a failure. If no action chain operations are set, then the default action of “stop upon failure” (value 0x00) will be used for the chain.

4.2.2.1.1. Example 1 - Default ACO

Use Case 1: Rate limit to 600 packets per second

Description: The provider will support 600 packets per second All Packets sampled for reporting purposes and packet streams over 600 packets per second will be dropped.

Suppose BGP Peer A has a

  • a Wide Community action with user-defined order 10 with Traffic Sampling

  • a Wide Community action with user-defined order 11 from AS 2020 that limits packet-based rate limit of 600 packets per second.

  • an Extended Community from AS 2020 that does limits packet-based rate limit of 50 packets per second.

The FSv2 data base would store the following action chain:

  • at user-defined action order 10

    • A user action of type 7 (traffic action) with values of Sampling and logging.

  • at user-defined action order 11

    • a user action type of 12 (packet-based rate limit) with values of AS 2020 and float value for 600 packets per second (pps)

  • at user-defined action order 32768 (0x8000) with type 12 and values of A user action of type 12 with values of AS 2020 and float value of 50 packets/second.

Normal action:

  • The match on the traffic would cause a sample of the traffic (probably with packet rate saved in logging) followed by a rate limit to 600 pps. The Extended community action would further limit the rate to 50 packets per second.

When does the action chain stop?

  • The default process for the action chain is to stop on failure. If there is no failure, then all three actions would occur. This is probably not what the user wants.

  • If there is failure at action 10 (sample and log), then there would be no rate limiting per packet (actions 11 and action 32768).

  • If there is failure at action 11 (rate limit to packet 600), then there would be no rate limiting per packet (action 32768).

The different options for Action chain ordering (ACO) have been worked on with NETCONF/RESTCONF configuration and actions.

4.2.2.1.2. Example 2: Redirect traffic over limit to processing via SFC

Use case 2: Redirect traffic over limit to processing via SFC.

Description: The normal function is for traffic over the limit to be forwarded for offline processing and reporting to a customer.

Suppose we have the following 4 actions defined for a match:

  • Sent Redirect to indirection ID (0x01) with user-defined match 2 attached in wide community,

  • Traffic rate limit by bytes (0x07) with user-defined match 1 attached in wide community,

  • Traffic sample (0x07) sent in extended community, and

  • SF classifier Info (0x0E) sent in extended community.

These 4 filters rate limit a potential DDoS attack by: a) redirect the packet to indirection ID (for slower speed processing), sample to local hardware, and forward the attack traffic via a SFC to a data collection box.

The FSv2 action list for the match would look like this

  • Action 0: Operation of action chain (0x01) (stop upon failure)

  • Action 1: Traffic Rate limit by byte (0x07)

  • Action 2: Redirect to Redirection ID (0x0F)

  • Action 32768 (0x8000) Traffic Action (0x07) Sample

  • Action 32768 (0x8000) SFC Classifier: (0xE)

If the redirect to a redirection ID fails, then Traffic Sample and sending the data to an SFC classifier for forwarding via SFC will not happen. The traffic is limited, but not redirect away from the network and a sample sent to DDOS processing via a SFC classifier.

Suppose the following 5 actions were defined for a FSV2 filter:

  • Set Action Chain Operation (ACO) (0x01) to continue on failure (ox01) at user-order 2 attached in wide community,

  • redirect to indirection ID (0x0F) at user-order 2 attached in wide community,

  • traffic rate limit by bytes (0x07)with user-order 1 attached in wide community,

  • Traffic sample (0x07) attached via extended community, and

  • SFC classifier Info (0x0E) attached in extended community.

The FSv2 action list for the match would look like this:

  • Action 00: Operation of action chain (0x01) (stop upon failure)

  • Action 01:Traffic Rate limit by byte (0x07)

  • Action 02:Set Action Chain Operation (ACO) (0x01) (continue on failure)

  • Action 02: Redirect to Redirection ID (0F)

  • Action 32768 (0x8000): Traffic Action (0x07) Sample

  • Action 32768 (0x8000): SFC classifier (0x0E) forward via SFC [to DDoS classifier]

If the redirect to a redirection ID fails, the action chain will continue on to sample the data and enact SFC classifier actions.

4.3. Ordering of FS filters for BGP Peers support FSv1 and FSv2

FSv2 allows the user to order flow specification rules and the actions associated with a rule. Each FSv2 rule has one or more match conditions and one or more actions associated with each rule.

FSv1 and FSv2 filters are sent as different AFI/SAFI pairs so FSv1 and FSv2 operate as ships-in-the-night. Some BGP peers in an AS may support both FSv1 and FSv2. Other BGP peers may support FSv1 or FSv2. Some BGP will not support FSv1 or FSV2. A coherent flow specification technology must have consistent best practices for ordering the FSv1 and FSv2 filter rules.

One simple rule captures the best practice: Order the FSv1 filters after the FSv2 filter by placing the FSv1 filters after the FSv2 filters.

To operationally make this work, all flow specification filters should be included the same data base with the FSv1 filters being assigned a user- defined order beyond the normal size of FSv2 user-ordered values. A few examples, may help to illustrate this best practice.

Example 1: User ordered numbering - Suppose you might have 1,000 rules for the FSv2 filters. Assign all the FSv1 user defined rules to 1,001 (or better yet 2,000). The FSv1 rules will be ordered by the components and component values.

Example 2: Storage of actions - All FSv1 actions are defined ordered actions in FSv2. Translate your FSv1 actions into FSv2 ordered actions for storing in a common FSv1-FSv2 flow specification data base.

Example 3: Mixed Flow Specification Support -

  • Suppose an FSv2 peer (BGP Peer A) has the capability to send either FSv1 or FSv2. BGP Peer A peers with BGP Peers B, C, D and E.

  • BGP Peer B can only send FSv1 routes (NLRI + Extended Community). BGP Peer C can send FSv2 routes (NLRI + path attributes (wide community or extended community or none)). BGP Peer D cannot send any FS routes. BGP E can send FSv2 and FSv1 routes

  • BGP Peer A sends FSv1 routes in its databases to BGP B. Since the FSv2 NLRI cannot be sent to the FSv1 peer, only the FSv1 NLRI is sent. BGP Peer A sends to BGP C the FSv2 routes in its database (configured or received).

  • BGP peer A would not send the FSv1 NLRI or FSv2 NLRI to BGP Peer D. The BGP Peer D does not support for these NLRI.

  • BGP Peer A sends the NLRI for both FSv1 and FSv2 to BGP Peer E.

      +---------+                       +---------+
      |    A    |=======================|    C    |
      |FSv1+FSv2|.                   . .|  FSv2   |
      +---------+ .                 .   +---------+
       ||  |   \   .               .      .     ||
       ||  |    \   . . . . . . . . .     .     ||
       ||  |     \               .   .    .     ||
       ||  |      \-----\      .      .   .     ||
       ||  |             \    .        .  .     ||
      +---------+       +------+       +-----+  ||
      |    E    |-------|  B   |. . . .|  D  |  ||
      |FSv1+FSv2|       | FSv1 |       |no FS|  ||
      +---------+       +------+       +-----+  ||
        ||     .                         .      ||
        ||     . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      ||
        ||                                      ||
        |========================================|

        Double line = FSv2
        Single line = FSv1
        Dotted line = BGP peering with no FlowSpec

         Figure 4-1: FSv1 and FVs2 Peering

5. Scalability and Aspirations for FSv2

Operational issues drive the deployment of BGP flow specification as a quick and scalable way to distribute filters. The early operations accepted the fact validation of the distribution of filter needed to be done outside of the BGP distribution mechanism. Other mechanisms (NETCONF/RESTCONF or PCEP) have reply-request protocols.

These features within BGP have not changed. BGP still does not have an action-reply feature.

NETCONF/RESTCONF latest enhancements provide action/response features which scale. The combination of a quick distribution of filters via BGP and a long-term action in NETCONF/RESTCONF that ask for reporting of the installation of FSv2 filters may provide the best scalability.

The combination of NETCONF/RESTCONF network management protocols and BGP focuses each protocol on the strengths of scalability.

FSv2 will be deployed in webs of BGP peers which have some BGP peers passing FSv1, some BGP peers passing FSv2, some BGP peers passing FSv1 and FSv2, and some BGP peers not passing any routes.

The TLV encoding and deterministic behaviors of FSv2 will not deprecate the need for careful design of the distribution of flow specification filters in this mixed environment. The needs of networks for flow specification are different depending on the network topology and the deployment technology for BGP peers sending flow specification.

Suppose we have a centralized RR connected to DDoS processing sending out flow specification to a second tier of RR who distribute the information to targeted nodes. This type of distribution has one set of needs for FSv2 and the transition from FSv1 to FSv2

Suppose we have Data Center with a 3-tier backbone trying to distribute DDoS or other filters from the spine to combinational nodes, to the leaf BGP nodes. The BGP peers may use RR or normal BGP distribution. This deployment has another set of needs for FSv2 and the transition from FSv1 to FSV2.

Suppose we have a corporate network with a few AS sending DDoS filters using basic BGP from a variety of sites. Perhaps the corporate network will be satisfied with FSv1 for a long time.

These examples are given to indicate that BGP FSv2, like so many BGP protocols, needs to be carefully tuned to aid the mitigation services within the network. This protocol suite starts the migration toward better tools using FSv2, but it does not end it. With FSv2 TLVs and deterministic actions, new operational mechanisms can start to be understood and utilized.

This FSv2 specification is merely the start of a revolution of work – not the end.

6. Optional Security Additions

This section discusses the optional BGP Security additions for BGP-FS v2 relating to BGPSEC [RFC8205] and ROA [RFC6482].

6.1. BGP FSv2 and BGPSEC

Flow specification v1 ([RFC8955] and [RFC8956]) do not comment on how BGP Flow specifications to be passed BGPSEC [RFC8205] BGP Flow Specification v2 can be passed in BGPSEC, but it is not required.

FSv1 and FSv2 may be sent via BGPSEC.

6.2. BGP FSv2 with ROA

BGP FSv2 can utilize ROAs in the validation. If BGP FSv2 is used with BGPSEC and ROA, the first thing is to validate the route within BGPSEC and second to utilize BGP ROA to validate the route origin.

The BGP-FS peers using both ROA and BGP-FS validation determine that a BGP Flow specification is valid if and only if one of the following cases:

  • If the BGP Flow Specification NLRI has a IPv4 or IPv6 address in destination address match filter and the following is true:

    • A BGP ROA has been received to validate the originator, and

    • The route is the best-match unicast route for the destination prefix embedded in the match filter; or

  • If a BGP ROA has not been received that matches the IPv4 or IPv6 destination address in the destination filter, the match filter must abide by the [RFC8955] and [RFC8956] validation rules as follows:

    • The originator match of the flow specification matches the originator of the best-match unicast route for the destination prefix filter embedded in the flow specification", and

    • No more specific unicast routes exist when compared with the flow destination prefix that have been received from a different neighboring AS than the best-match unicast route, which has been determined in step A.

The best match is defined to be the longest-match NLRI with the highest preference.

7. IANA Considerations

This section complies with [RFC7153].

7.1. Flow Specification V2 SAFIs

IANA is requested to assign two SAFI Values in the registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace from the Standard Action Range as follows:


     Table 7-1 SAFIs

     Value   Description      Reference
     -----   -------------    ---------------
      TBD1   BGP FSv2        [this document]
      TBD2   BGP FSv2 VPN    [this document]

7.2. BGP Capability Code

IANA is requested to assign a Capability Code from the registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/ from the IETF Review range as follows:

   Table 7-2 - Capability Code

   Value   Description            Reference       Controller
   -----  ---------------------  ---------------  ----------
    TBD3  Flow Specification V2  [this document]  IETF

7.3. Filter IP Component types

IANA is requested to create a FSv2 Component Types registry and indicate [this draft] as a reference. The following assignments in the FSv2 Component Types Registry shold be made.

   Table 7-3 - Flow Specification

   Registry Name: BGP FSv2 TLV types
   Reference: [this document]
   Registration Procedures: 0x01-0x3FFF Standards Action.

   Value  Description         Reference
   -----  ------------------- ------------------------
    1     Destination filter  [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
    2     Source Prefix       [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
    3     IP Protocol         [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
    4     Port                [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
    5     Destination Port    [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
    6     Source Port         [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
    7     ICMP Type [v4 or v6][RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
    8     ICMP Code [v4 or v6][RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
    9     TCP Flags [v4]      [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
   10     Packet Length       [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
   11     DSCP marking        [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
   12     Fragment            [RFC8955][RFC8956][this document]
   13     Flow Label          [RFC8956][this document]
   14     TTL                 [this document]

7.4. FSV2 NLRI TLV Types

IANA is requested to create the a new registries on a new "Flow Specification v2 TLV Types” web page.

   Table 7-4 FSv2 TLV types

   Registry Name: BGP FSv2 TLV types
   Reference: [this document]
   Registration Procedures: 0x01-0x3FFF Standards Action.

    Type      Description                    Reference
   -----      -----------------------        -------------
    0x00      Reserved                      [this document]
    0x01      IP traffic rules              [this document]
    0x02      Extended IP Rules             [this document]
    0x03      L2 traffic rules              [this document]
        0x04      SFC AFI traffic rules         [this document]
    0x05      SFC VPN traffic rules         [this document]
    0x06      BGP/MPLS IP VPN traffic rules [this document]
    0x07      BGP/MPLS L2 VPN traffic rules [this document]
    0x08-
         0x3FFF   Unassigned                    [this document]
    0x4000-
         0x7FFF   Vendor specific               [this document]
    0x8000-
         0xFFFF   Reserved                      [this document]

7.5. Community Container Type Assignments

IANA is requested to assign values from the BGP Community Container Types registry:

   Tab;e 5 -
   Name                    type Value
   ------                  -----------
   FSv2 Actions            TBD4

8. Security Considerations

The use of ROA improves on [RFC8955] by checking to see of the route origination. This check can improve the validation sequence for a multiple-AS environment.

>The use of BGPSEC [RFC8205] to secure the packet can increase security of BGP flow specification information sent in the packet.

The use of the reduced validation within an AS [RFC9117] can provide adequate validation for distribution of flow specification within a single autonomous system for prevention of DDoS.

Distribution of flow filters may provide insight into traffic being sent within an AS, but this information should be composite information that does not reveal the traffic patterns of individuals.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[I-D.hares-idr-fsv2-more-ip-actions]
Hares, S., "BGP Flow Specification Version 2 - More IP Actions", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-hares-idr-fsv2-more-ip-actions-00, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hares-idr-fsv2-more-ip-actions-00>.
[I-D.hares-idr-fsv2-more-ip-filters]
Hares, S., "BGP Flow Specification Version 2 - More IP Filters", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-hares-idr-fsv2-more-ip-filters-00, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hares-idr-fsv2-more-ip-filters-00>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label]
liangqiandeng, Hares, S., You, J., Raszuk, R., and D. Ma, "Carrying Label Information for BGP FlowSpec", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label-02, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label-02>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset]
Litkowski, S., Simpson, A., Patel, K., Haas, J., and L. Yong, "Applying BGP flowspec rules on a specific interface set", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset-05, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset-05>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn]
Weiguo, H., Eastlake, D. E., Litkowski, S., and S. Zhuang, "BGP Dissemination of L2 Flow Specification Rules", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-23, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-23>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match]
Yong, L., Hares, S., liangqiandeng, and J. You, "BGP Flow Specification Filter for MPLS Label", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match-02, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match-02>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3]
Eastlake, D. E., Weiguo, H., Zhuang, S., Li, Z., and R. Gu, "BGP Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for Tunneled Traffic", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-19, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-19>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect]
Van de Velde, G., Patel, K., and Z. Li, "Flowspec Indirection-id Redirect", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-12, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-12>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip]
Uttaro, J., Haas, J., Texier, M., akarch@cisco.com, Ray, S., Simpson, A., and W. Henderickx, "BGP Flow-Spec Redirect to IP Action", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-02>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6]
Li, Z., Li, L., Chen, H., Loibl, C., Mishra, G. S., Fan, Y., Zhu, Y., Liu, L., and X. Liu, "BGP Flow Specification for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6-05, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6-05>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]
Raszuk, R., Haas, J., Lange, A., Decraene, B., Amante, S., and P. Jakma, "BGP Community Container Attribute", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-11, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-11>.
[RFC0791]
Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3032]
Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC4271]
Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4360]
Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
[RFC4760]
Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5065]
Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC 5065, DOI 10.17487/RFC5065, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5065>.
[RFC5701]
Rekhter, Y., "IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended Community Attribute", RFC 5701, DOI 10.17487/RFC5701, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5701>.
[RFC6482]
Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, DOI 10.17487/RFC6482, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6482>.
[RFC7153]
Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "IANA Registries for BGP Extended Communities", RFC 7153, DOI 10.17487/RFC7153, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7153>.
[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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8955]
Loibl, C., Hares, S., Raszuk, R., McPherson, D., and M. Bacher, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", RFC 8955, DOI 10.17487/RFC8955, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8955>.
[RFC8956]
Loibl, C., Ed., Raszuk, R., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for IPv6", RFC 8956, DOI 10.17487/RFC8956, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8956>.
[RFC9015]
Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rosen, E., Uttaro, J., and L. Jalil, "BGP Control Plane for the Network Service Header in Service Function Chaining", RFC 9015, DOI 10.17487/RFC9015, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9015>.
[RFC9117]
Uttaro, J., Alcaide, J., Filsfils, C., Smith, D., and P. Mohapatra, "Revised Validation Procedure for BGP Flow Specifications", RFC 9117, DOI 10.17487/RFC9117, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9117>.
[RFC9184]
Loibl, C., "BGP Extended Community Registries Update", RFC 9184, DOI 10.17487/RFC9184, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9184>.

9.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-v2]
Hares, S., Eastlake, D. E., Yadlapalli, C., and S. Maduschke, "BGP Flow Specification Version 2", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-v2-04, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-v2-04>.
[RFC6241]
Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC8040]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8205]
Lepinski, M., Ed. and K. Sriram, Ed., "BGPsec Protocol Specification", RFC 8205, DOI 10.17487/RFC8205, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8205>.
[RFC8206]
George, W. and S. Murphy, "BGPsec Considerations for Autonomous System (AS) Migration", RFC 8206, DOI 10.17487/RFC8206, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8206>.
[RFC8300]
Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.

Authors' Addresses

Susan Hares
Hickory Hill Consulting
7453 Hickory Hill
Saline, MI 48176
United States of America
Donald Eastlake
Futurewei Technologies
2386 Panoramic Circle
Apopka, FL 32703
United States of America
Chaitanya Yadlapalli
ATT
United States of America
Sven Maduschke
Verizon
Germany