Constrain Attribute announcement within BGP

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 15 April 2023.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

[RFC4271] defines four different categories of BGP Path attributes. The different Path attribute categories can be identified by the attribute flag values. These flags help identify if an attribute is optional or well-known, Transitive or non-Transitive, Partial, or of an Extended length type. BGP attribute announcement depends on whether an attribute is a well-known or optional, and whether an attribute is a transitive or non-transitive. BGP implementations MUST recognize all well-known attributes. The well-known attributes are always Transitive. It is not required for BGP implementations to recognise all the Optional attributes. The Optional attributes could be Transitive or Non-Transitive. BGP implementations MUST store and forward any Unknown Optional Transitive attributes and ignore and drop any Unknown Optional Non-Transitive attributes.¶

Optional Transitive attributes help foster partial deployments of newer BGP features. Alternatively, Optional Non-Transitive attributes are drop by BGP speakers that do not recognise the attribute. The optional attributes in their current definition do not provide any automated attribute level filtering to control the scope of announcements within a given AS or a BGP member-AS in Confederation. Scoped announcements of attributes may be needed in certain scenarios. Announcing attributes beyond their intended scope MAY result in breakage of functionalities or leaking of any undesired information.¶

This draft defines new attribute extensions that help confine the scope of Path attributes; in particular Optional attributes within a given Autonomous System or a given BGP member-AS in confederation or a given Administrative domain. Note that "BGP Member-AS in Confederation" and "Member-AS" are used entirely interchangeably thoughout this document.¶

As part of new attribute extensions, this draft defines a new attribute format to incorporate the scoping information. The new attribute format applies to all the new attribute types that will be defined moving forward. The newly defined attribute scoping is specifically for newer attributes that explicitly state their use of such scoping bits. These newly defined attributes would be either an Optional transitive attributes (recognized and unrecognized) or any recognized optional non-transtitive attributes. For any well-known attributes or unrecognized optional non-transtive attributes, the standard rules mentioned in [RFC4271] applies.¶

4. Operation

When originating a well-known Path attribute, a BGP speaker MUST set both the AS Wide Scope and Member-AS Scope bit to 0. When originating an optional Path attribute, a BGP speaker SHOULD use and set AS Wide Scope bit if it wants to restrict the announcement within a AS. Similarly, when originating an optional Path attribute, a BGP speaker SHOULD use and set Member-AS Scope bit if it wants to restrict the announcement with a Member-AS. When originating an optional Path attribute, a BGP speaker SHOULD use and set both Member-AS Scope bit and AS Wide Scope bit if it wants to restrict the announcement within a single administration composed of multiple ASes.¶

When a BGP speaker receives or originates a route that includes any well-known Path attribute with either a AS Wide Scope bit set or a Member-AS Scope bit set then it SHOULD consider the attribute as malformed. The handling of malformed attributes SHOULD follow the procedures mentioned in [RFC7606].¶

When a BGP speaker receives or originates a route that includes an optional Path attribute with a AS Wide Scope bit set and a Member-AS Scope bit cleared, it MUST remove that Path attribute when announcing the route to any of its EBGP speakers. To deal with partial deployments it is suggested that a BGP speaker SHOULD quietly ignore and not pass along to other BGP peers any Path attribute received from its EBGP peers with a AS Wide Scope bit set and a Member-AS Scope bit cleared unless configured explicitly using a policy.¶

When a BGP speaker receives or originates a route that includes an optional Path attribute with a Member-AS Scope bit set and a AS Wide Scope bit cleared, it MUST remove that Path attribute when announcing the route to any of its BGP speakers outside its Member-AS. To deal with partial deployments it is suggested that a BGP speaker SHOULD quietly ignore and not pass along to other BGP peers any Path attribute received from its BGP peers with a Member-AS Scope bit set and a AS Wide Scope bit cleared unless configured explicitly as a policy.¶

When a BGP speaker receives or originates a route with an optional path attribute that has both, the AS Wide Scope bit set and the Member-AS Scope bit set, it MUST announce it to all its EBGP peers within its administrative domain. Such an attribute MUST be filtered when the attribute is announced outside its admistrative domain. The BGP peering boundaries for an admistrative domain is a matter of a policy and is set by the operators.¶

Any implementation that supports the extensions defined in this draft MUST support the Enhanced Error handling defined in [RFC7606]. Enhanced Error handling allows any error condition that MAY occur during the parsing and processing of new attribute flags to be treated according to the procedures of [RFC7606]. Furthermore, it is assumed that the BGP network is enabled with Enhanced Error Handling feature. This allows BGP speakers not implementing the draft extensions to apply the procedures of [RFC7606].¶

5. IANA Considerations

This draft define a new path attribute format for all undefined attribute types. We request IANA to record the use of new path attribute format for the following undefined attribute types (30-39, 41-127, 129-254).¶

This draft defines two new Extended Path attribute flags. We request IANA to create a new registry for BGP Extended Path Attribute Flags under BGP Path attributes as follows:¶

Under "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry, "BGP Extended Path Attributes Flags" Reference: draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-attribute-annoucement-01 Registration Procedures as follows:¶

Bit Value (LSB) Type                       Reference
      1         AS Wide Scope              Current Draft
      2         Member-AS in Confederation Current Draft

6. Security Considerations

This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues inherent in the existing [RFC4724] and [RFC4271].¶

Authors' Addresses