Network Working Group K. Patel
Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track J. Uttaro
Expires: August 1, 2018 ATT
B. Decraene
Orange
W. Henderickx
Alcatel Lucent
J. Haas
Juniper Networks
January 28, 2018
Constrain Attribute announcement within BGP
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement-02.txt
Abstract
[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.
Currently, there is no way to confine the scope of Path attributes
within a given Autonomous System (AS) or a given BGP member-AS in
Confederation. This draft defines attribute extensions that help
confine the scope of Optional attributes within a given AS or a given
BGP member-AS in Confederation
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/.
Patel, et al. Expires August 1, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Constrain Attribute announcement within BGP January 2018
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 August 1, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Path Attribute Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Extended Path Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Information References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Patel, et al. Expires August 1, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Constrain Attribute announcement within BGP January 2018
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.
Patel, et al. Expires August 1, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Constrain Attribute announcement within BGP January 2018
1.1. Requirements 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Path Attribute Format
[RFC4271] defines path attribute format as a triple [attribute type,
attribute length, attribute value] of a variable length. The
attribute value field is of a variable length. This draft augments
the path attribute value field and reserves first four bytes of path
attribute value field as path attribute extended flags field. All
the path attributes carrying extended flags field will have a minumum
attribute length of 4 bytes. The augmented path attribute format
applies to all the current undefined attributes types (30-39, 41-127,
129-254). Any attribute specific data follows the path attribute
extended flags field.
3. Extended Path Attribute Flags
[RFC4271] defines four type of BGP Path attributes using the
attribute Flags field as follows:
Path Attribute flags:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|O|T|P|E| R | (R = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
O Optional or a Well-known as defined in [RFC4271]
T Transitive or Non-Transtive as defined in [RFC4271]
P Partial as defined in [RFC4271]
E Extended Length type as defined in [RFC4271]
This draft introduces new Flags field known as Extended Path
Attribute Flags. The Extended Path Attribute Flags field is defined
as first 4 bytes of the Path Attribute's value field. This draft
introduces three new Extended Path Attributes flags as follows:
Patel, et al. Expires August 1, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Constrain Attribute announcement within BGP January 2018
Path Attribute flags:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| R |C|A|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(R = MUST Be Zero)
A AS Wide Scope
C Member-AS in Confederation Scope
M Multi-AS Scope
The first least significant bit ("A") is defined as the AS Wide Scope
bit, which is used to indicate that an optional attribute cannot be
announced outside a given AS boundary. When set, the given optional
attribute MUST be filtered by the sending BGP speaker at an AS
boundary. If the "A" bit is set then the "O" bit defined in BGP Path
Attribute Flag field MUST be set. Otherwise a BGP speaker MUST
consider an attribute as an error and malformed.
The second least significant bit ("C") is defined as the Member-AS
Scope bit, which is used to indicate that an optional attribute
cannot be announced outside a given Member-AS boundary. When set,
the given optional attribute MUST be filtered by the sending BGP
speaker at a Member-AS boundary. If the "C" bit is set then the "O"
bit defined in BGP Path Attribute Flag field MUST be set. Otherwise
a BGP speaker MUST consider an attribute as an error and malformed.
"C" bit SHOULD only be set when an Autonomous System is configured as
a BGP Confederation. A BGP speaker MUST not transmit an attribute
with "C" bit set to peers that are not members of the local
confederation. Otherwise a BGP speaker MUST consider an attribute as
an error and malformed.
Both the first and the second most least significant bit together is
defined as the Multiple AS Scope within a Single Administration.
When both the first and the second bits are set, optional attribute
can be traversed across multiple AS and filtered by the sending BGP
speaker at the Administration boundary.
The handling of malformed attributes SHOULD follow the procedures
mentioned in [RFC7606]. For any malformed attribute that is handled
Patel, et al. Expires August 1, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Constrain Attribute announcement within BGP January 2018
by the "attribute discard" instead of the "treat-as-withdraw"
approach, it is critical to consider the potential impact. In
particular, if the attribute has an impact on the route selection or
installation process, then the presumption is that "attribute
discard" is unsafe and "treat-as-withdraw" procedure SHOULD be
considered. Otherwise, "attribute discard" procedure SHOULD be used.
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
Patel, et al. Expires August 1, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Constrain Attribute announcement within BGP January 2018
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].
6.1. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Jakob Heitz, Shyam
Seturam, Juan Alcaide and Acee Lindem for the review and comments.
Patel, et al. Expires August 1, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Constrain Attribute announcement within BGP January 2018
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
7.2. Information References
[RFC3392] Chandra, R. and J. Scudder, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 3392, DOI 10.17487/RFC3392, November
2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3392>.
[RFC4486] Chen, E. and V. Gillet, "Subcodes for BGP Cease
Notification Message", RFC 4486, DOI 10.17487/RFC4486,
April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4486>.
[RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4724, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4724>.
Authors' Addresses
Keyur Patel
Arrcus, Inc.
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Patel, et al. Expires August 1, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Constrain Attribute announcement within BGP January 2018
James Uttaro
ATT
200 S. Laurel Ave
Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
Email: uttaro@att.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Wim Henderickx
Alcatel Lucent
Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018
Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Jeff Haas
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: jhaas@juniper.net
Patel, et al. Expires August 1, 2018 [Page 9]
