Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft Internet Initiative Japan
Obsoletes: 4384 (if approved) E. Aben
Intended status: Best Current Practice RIPE NCC
Expires: March 7, 2016 September 4, 2015
Marking Announcements to BGP Collectors
draft-ymbk-grow-bgp-collector-communities-00
Abstract
When BGP route collectors such as RIPE RIS and Route Views are used
by operators and researchers, currently one can not tell if a path
announced to a collector is from the ISP's customer cone, an internal
route, or one learned from peering or transit. This greatly reduces
the utility of the collected data. This document specifies the use
of BGP communities to differentiate the kinds of views being
presented to the collectors.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to
be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] only when they appear in all
upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English
words, without normative meaning.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 7, 2016.
Bush & Aben Expires March 7, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Marking Announcements to BGP Collectors September 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
BGP route collectors such as RIPE RIS [ris] and Route Views [rviews]
are used by both operators and researchers. Unfortunately, one can
not tell if a path announced to a collector is from the ISP's
customer cone (one's own prefixes and the closure of those to whom
transit is provided; i.e. what one would announce to a peer), an
internal route, or an external route learned via peering or transit.
This greatly reduces the utility of the collected data, and has been
a cause of much pain over the years. This document specifies the use
of BGP communities to differentiate between these categories.
In 2006, [RFC4384] attempted a similar goal but failed to gain
traction in the operational community. We believe this was due to
its unnecessary complexity. This document proposes a much simpler
marking scheme and, if published, will obsolete [RFC4384].
Bush & Aben Expires March 7, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Marking Announcements to BGP Collectors September 2015
2. Rationale
When an operator uses a collector to look at an ISP's announcement of
a prefix, it is very useful to know if the ISP also announced it to
their customers and/or peers/transits. Researchers want to
differentiate similarly in order to understand expected route
propagation.
One usually wishes to ignore any internal-only routes an ISP may
announce to the collector, as they would not be announcing them to
peers, transits, or customers.
An ISP is expected to announce customer routes to their customers,
and announce customer routes to their external peers and transits.
In general, one does not need to differentiate whether the ISP will
announce to peers or transits; and the ISP may not wish to expose the
business relationships with external providers. So we do not propose
to differentiate peers from transit providers.
3. Categories
We define only three categories of announcements:
Customer Cone: One's own prefixes and the closure of those to whom
transit is provided including routes announced by BGP customers,
static prefixes used for non-BGP customers, datacenter routes,
etc.
External Routes: Routes learned from peers and transit providers
which the ISP would normally announce to customers but not to
peers. Often, ISPs do not announce such routes to collectors.
But, as there is no general practice, this category is important
to mark.
Internal Routes: ISPs occasionally announce to the collector
Internal point to point and other routes they would not normally
announce to customers, peers, or transit providers.
4. Signaling
BGP announcements to route collectors SHOULD be marked with
communities indicating into which category the announcement falls.
As most collector peers already use community markings similar to
these, but ad hoc, the additional effort should be trivial.
Bush & Aben Expires March 7, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Marking Announcements to BGP Collectors September 2015
+----------------+-----------+
| Category | Community |
+----------------+-----------+
| Customer Cone | ASN:42 |
| External Route | ASN:43 |
| Internal Route | ASN:44 |
+----------------+-----------+
Community Markings (intentionally silly communities)
Table 1
5. IANA Considerations
As the number of categories is intentionally minimal, an IANA
registry should not be needed.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[ris] "RIPE Routing Information Service (RIS)",
<https://www.ripe.net/analyse/internet-measurements/
routing-information-service-ris/routing-information-
service-ris>.
[rviews] "University of Oregon Route Views Project",
<http://www.routeviews.org/>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC4384] Meyer, D., "BGP Communities for Data Collection", BCP 114,
RFC 4384, February 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Randy Bush
Internet Initiative Japan
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
US
Email: randy@psg.com
Bush & Aben Expires March 7, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Marking Announcements to BGP Collectors September 2015
Emile Aben
RIPE NCC
Singel 258
Amsterdam, NL.NH 1016 AB
NL
Email: emile.aben@ripe.net
Bush & Aben Expires March 7, 2016 [Page 5]