Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)
RFC 2622
| Document | Type |
RFC
- Proposed Standard
(June 1999)
Errata
Obsoletes RFC 2280
Was
draft-ietf-rps-rpsl-v2
(rps WG)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | David Kessens , Tony J. Bates , Cengiz Alaettinoglu , David Meyer , Curtis Villamizar , Marten Terpstra , Daniel Karrenberg , Elise P. Gerich | ||
| Last updated | 2021-05-21 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 2622 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 2622
Network Working Group C. Alaettinoglu
Request for Comments: 2622 USC/Information Sciences Institute
Obsoletes: 2280 C. Villamizar
Category: Standards Track Avici Systems
E. Gerich
At Home Network
D. Kessens
Qwest Communications
D. Meyer
University of Oregon
T. Bates
Cisco Systems
D. Karrenberg
RIPE NCC
M. Terpstra
Bay Networks
June 1999
Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
RPSL allows a network operator to be able to specify routing policies
at various levels in the Internet hierarchy; for example at the
Autonomous System (AS) level. At the same time, policies can be
specified with sufficient detail in RPSL so that low level router
configurations can be generated from them. RPSL is extensible; new
routing protocols and new protocol features can be introduced at any
time.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 RPSL Names, Reserved Words, and Representation 4
3 Contact Information 7
3.1 mntner Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 person Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3 role Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4 route Class 12
5 Set Classes 13
5.1 as-set Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2 route-set Class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3 Predefined Set Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4 Filters and filter-set Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.5 rtr-set Class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.6 Peerings and peering-set Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6 aut-num Class 27
6.1 import Attribute: Import Policy Specification . . . . . . . 27
6.1.1 Action Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2 export Attribute: Export Policy Specification . . . . . . . 29
6.3 Other Routing Protocols, Multi-Protocol Routing Protocols,
and Injecting Routes Between Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4 Ambiguity Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.5 default Attribute: Default Policy Specification . . . . . . 33
6.6 Structured Policy Specification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7 dictionary Class 37
7.1 Initial RPSL Dictionary and Example Policy Actions and
Filters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8 Advanced route Class 45
8.1 Specifying Aggregate Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
8.1.1Interaction with policies in aut-num class. . . . . . . . 49
8.1.2Ambiguity resolution with overlapping aggregates. . . . . 50
8.2 Specifying Static Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
9 inet-rtr Class 52
10 Extending RPSL 54
10.1 Extensions by changing the dictionary class . . . . . . . . 54
10.2 Extensions by adding new attributes to existing classes . . 55
10.3 Extensions by adding new classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
10.4 Extensions by changing the syntax of existing RPSL
attributes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
11 Security Considerations 56
12 Acknowledgements 56
References 56
A Routing Registry Sites 59
B Grammar Rules 59
C Changes from RFC 2280 67
D Authors' Addresses 68
Full Copyright Statement 69
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
1 Introduction
This memo is the reference document for the Routing Policy
Specification Language (RPSL). RPSL allows a network operator to be
able to specify routing policies at various levels in the Internet
hierarchy; for example at the Autonomous System (AS) level. At the
same time, policies can be specified with sufficient detail in RPSL
so that low level router configurations can be generated from them.
RPSL is extensible; new routing protocols and new protocol features
can be introduced at any time.
RPSL is a replacement for the current Internet policy specification
language known as RIPE-181 [6] or RFC-1786 [7]. RIPE-81 [8] was the
first language deployed in the Internet for specifying routing
policies. It was later replaced by RIPE-181 [6]. Through
operational use of RIPE-181 it has become apparent that certain
policies cannot be specified and a need for an enhanced and more
generalized language is needed. RPSL addresses RIPE-181's
limitations.
RPSL was designed so that a view of the global routing policy can be
contained in a single cooperatively maintained distributed database
to improve the integrity of Internet's routing. RPSL is not designed
to be a router configuration language. RPSL is designed so that
router configurations can be generated from the description of the
policy for one autonomous system (aut-num class) combined with the
description of a router (inet-rtr class), mainly providing router ID,
autonomous system number of the router, interfaces and peers of the
router, and combined with a global database mappings from AS sets to
ASes (as-set class), and from origin ASes and route sets to route
prefixes (route and route-set classes). The accurate population of
the RPSL database can help contribute toward such goals as router
configurations that protect against accidental (or malicious)
distribution of inaccurate routing information, verification of
Internet's routing, and aggregation boundaries beyond a single AS.
RPSL is object oriented; that is, objects contain pieces of policy
and administrative information. These objects are registered in the
Internet Routing Registry (IRR) by the authorized organizations. The
registration process is beyond the scope of this document. Please
refer to [1, 17, 4] for more details on the IRR.
In the following sections, we present the classes that are used to
define various policy and administrative objects. The "mntner" class
defines entities authorized to add, delete and modify a set of
objects. The "person" and "role" classes describes technical and
administrative contact personnel. Autonomous systems (ASes) are
specified using the "aut-num" class. Routes are specified using the
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
"route" class. Sets of objects can be defined using the "as-set",
"route-set", "filter-set", "peering-set", and "rtr-set" classes. The
"dictionary" class provides the extensibility to the language. The
"inet-rtr" class is used to specify routers. Many of these classes
were originally defined in earlier documents [6, 13, 16, 12, 5] and
have all been enhanced.
This document is self-contained. However, the reader is encouraged
to read RIPE-181 [7] and the associated documents [13, 16, 12, 5] as
they provide significant background as to the motivation and
underlying principles behind RIPE-181 and consequently, RPSL. For a
tutorial on RPSL, the reader should read the RPSL applications
document [4].
2 RPSL Names, Reserved Words, and Representation
Each class has a set of attributes which store a piece of information
about the objects of the class. Attributes can be mandatory or
optional: A mandatory attribute has to be defined for all objects of
the class; optional attributes can be skipped. Attributes can also
be single or multiple valued. Each object is uniquely identified by
a set of attributes, referred to as the class "key".
The value of an attribute has a type. The following types are most
widely used. Note that RPSL is case insensitive and only the
characters from the ASCII character set can be used.
<object-name>
Many objects in RPSL have a name. An <object-name> is made up of
letters, digits, the character underscore "_", and the character
hyphen "-"; the first character of a name must be a letter, and
the last character of a name must be a letter or a digit. The
following words are reserved by RPSL, and they can not be used as
names:
any as-any rs-any peeras
and or not
atomic from to at action accept announce except refine
networks into inbound outbound
Names starting with certain prefixes are reserved for certain
object types. Names starting with "as-" are reserved for as set
names. Names starting with "rs-" are reserved for route set
names. Names starting with "rtrs-" are reserved for router set
names. Names starting with "fltr-" are reserved for filter set
names. Names starting with "prng-" are reserved for peering set
names.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
<as-number> An AS number x is represented as the string "ASx". That
is, the AS 226 is represented as AS226.
<ipv4-address> An IPv4 address is represented as a sequence of four
integers in the range from 0 to 255 separated by the character dot
".". For example, 128.9.128.5 represents a valid IPv4 address.
In the rest of this document, we may refer to IPv4 addresses as IP
addresses.
<address-prefix> An address prefix is represented as an IPv4 address
followed by the character slash "/" followed by an integer in the
range from 0 to 32. The following are valid address prefixes:
128.9.128.5/32, 128.9.0.0/16, 0.0.0.0/0; and the following address
prefixes are invalid: 0/0, 128.9/16 since 0 or 128.9 are not
strings containing four integers.
<address-prefix-range> An address prefix range is an address prefix
followed by an optional range operator. The range operators are:
^- is the exclusive more specifics operator; it stands for the more
specifics of the address prefix excluding the address prefix
itself. For example, 128.9.0.0/16^- contains all the more
specifics of 128.9.0.0/16 excluding 128.9.0.0/16.
^+ is the inclusive more specifics operator; it stands for the more
specifics of the address prefix including the address prefix
itself. For example, 5.0.0.0/8^+ contains all the more specifics
of 5.0.0.0/8 including 5.0.0.0/8.
^n where n is an integer, stands for all the length n specifics of
the address prefix. For example, 30.0.0.0/8^16 contains all the
more specifics of 30.0.0.0/8 which are of length 16 such as
30.9.0.0/16.
^n-m where n and m are integers, stands for all the length n to
length m specifics of the address prefix. For example,
30.0.0.0/8^24-32 contains all the more specifics of 30.0.0.0/8
which are of length 24 to 32 such as 30.9.9.96/28.
Range operators can also be applied to address prefix sets. In this
case, they distribute over the members of the set. For example, for
a route-set (defined later) rs-foo, rs-foo^+ contains all the
inclusive more specifics of all the prefixes in rs-foo.
It is an error to follow a range operator with another one (e.g.
30.0.0.0/8^24-28^+ is an error). However, a range operator can be
applied to an address prefix set that has address prefix ranges in it
(e.g. {30.0.0.0/8^24-28}^27-30 is not an error). In this case, the
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
outer operator ^n-m distributes over the inner operator ^k-l and
becomes the operator ^max(n,k)-m if m is greater than or equal to
max(n,k), or otherwise, the prefix is deleted from the set. Note
that the operator ^n is equivalent to ^n-n; prefix/l^+ is equivalent
to prefix/l^l-32; prefix/l^- is equivalent to prefix/l^(l+1)-32;
{prefix/l^n-m}^+ is equivalent to {prefix/l^n-32}; and {prefix/l^n-
m}^- is equivalent to {prefix/l^(n+1)-32}. For example,
{128.9.0.0/16^+}^- == {128.9.0.0/16^-}
{128.9.0.0/16^-}^+ == {128.9.0.0/16^-}
{128.9.0.0/16^17}^24 == {128.9.0.0/16^24}
{128.9.0.0/16^20-24}^26-28 == {128.9.0.0/16^26-28}
{128.9.0.0/16^20-24}^22-28 == {128.9.0.0/16^22-28}
{128.9.0.0/16^20-24}^18-28 == {128.9.0.0/16^20-28}
{128.9.0.0/16^20-24}^18-22 == {128.9.0.0/16^20-22}
{128.9.0.0/16^20-24}^18-19 == {}
<date>
A date is represented as an eight digit integer of the form
YYYYMMDD where YYYY represents the year, MM represents the month
of the year (01 through 12), and DD represents the day of the
month (01 through 31). All dates are in UTC unless otherwise
specified. For example, June 24, 1996 is represented as 19960624.
<email-address>is as described in RFC-822 [10].
<dns-name>is as described in RFC-1034 [17].
<nic-handle> is a uniquely assigned identifier word used by routing,
address allocation, and other registries to unambiguously refer to
contact information. Person and role classes map NIC handles to
actual person names, and contact information.
<free-form>is a sequence of ASCII characters.
<X-name> is a name of an object of type X. That is <mntner-name> is a
name of a mntner object.
<registry-name> is a name of an IRR registry. The routing registries
are listed in Appendix A.
A value of an attribute may also be a list of one of these types. A
list is represented by separating the list members by commas ",".
For example, "AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4" is a list of AS numbers. Note that
being list valued and being multiple valued are orthogonal. A
multiple valued attribute has more than one value, each of which may
or may not be a list. On the other hand a single valued attribute
may have a list value.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
An RPSL object is textually represented as a list of attribute-value
pairs. Each attribute-value pair is written on a separate line. The
attribute name starts at column 0, followed by character ":" and
followed by the value of the attribute. The attribute which has the
same name as the object's class should be specified first. The
object's representation ends when a blank line is encountered. An
attribute's value can be split over multiple lines, by having a
space, a tab or a plus ('+') character as the first character of the
continuation lines. The character "+" for line continuation allows
attribute values to contain blank lines. More spaces may optionally
be used after the continuation character to increase readability.
The order of attribute-value pairs is significant.
An object's description may contain comments. A comment can be
anywhere in an object's definition, it starts at the first "#"
character on a line and ends at the first end-of-line character.
White space characters can be used to improve readability.
An integer can be specified using (1) the C programming language
notation (e.g. 1, 12345); (2) sequence of four 1-octet integers (in
the range from 0 to 255) separated by the character dot "." (e.g.
1.1.1.1, 255.255.0.0), in this case a 4-octet integer is formed by
concatenating these 1-octet integers in the most significant to least
significant order; (3) sequence of two 2-octet integers (in the range
from 0 to 65535) separated by the character colon ":" (e.g. 3561:70,
3582:10), in this case a 4-octet integer is formed by concatenating
these 2-octet integers in the most significant to least significant
order.
3 Contact Information
The mntner, person and role classes, admin-c, tech-c, mnt-by,
changed, and source attributes of all classes describe contact
information. The mntner class also specifies authenticaiton
information required to create, delete and update other objects.
These classes do not specify routing policies and each registry may
have different or additional requirements on them. Here we present
the common denominator for completeness which is the RIPE database
implementation [16]. Please consult your routing registry for the
latest specification of these classes and attributes. The "Routing
Policy System Security" document [20] describes the authenticaiton
and authorization model in more detail.
3.1 mntner Class
The mntner class specifies authenticaiton information required to
create, delete and update RPSL objects. A provider, before he/she
can create RPSL objects, first needs to create a mntner object. The
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
attributes of the mntner class are shown in Figure 1. The mntner
class was first described in [13].
The mntner attribute is mandatory and is the class key. Its value is
an RPSL name. The auth attribute specifies the scheme that will be
used to identify and authenticate update requests from this
maintainer. It has the following syntax:
auth: <scheme-id> <auth-info>
E.g.
auth: NONE
Attribute Value Type
mntner <object-name> mandatory, single-valued, class key
descr <free-form> mandatory, single-valued
auth see description in text mandatory, multi-valued
upd-to <email-address> mandatory, multi-valued
mnt-nfy <email-address> optional, multi-valued
tech-c <nic-handle> mandatory, multi-valued
admin-c <nic-handle> optional, multi-valued
remarks <free-form> optional, multi-valued
notify <email-address> optional, multi-valued
mnt-by list of <mntner-name> mandatory, multi-valued
changed <email-address> <date> mandatory, multi-valued
source <registry-name> mandatory, single-valued
Figure 1: mntner Class Attributes
auth: CRYPT-PW dhjsdfhruewf
auth: MAIL-FROM .*@ripe\.net
The <scheme-id>'s currently defined are: NONE, MAIL-FROM, PGP-KEY and
CRYPT-PW. The <auth-info> is additional information required by a
particular scheme: in the case of MAIL-FROM, it is a regular
expression matching valid email addresses; in the case of CRYPT-PW,
it is a password in UNIX crypt format; and in the case of PGP-KEY, it
is a pointer to key-certif object [22] containing the PGP public key
of the user. If multiple auth attributes are specified, an update
request satisfying any one of them is authenticated to be from the
maintainer.
The upd-to attribute is an email address. On an unauthorized update
attempt of an object maintained by this maintainer, an email message
will be sent to this address. The mnt-nfy attribute is an email
address. A notification message will be forwarded to this email
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
address whenever an object maintained by this maintainer is added,
changed or deleted.
The descr attribute is a short, free-form textual description of the
object. The tech-c attribute is a technical contact NIC handle.
This is someone to be contacted for technical problems such as
misconfiguration. The admin-c attribute is an administrative contact
NIC handle. The remarks attribute is a free text explanation or
clarification. The notify attribute is an email address to which
notifications of changes to this object should be sent. The mnt-by
attribute is a list of mntner object names. The authorization for
changes to this object is governed by any of the maintainer objects
referenced. The changed attribute documents who last changed this
object, and when this change was made. Its syntax has the following
form:
changed: <email-address> <YYYYMMDD>
E.g.
changed: johndoe@terabit-labs.nn 19900401
The <email-address> identifies the person who made the last change.
<YYYYMMDD> is the date of the change. The source attribute specifies
the registry where the object is registered. Figure 2 shows an
example mntner object. In the example, UNIX crypt format password
authentication is used.
mntner: RIPE-NCC-MNT
descr: RIPE-NCC Maintainer
admin-c: DK58
tech-c: OPS4-RIPE
upd-to: ops@ripe.net
mnt-nfy: ops-fyi@ripe.net
auth: CRYPT-PW lz1A7/JnfkTtI
mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-MNT
changed: ripe-dbm@ripe.net 19970820
source: RIPE
Figure 2: An example mntner object.
The descr, tech-c, admin-c, remarks, notify, mnt-by, changed and
source attributes are attributes of all RPSL classes. Their syntax,
semantics, and mandatory, optional, multi-valued, or single-valued
status are the same for for all RPSL classes. Only exception to this
is the admin-c attribute which is mandatory for the aut-num class.
We do not further discuss them in other sections.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
3.2 person Class
A person class is used to describe information about people. Even
though it does not describe routing policy, we still describe it here
briefly since many policy objects make reference to person objects.
The person class was first described in [15].
The attributes of the person class are shown in Figure 3. The person
attribute is the full name of the person. The phone and the fax-no
attributes have the following syntax:
phone: +<country-code> <city> <subscriber> [ext. <extension>]
E.g.:
phone: +31 20 12334676
Attribute Value Type
person <free-form> mandatory, single-valued
nic-hdl <nic-handle> mandatory, single-valued, class key
address <free-form> mandatory, multi-valued
phone see description in text mandatory, multi-valued
fax-no same as phone optional, multi-valued
e-mail <email-address> mandatory, multi-valued
Figure 3: person Class Attributes
phone: +44 123 987654 ext. 4711
Figure 4 shows an example person object.
person: Daniel Karrenberg
address: RIPE Network Coordination Centre (NCC)
address: Singel 258
address: NL-1016 AB Amsterdam
address: Netherlands
phone: +31 20 535 4444
fax-no: +31 20 535 4445
e-mail: Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net
nic-hdl: DK58
changed: Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net 19970616
source: RIPE
Figure 4: An example person object.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
3.3 role Class
The role class is similar to the person object. However, instead of
describing a human being, it describes a role performed by one or
more human beings. Examples include help desks, network monitoring
centers, system administrators, etc. Role object is particularly
useful since often a person performing a role may change, however the
role itself remains.
The attributes of the role class are shown in Figure 5. The nic-hdl
attributes of the person and role classes share the same name space.
The trouble attribute of role object may contain additional contact
information to be used when a problem arises in any object that
references this role object. Figure 6 shows an example role object.
Attribute Value Type
role <free-form> mandatory, single-valued
nic-hdl <nic-handle> mandatory, single-valued,
class key
trouble <free-form> optional, multi-valued
address <free-form> mandatory, multi-valued
phone see description in text mandatory, multi-valued
fax-no same as phone optional, multi-valued
e-mail <email-address> mandatory, multi-valued
Figure 5: role Class Attributes
role: RIPE NCC Operations
trouble:
address: Singel 258
address: 1016 AB Amsterdam
address: The Netherlands
phone: +31 20 535 4444
fax-no: +31 20 545 4445
e-mail: ops@ripe.net
admin-c: CO19-RIPE
tech-c: RW488-RIPE
tech-c: JLSD1-RIPE
nic-hdl: OPS4-RIPE
notify: ops@ripe.net
changed: roderik@ripe.net 19970926
source: RIPE
Figure 6: An example role object.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
4 route Class
Each interAS route (also referred to as an interdomain route)
originated by an AS is specified using a route object. The
attributes of the route class are shown in Figure 7. The route
attribute is the address prefix of the route and the origin attribute
is the AS number of the AS that originates the route into the interAS
routing system. The route and origin attribute pair is the class
key.
Figure 8 shows examples of four route objects (we do not include
contact attributes such as admin-c, tech-c for brevity). Note that
the last two route objects have the same address prefix, namely
128.8.0.0/16. However, they are different route objects since they
are originated by different ASes (i.e. they have different keys).
Attribute Value Type
route <address-prefix> mandatory, single-valued,
class key
origin <as-number> mandatory, single-valued,
class key
member-of list of <route-set-names> optional, multi-valued
see Section 5
inject see Section 8 optional, multi-valued
components see Section 8 optional, single-valued
aggr-bndry see Section 8 optional, single-valued
aggr-mtd see Section 8 optional, single-valued
export-comps see Section 8 optional, single-valued
holes see Section 8 optional, multi-valued
Figure 7: route Class Attributes
route: 128.9.0.0/16
origin: AS226
route: 128.99.0.0/16
origin: AS226
route: 128.8.0.0/16
origin: AS1
route: 128.8.0.0/16
origin: AS2
Figure 8: Route Objects
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
5 Set Classes
To specify policies, it is often useful to define sets of objects.
For this purpose we define as-set, route-set, rtr-set, filter-set,
and peering-set classes. These classes define a named set. The
members of these sets can be specified either directly by listing
them in the sets' definition, or indirectly by having member objects
refer to the sets' names, or a combination of both methods.
A set's name is an rpsl word with the following restrictions: All
as-set names start with prefix "as-". All route-set names start with
prefix "rs-". All rtr-set names start with prefix "rtrs-". All
filter-set names start with prefix "fltr-". All peering-set names
start with prefix "prng-". For example, as-foo is a valid as-set
name.
Set names can also be hierarchical. A hierarchical set name is a
sequence of set names and AS numbers separated by colons ":". At
least one component of such a name must be an actual set name (i.e.
start with one of the prefixes above). All the set name components
of an hierarchical name has to be of the same type. For example, the
following names are valid: AS1:AS-CUSTOMERS, AS1:RS-EXPORT:AS2, RS-
EXCEPTIONS:RS-BOGUS.
The purpose of an hierarchical set name is to partition the set name
space so that the maintainers of the set X1 controls the whole set
name space underneath, i.e. X1:...:Xn-1. Thus, a set object with
name X1:...:Xn-1:Xn can only be created by the maintainer of the
object with name X1:...:Xn-1. That is, only the maintainer of AS1
can create a set with name AS1:AS-FOO; and only the maintainer of
AS1:AS-FOO can create a set with name AS1:AS-FOO:AS-BAR. Please see
RPS Security Document [20] for details.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
5.1 as-set Class
The attributes of the as-set class are shown in Figure 9. The as-set
attribute defines the name of the set. It is an RPSL name that
starts with "as-". The members attribute lists the members of the
set. The members attribute is a list of AS numbers, or other as-set
names.
Attribute Value Type
as-set <object-name> mandatory, single-valued,
class key
members list of <as-numbers> or optional, multi-valued
<as-set-names>
mbrs-by-ref list of <mntner-names> optional, multi-valued
Figure 9: as-set Class Attributes
Figure 10 presents two as-set objects. The set as-foo contains two
ASes, namely AS1 and AS2. The set as-bar contains the members of the
set as-foo and AS3, that is it contains AS1, AS2, AS3. The set as-
empty contains no members.
as-set: as-foo as-set: as-bar as-set: as-empty
members: AS1, AS2 members: AS3, as-foo
Figure 10: as-set objects.
The mbrs-by-ref attribute is a list of maintainer names or the
keyword ANY. If this attribute is used, the AS set also includes
ASes whose aut-num objects are registered by one of these maintainers
and whose member-of attribute refers to the name of this AS set. If
the value of a mbrs-by-ref attribute is ANY, any AS object referring
to the AS set is a member of the set. If the mbrs-by-ref attribute
is missing, only the ASes listed in the members attribute are members
of the set.
as-set: as-foo
members: AS1, AS2
mbrs-by-ref: MNTR-ME
aut-num: AS3 aut-num: AS4
member-of: as-foo member-of: as-foo
mnt-by: MNTR-ME mnt-by: MNTR-OTHER
Figure 11: as-set objects.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
Figure 11 presents an example as-set object that uses the mbrs-by-ref
attribute. The set as-foo contains AS1, AS2 and AS3. AS4 is not a
member of the set as-foo even though the aut-num object references
as-foo. This is because MNTR-OTHER is not listed in the as-foo's
mbrs-by-ref attribute.
5.2 route-set Class
The attributes of the route-set class are shown in Figure 12. The
route-set attribute defines the name of the set. It is an RPSL name
that starts with "rs-". The members attribute lists the members of
the set. The members attribute is a list of address prefixes or
other route-set names. Note that, the route-set class is a set of
route prefixes, not of RPSL route objects.
Attribute Value Type
route-set <object-name> mandatory,
single-valued,
class key
members list of <address-prefix-range> or optional, multi-valued
<route-set-name> or
<route-set-name><range-operator>
mbrs-by-ref list of <mntner-names> optional, multi-valued
Figure 12: route-set Class Attributes
Figure 13 presents some example route-set objects. The set rs-foo
contains two address prefixes, namely 128.9.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/24.
The set rs-bar contains the members of the set rs-foo and the address
prefix 128.7.0.0/16.
An address prefix or a route-set name in a members attribute can be
optionally followed by a range operator. For example, the following
set:
route-set: rs-foo
members: 128.9.0.0/16, 128.9.0.0/24
route-set: rs-bar
members: 128.7.0.0/16, rs-foo
Figure 13: route-set Objects
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
route-set: rs-bar
members: 5.0.0.0/8^+, 30.0.0.0/8^24-32, rs-foo^+
contains all the more specifics of 5.0.0.0/8 including 5.0.0.0/8, all
the more specifics of 30.0.0.0/8 which are of length 24 to 32 such as
30.9.9.96/28, and all the more specifics of address prefixes in route
set rs-foo.
The mbrs-by-ref attribute is a list of maintainer names or the
keyword ANY. If this attribute is used, the route set also includes
address prefixes whose route objects are registered by one of these
maintainers and whose member-of attribute refers to the name of this
route set. If the value of a mbrs-by-ref attribute is ANY, any route
object referring to the route set name is a member. If the mbrs-by-
ref attribute is missing, only the address prefixes listed in the
members attribute are members of the set.
route-set: rs-foo
mbrs-by-ref: MNTR-ME, MNTR-YOU
route-set: rs-bar
members: 128.7.0.0/16
mbrs-by-ref: MNTR-YOU
route: 128.9.0.0/16
origin: AS1
member-of: rs-foo
mnt-by: MNTR-ME
route: 128.8.0.0/16
origin: AS2
member-of: rs-foo, rs-bar
mnt-by: MNTR-YOU
Figure 14: route-set objects.
Figure 14 presents example route-set objects that use the mbrs-by-ref
attribute. The set rs-foo contains two address prefixes, namely
128.8.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/16 since the route objects for
128.8.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/16 refer to the set name rs-foo in their
member-of attribute. The set rs-bar contains the address prefixes
128.7.0.0/16 and 128.8.0.0/16. The route 128.7.0.0/16 is explicitly
listed in the members attribute of rs-bar, and the route object for
128.8.0.0/16 refer to the set name rs-bar in its member-of attribute.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
Note that, if an address prefix is listed in a members attribute of a
route set, it is a member of that route set. The route object
corresponding to this address prefix does not need to contain a
member-of attribute referring to this set name. The member-of
attribute of the route class is an additional mechanism for
specifying the members indirectly.
5.3 Predefined Set Objects
In a context that expects a route set (e.g. members attribute of the
route-set class), an AS number ASx defines the set of routes that are
originated by ASx; and an as-set AS-X defines the set of routes that
are originated by the ASes in AS-X. A route p is said to be
originated by ASx if there is a route object for p with ASx as the
value of the origin attribute. For example, in Figure 15, the route
set rs-special contains 128.9.0.0/16, routes of AS1 and AS2, and
routes of the ASes in AS set AS-FOO.
route-set: rs-special
members: 128.9.0.0/16, AS1, AS2, AS-FOO
Figure 15: Use of AS numbers and AS sets in route sets.
The set rs-any contains all routes registered in IRR. The set as-any
contains all ASes registered in IRR.
5.4 Filters and filter-set Class
The attributes of the filter-set class are shown in Figure 16. A
filter-set object defines a set of routes that are matched by its
filter. The filter-set attribute defines the name of the filter. It
is an RPSL name that starts with "fltr-".
Attribute Value Type
filter-set <object-name> mandatory, single-valued, class key
filter <filter> mandatory, single-valued
Figure 16: filter Class Attributes
filter-set: fltr-foo
filter: { 5.0.0.0/8, 6.0.0.0/8 }
filter-set: fltr-bar
filter: (AS1 or fltr-foo) and <AS2>
Figure 17: filter-set objects.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
The filter attribute defines the set's policy filter. A policy
filter is a logical expression which when applied to a set of routes
returns a subset of these routes. We say that the policy filter
matches the subset returned. The policy filter can match routes
using any BGP path attribute, such as the destination address prefix
(or NLRI), AS-path, or community attributes.
The policy filters can be composite by using the operators AND, OR,
and NOT. The following policy filters can be used to select a subset
of routes:
ANY
The keyword ANY matches all routes.
Address-Prefix Set This is an explicit list of address prefixes
enclosed in braces '{' and '}'. The policy filter matches the set
of routes whose destination address-prefix is in the set. For
example:
{ 0.0.0.0/0 }
{ 128.9.0.0/16, 128.8.0.0/16, 128.7.128.0/17, 5.0.0.0/8 }
{ }
An address prefix can be optionally followed by a range operator
(i.e.
{ 5.0.0.0/8^+, 128.9.0.0/16^-, 30.0.0.0/8^16, 30.0.0.0/8^24-32 }
contains all the more specifics of 5.0.0.0/8 including 5.0.0.0/8, all
the more specifics of 128.9.0.0/16 excluding 128.9.0.0/16, all the
more specifics of 30.0.0.0/8 which are of length 16 such as
30.9.0.0/16, and all the more specifics of 30.0.0.0/8 which are of
length 24 to 32 such as 30.9.9.96/28.
Route Set Name A route set name matches the set of routes that are
members of the set. A route set name may be a name of a route-set
object, an AS number, or a name of an as-set object (AS numbers and
as-set names implicitly define route sets; please see Section 5.3).
For example:
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 accept AS2
import: from AS2 accept AS-FOO
import: from AS2 accept RS-FOO
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
The keyword PeerAS can be used instead of the AS number of the peer
AS. PeerAS is particularly useful when the peering is specified
using an AS expression. For example:
as-set: AS-FOO
members: AS2, AS3
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS-FOO accept PeerAS
is same as:
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 accept AS2
import: from AS3 accept AS3
A route set name can also be followed by one of the operators '^-',
'^+', example, { 5.0.0.0/8, 6.0.0.0/8 }^+ equals { 5.0.0.0/8^+,
6.0.0.0/8^+ }, and AS1^- equals all the exclusive more specifics of
routes originated by AS1.
AS Path Regular Expressions
An AS-path regular expression can be used as a policy filter by
enclosing the expression in `<' and `>'. An AS-path policy filter
matches the set of routes which traverses a sequence of ASes
matched by the AS-path regular expression. A router can check
this using the AS_PATH attribute in the Border Gateway Protocol
[19], or the RD_PATH attribute in the Inter-Domain Routing
Protocol [18].
AS-path Regular Expressions are POSIX compliant regular
expressions over the alphabet of AS numbers. The regular
expression constructs are as follows:
ASN
where ASN is an AS number. ASN matches the AS-path that is of
length 1 and contains the corresponding AS number (e.g. AS-path
regular expression AS1 matches the AS-path "1").
The keyword PeerAS can be used instead of the AS number of the
peer AS.
AS-set
where AS-set is an AS set name. AS-set matches the AS-paths that
is matched by one of the ASes in the AS-set.
.
matches the AS-paths matched by any AS number.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
[...]
is an AS number set. It matches the AS-paths matched by the AS
numbers listed between the brackets. The AS numbers in the set
are separated by white space characters. If a `-' is used between
two AS numbers in this set, all AS numbers between the two AS
numbers are included in the set. If an as-set name is listed, all
AS numbers in the as-set are included.
[^...]
is a complemented AS number set. It matches any AS-path which is
not matched by the AS numbers in the set.
^
Matches the empty string at the beginning of an AS-path.
$
Matches the empty string at the end of an AS-path.
We next list the regular expression operators in the decreasing order
of evaluation. These operators are left associative, i.e. performed
left to right.
Unary postfix operators * + ? {m} {m,n} {m,}
For a regular expression A, A* matches zero or more occurrences of
A; A+ matches one or more occurrences of A; A? matches zero or
one occurrence of A; A{m} matches m occurrence of A; A{m,n}
matches m to n occurrence of A; A{m,} matches m or more occurrence
of A. For example, [AS1 AS2]{2} matches AS1 AS1, AS1 AS2, AS2 AS1,
and AS2 AS2.
Unary postfix operators ~* ~+ ~{m} ~{m,n} ~{m,}
These operators have similar functionality as the corresponding
operators listed above, but all occurrences of the regular
expression has to match the same pattern. For example, [AS1
AS2]~{2} matches AS1 AS1 and AS2 AS2, but it does not match AS1
AS2 and AS2 AS1.
Binary catenation operator
This is an implicit operator and exists between two regular
expressions A and B when no other explicit operator is specified.
The resulting expression A B matches an AS-path if A matches some
prefix of the AS-path and B matches the rest of the AS-path.
Binary alternative (or) operator |
For a regular expressions A and B, A | B matches any AS-path that
is matched by A or B.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
Parenthesis can be used to override the default order of evaluation.
White spaces can be used to increase readability.
The following are examples of AS-path filters:
<AS3>
<^AS1>
<AS2$>
<^AS1 AS2 AS3$>
<^AS1 .* AS2$>.
The first example matches any route whose AS-path contains AS3, the
second matches routes whose AS-path starts with AS1, the third
matches routes whose AS-path ends with AS2, the fourth matches routes
whose AS-path is exactly "1 2 3", and the fifth matches routes whose
AS-path starts with AS1 and ends in AS2 with any number of AS numbers
in between.
Composite Policy Filters The following operators (in decreasing order
of evaluation) can be used to form composite policy filters:
NOT Given a policy filter x, NOT x matches the set of routes that
are not matched by x. That is it is the negation of policy
filter x.
AND Given two policy filters x and y, x AND y matches the intersection
of the routes that are matched by x and that are matched by y.
OR Given two policy filters x and y, x OR y matches the union of the
routes that are matched by x and that are matched by y.
Note that an OR operator can be implicit, that is `x y' is equivalent
to `x OR y'.
E.g.
NOT {128.9.0.0/16, 128.8.0.0/16}
AS226 AS227 OR AS228
AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16}
AS226 AND {0.0.0.0/0^0-18}
The first example matches any route except 128.9.0.0/16 and
128.8.0.0/16. The second example matches the routes of AS226, AS227
and AS228. The third example matches the routes of AS226 except
128.9.0.0/16. The fourth example matches the routes of AS226 whose
length are not longer than 18.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
Routing Policy Attributes Policy filters can also use the values of
other attributes for comparison. The attributes whose values can be
used in policy filters are specified in the RPSL dictionary. Please
refer to Section 7 for details. An example using the the BGP
community attribute is shown below:
aut-num: AS1
export: to AS2 announce AS1 AND NOT community(NO_EXPORT)
Filters using the routing policy attributes defined in the dictionary
are evaluated before evaluating the operators AND, OR and NOT.
Filter Set Name
A filter set name matches the set of routes that are matched by
its filter attribute. Note that the filter attribute of a filter
set, can recursively refer to other filter set names. For example
in Figure 17, fltr-foo matches { 5.0.0.0/8, 6.0.0.0/8 }, and
fltr-bar matches AS1'S routes or { 5.0.0.0/8, 6.0.0.0/8 } if their
as path contained AS2.
5.5 rtr-set Class
The attributes of the rtr-set class are shown in Figure 18. The
rtr-set attribute defines the name of the set. It is an RPSL name
that starts with "rtrs-". The members attribute lists the members of
the set. The members attribute is a list of inet-rtr names,
ipv4_addresses or other rtr-set names.
Attribute Value Type
rtr-set <object-name> mandatory, single-valued,
class key
members list of <inet-rtr-names> or optional, multi-valued
<rtr-set-names>
or <ipv4_addresses>
mbrs-by-ref list of <mntner-names> optional, multi-valued
Figure 18: rtr-set Class Attributes
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
Figure 19 presents two rtr-set objects. The set rtrs-foo contains
two routers, namely rtr1.isp.net and rtr2.isp.net. The set rtrs-bar
contains the members of the set rtrs-foo and rtr3.isp.net, that is it
contains rtr1.isp.net, rtr2.isp.net, rtr3.isp.net.
rtr-set: rtrs-foo rtr-set: rtrs-bar
members: rtr1.isp.net, rtr2.isp.net members: rtr3.isp.net, rtrs-foo
Figure 19: rtr-set objects.
The mbrs-by-ref attribute is a list of maintainer names or the
keyword ANY. If this attribute is used, the router set also includes
routers whose inet-rtr objects are registered by one of these
maintainers and whose member-of attribute refers to the name of this
router set. If the value of a mbrs-by-ref attribute is ANY, any
inet-rtr object referring to the router set is a member of the set.
If the mbrs-by-ref attribute is missing, only the routers listed in
the members attribute are members of the set.
rtr-set: rtrs-foo
members: rtr1.isp.net, rtr2.isp.net
mbrs-by-ref: MNTR-ME
inet-rtr: rtr3.isp.net
local-as: as1
ifaddr: 1.1.1.1 masklen 30
member-of: rtrs-foo
mnt-by: MNTR-ME
Figure 20: rtr-set objects.
Figure 20 presents an example rtr-set object that uses the mbrs-by-
ref attribute. The set rtrs-foo contains rtr1.isp.net, rtr2.isp.net
and rtr3.isp.net.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
5.6 Peerings and peering-set Class
The attributes of the peering-set class are shown in Figure 21. A
peering-set object defines a set of peerings that are listed in its
peering attributes. The peering-set attribute defines the name of
the set. It is an RPSL name that starts with "prng-".
Attribute Value Type
peering-set <object-name> mandatory, single-valued, class key
peering <peering> mandatory, multi-valued
Figure 21: filter Class Attributes
The peering attribute defines a peering that can be used for
importing or
---------------------- ----------------------
| 7.7.7.1 |-------| |-------| 7.7.7.2 |
| | ======== | |
| AS1 | EX1 |-------| 7.7.7.3 AS2 |
| | | |
| 9.9.9.1 |------ ------| 9.9.9.2 |
---------------------- | | ----------------------
===========
| EX2
---------------------- |
| 9.9.9.3 |---------
| |
| AS3 |
----------------------
Figure 22: Example topology consisting of three ASes, AS1, AS2, and
AS3; two exchange points, EX1 and EX2; and six routers.
exporting routes.
In describing peerings, we are going to use the topology of Figure
22. In this topology, there are three ASes, AS1, AS2, and AS3;
two exchange points, EX1 and EX2; and six routers. Routers
connected to the same exchange point peer with each other and
exchange routing information. That is, 7.7.7.1, 7.7.7.2 and
7.7.7.3 peer with each other; 9.9.9.1, 9.9.9.2 and 9.9.9.3 peer
with each other.
The syntax of a peering specification is:
<as-expression> [<router-expression-1>] [at <router-expression-2>]
| <peering-set-name>
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
where <as-expression> is an expression over AS numbers and AS sets
using operators AND, OR, and EXCEPT, and <router-expression-1> and
<router-expression-2> are expressions over router IP addresses,
inet-rtr names, and rtr-set names using operators AND, OR, and
EXCEPT. The binary "EXCEPT" operator is the set subtraction
operator and has the same precedence as the operator AND (it is
semantically equivalent to "AND NOT" combination). That is "(AS1
OR AS2) EXCEPT AS2" equals "AS1".
This form identifies all the peerings between any local router in
<router-expression-2> to any of their peer routers in <router-
expression-1> in the ASes in <as-expression>. If <router-
expression-2> is not specified, it defaults to all routers of the
local AS that peer with ASes in <as-expression>. If <router-
expression-1> is not specified, it defaults to all routers of the
peer ASes in <as-expression> that peer with the local AS.
If a <peering-set-name> is used, the peerings are listed in the
corresponding peering-set object. Note that the peering-set
objects can be recursive.
Many special forms of this general peering specification is
possible. The following examples illustrate the most common
cases, using the import attribute of the aut-num class. In the
following example 7.7.7.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 7.7.7.2.
(1) aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
In the following example 7.7.7.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 7.7.7.2
and 7.7.7.3.
(2) aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 at 7.7.7.1 accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
In the following example 7.7.7.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 7.7.7.2
and 7.7.7.3, and 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2.
(3) aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
In the following example 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2
and 9.9.9.3.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
(4) as-set: AS-FOO
members: AS2, AS3
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS-FOO at 9.9.9.1 accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
In the following example 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2
and 9.9.9.3, and 7.7.7.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 7.7.7.2 and
7.7.7.3.
(5) aut-num: AS1
import: from AS-FOO accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
In the following example AS1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from AS3 at router
9.9.9.1
(6) aut-num: AS1
import: from AS-FOO and not AS2 at not 7.7.7.1
accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
This is because "AS-FOO and not AS2" equals AS3 and "not 7.7.7.1"
equals 9.9.9.1.
In the following example 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2
and 9.9.9.3.
(7) peering-set: prng-bar
peering: AS1 at 9.9.9.1
peering-set: prng-foo
peering: prng-bar
peering: AS2 at 9.9.9.1
aut-num: AS1
import: from prng-foo accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
6 aut-num Class
Routing policies are specified using the aut-num class. The
attributes of the aut-num class are shown in Figure 23. The value of
the aut-num attribute is the AS number of the AS described by this
object. The as-name attribute is a symbolic name (in RPSL name
syntax) of the AS. The import, export and default routing policies of
the AS are specified using import, export and default attributes
respectively.
Attribute Value Type
aut-num <as-number> mandatory, single-valued, class key
as-name <object-name> mandatory, single-valued
member-of list of <as-set-names> optional, multi-valued
import see Section 6.1 optional, multi valued
export see Section 6.2 optional, multi valued
default see Section 6.5 optional, multi valued
Figure 23: aut-num Class Attributes
6.1 import Attribute: Import Policy Specification
In RPSL, an import policy is divided into import policy expressions.
Each import policy expression is specified using an import attribute.
The import attribute has the following syntax (we will extend this
syntax later in Sections 6.3 and 6.6):
import: from <peering-1> [action <action-1>]
. . .
from <peering-N> [action <action-N>]
accept <filter>
The action specification is optional. The semantics of an import
attribute is as follows: the set of routes that are matched by
<filter> are imported from all the peers in <peerings>; while
importing routes at <peering-M>, <action-M> is executed.
E.g.
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 action pref = 1; accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
This example states that the route 128.9.0.0/16 is accepted from AS2
with preference 1. We already presented how peerings (see Section
5.6) and filters (see Section 5.4) are specified. We next present
how to specify actions.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
6.1.1 Action Specification
Policy actions in RPSL either set or modify route attributes, such as
assigning a preference to a route, adding a BGP community to the BGP
community path attribute, or setting the MULTI-EXIT-DISCRIMINATOR
attribute. Policy actions can also instruct routers to perform
special operations, such as route flap damping.
The routing policy attributes whose values can be modified in policy
actions are specified in the RPSL dictionary. Please refer to
Section 7 for a list of these attributes. Each action in RPSL is
terminated by the semicolon character (';'). It is possible to form
composite policy actions by listing them one after the other. In a
composite policy action, the actions are executed left to right. For
example,
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2
action pref = 10; med = 0; community.append(10250, 3561:10);
accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
sets pref to 10, med to 0, and then appends 10250 and 3561:10 to the
BGP community path attribute. The pref attribute is the inverse of
the local-pref attribute (i.e. local-pref == 65535 - pref). A route
with a local-pref attribute is always preferred over a route without
one.
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 action pref = 1;
from AS3 action pref = 2;
accept AS4
The above example states that AS4's routes are accepted from AS2 with
preference 1, and from AS3 with preference 2 (routes with lower
integer preference values are preferred over routes with higher
integer preference values).
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 1;
from AS2 action pref = 2;
accept AS4
The above example states that AS4's routes are accepted from AS2 on
peering 7.7.7.1-7.7.7.2 with preference 1, and on any other peering
with AS2 with preference 2.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
6.2 export Attribute: Export Policy Specification
Similarly, an export policy expression is specified using an export
attribute. The export attribute has the following syntax:
export: to <peering-1> [action <action-1>]
. . .
to <peering-N> [action <action-N>]
announce <filter>
The action specification is optional. The semantics of an export
attribute is as follows: the set of routes that are matched by
<filter> are exported to all the peers specified in <peerings>; while
exporting routes at <peering-M>, <action-M> is executed.
E.g.
aut-num: AS1
export: to AS2 action med = 5; community .= { 70 };
announce AS4
In this example, AS4's routes are announced to AS2 with the med
attribute's value set to 5 and community 70 added to the community
list.
Example:
aut-num: AS1
export: to AS-FOO announce ANY
In this example, AS1 announces all of its routes to the ASes in the
set AS-FOO.
6.3 Other Routing Protocols, Multi-Protocol Routing Protocols, and
Injecting Routes Between Protocols
The more complete syntax of the import and export attributes are as
follows:
import: [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]
from <peering-1> [action <action-1>]
. . .
from <peering-N> [action <action-N>]
accept <filter>
export: [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]
to <peering-1> [action <action-1>]
. . .
to <peering-N> [action <action-N>]
announce <filter>
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
Where the optional protocol specifications can be used for specifying
policies for other routing protocols, or for injecting routes of one
protocol into another protocol, or for multi-protocol routing
policies. The valid protocol names are defined in the dictionary.
The <protocol-1> is the name of the protocol whose routes are being
exchanged. The <protocol-2> is the name of the protocol which is
receiving these routes. Both <protocol-1> and <protocol-2> default
to the Internet Exterior Gateway Protocol, currently BGP.
In the following example, all interAS routes are injected into RIP.
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 accept AS2
export: protocol BGP4 into RIP
to AS1 announce ANY
In the following example, AS1 accepts AS2's routes including any more
specifics of AS2's routes, but does not inject these extra more
specific routes into OSPF.
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 accept AS2^+
export: protocol BGP4 into OSPF
to AS1 announce AS2
In the following example, AS1 injects its static routes (routes which
are members of the set AS1:RS-STATIC-ROUTES) to the interAS routing
protocol and appends AS1 twice to their AS paths.
aut-num: AS1
import: protocol STATIC into BGP4
from AS1 action aspath.prepend(AS1, AS1);
accept AS1:RS-STATIC-ROUTES
In the following example, AS1 imports different set of unicast routes
for multicast reverse path forwarding from AS2:
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 accept AS2
import: protocol IDMR
from AS2 accept AS2:RS-RPF-ROUTES
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
6.4 Ambiguity Resolution
It is possible that the same peering can be covered by more that one
peering specification in a policy expression. For example:
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 2;
from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 1;
accept AS4
This is not an error, though definitely not desirable. To break the
ambiguity, the action corresponding to the first peering
specification is used. That is the routes are accepted with
preference 2. We call this rule as the specification-order rule.
Consider the example:
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 action pref = 2;
from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 1; dpa = 5;
accept AS4
where both peering specifications cover the peering 7.7.7.1-7.7.7.2,
though the second one covers it more specifically. The specification
order rule still applies, and only the action "pref = 2" is executed.
In fact, the second peering-action pair has no use since the first
peering-action pair always covers it. If the intended policy was to
accept these routes with preference 1 on this particular peering and
with preference 2 in all other peerings, the user should have
specified:
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 1; dpa = 5;
from AS2 action pref = 2;
accept AS4
It is also possible that more than one policy expression can cover
the same set of routes for the same peering. For example:
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS4
import: from AS2 action pref = 1; accept AS4
In this case, the specification-order rule is still used. That is,
AS4's routes are accepted from AS2 with preference 2. If the filters
were overlapping but not exactly the same:
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS4
import: from AS2 action pref = 1; accept AS4 OR AS5
the AS4's routes are accepted from AS2 with preference 2 and however
AS5's routes are also accepted, but with preference 1.
We next give the general specification order rule for the benefit of
the RPSL implementors. Consider two policy expressions:
aut-num: AS1
import: from peerings-1 action action-1 accept filter-1
import: from peerings-2 action action-2 accept filter-2
The above policy expressions are equivalent to the following three
expressions where there is no ambiguity:
aut-num: AS1
import: from peerings-1 action action-1 accept filter-1
import: from peerings-3 action action-2 accept filter-2 AND NOT filter-1
import: from peerings-4 action action-2 accept filter-2
where peerings-3 are those that are covered by both peerings-1 and
peerings-2, and peerings-4 are those that are covered by peerings-2
but not by peerings-1 ("filter-2 AND NOT filter-1" matches the routes
that are matched by filter-2 but not by filter-1).
Example:
aut-num: AS1
import: from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1
action pref = 2;
accept {128.9.0.0/16}
import: from AS2
action pref = 1;
accept {128.9.0.0/16, 75.0.0.0/8}
Lets consider two peerings with AS2, 7.7.7.1-7.7.7.2 and 9.9.9.1-
9.9.9.2. Both policy expressions cover 7.7.7.1-7.7.7.2. On this
peering, the route 128.9.0.0/16 is accepted with preference 2, and
the route 75.0.0.0/8 is accepted with preference 1. The peering
9.9.9.1-9.9.9.2 is only covered by the second policy expressions.
Hence, both the route 128.9.0.0/16 and the route 75.0.0.0/8 are
accepted with preference 1 on peering 9.9.9.1-9.9.9.2.
Note that the same ambiguity resolution rules also apply to export
and default policy expressions.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
6.5 default Attribute: Default Policy Specification
Default routing policies are specified using the default attribute.
The default attribute has the following syntax:
default: to <peering> [action <action>] [networks <filter>]
The <action> and <filter> specifications are optional. The semantics
are as follows: The <peering> specification indicates the AS (and
the router if present) is being defaulted to; the <action>
specification, if present, indicates various attributes of
defaulting, for example a relative preference if multiple defaults
are specified; and the <filter> specifications, if present, is a
policy filter. A router only uses the default policy if it received
the routes matched by <filter> from this peer.
In the following example, AS1 defaults to AS2 for routing.
aut-num: AS1
default: to AS2
In the following example, router 7.7.7.1 in AS1 defaults to router
7.7.7.2 in AS2.
aut-num: AS1
default: to AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1
In the following example, AS1 defaults to AS2 and AS3, but prefers
AS2 over AS3.
aut-num: AS1
default: to AS2 action pref = 1;
default: to AS3 action pref = 2;
In the following example, AS1 defaults to AS2 and uses 128.9.0.0/16
as the default network.
aut-num: AS1
default: to AS2 networks { 128.9.0.0/16 }
6.6 Structured Policy Specification
The import and export policies can be structured. We only reccomend
structured policies to advanced RPSL users. Please feel free to skip
this section.
The syntax for a structured policy specification is the following:
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
<import-factor> ::= from <peering-1> [action <action-1>]
. . .
from <peering-N> [action <action-N>]
accept <filter>;
<import-term> ::= <import-factor> |
LEFT-BRACE
<import-factor>
. . .
<import-factor>
RIGHT-BRACE
<import-expression> ::= <import-term> |
<import-term> EXCEPT <import-expression> |
<import-term> REFINE <import-expression>
import: [protocol <protocol1>] [into <protocol2>]
<import-expression>
Please note the semicolon at the end of an <import-factor>. If the
policy specification is not structured (as in all the examples in
other sections), this semicolon is optional. The syntax and
semantics for an <import-factor> is already defined in Section 6.1.
An <import-term> is either a sequence of <import-factor>'s enclosed
within matching braces (i.e. `{' and `}') or just a single <import-
factor>. The semantics of an <import-term> is the union of <import-
factor>'s using the specification order rule. An <import-expression>
is either a single <import-term> or an <import-term> followed by one
of the keywords "except" and "refine", followed by another <import-
expression>. Note that our definition allows nested expressions.
Hence there can be exceptions to exceptions, refinements to
refinements, or even refinements to exceptions, and so on.
The semantics for the except operator is as follows: The result of an
except operation is another <import-term>. The resulting policy set
contains the policies of the right hand side but their filters are
modified to only include the routes also matched by the left hand
side. The policies of the left hand side are included afterwards and
their filters are modified to exclude the routes matched by the right
hand side. Please note that the filters are modified during this
process but the actions are copied verbatim. When there are multiple
levels of nesting, the operations (both except and refine) are
performed right to left.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
Consider the following example:
import: from AS1 action pref = 1; accept as-foo;
except {
from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS226;
except {
from AS3 action pref = 3; accept {128.9.0.0/16};
}
}
where the route 128.9.0.0/16 is originated by AS226, and AS226 is a
member of the as set as-foo. In this example, the route 128.9.0.0/16
is accepted from AS3, any other route (not 128.9.0.0/16) originated
by AS226 is accepted from AS2, and any other ASes' routes in as-foo
is accepted from AS1.
We can come to the same conclusion using the algebra defined above.
Consider the inner exception specification:
from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS226;
except {
from AS3 action pref = 3; accept {128.9.0.0/16};
}
is equivalent to
{
from AS3 action pref = 3; accept AS226 AND {128.9.0.0/16};
from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16};
}
Hence, the original expression is equivalent to:
import: from AS1 action pref = 1; accept as-foo;
except {
from AS3 action pref = 3; accept AS226 AND {128.9.0.0/16};
from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16};
}
which is equivalent to
import: {
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
from AS3 action pref = 3;
accept as-foo AND AS226 AND {128.9.0.0/16};
from AS2 action pref = 2;
accept as-foo AND AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16};
from AS1 action pref = 1;
accept as-foo AND NOT
(AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16} OR AS226 AND {128.9.0.0/16});
}
Since AS226 is in as-foo and 128.9.0.0/16 is in AS226, it simplifies
to:
import: {
from AS3 action pref = 3; accept {128.9.0.0/16};
from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16};
from AS1 action pref = 1; accept as-foo AND NOT AS226;
}
In the case of the refine operator, the resulting set is constructed
by taking the cartasian product of the two sides as follows: for
each policy l in the left hand side and for each policy r in the
right hand side, the peerings of the resulting policy are the
peerings common to both r and l; the filter of the resulting policy
is the intersection of l's filter and r's filter; and action of the
resulting policy is l's action followed by r's action. If there are
no common peerings, or if the intersection of filters is empty, a
resulting policy is not generated.
Consider the following example:
import: { from AS-ANY action pref = 1; accept community(3560:10);
from AS-ANY action pref = 2; accept community(3560:20);
} refine {
from AS1 accept AS1;
from AS2 accept AS2;
from AS3 accept AS3;
}
Here, any route with community 3560:10 is assigned a preference of 1
and any route with community 3560:20 is assigned a preference of 2
regardless of whom they are imported from. However, only AS1's
routes are imported from AS1, and only AS2's routes are imported from
AS2, and only AS3's routes are imported form AS3, and no routes are
imported from any other AS. We can reach the same conclusion using
the above algebra. That is, our example is equivalent to:
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
import: {
from AS1 action pref = 1; accept community(3560:10) AND AS1;
from AS1 action pref = 2; accept community(3560:20) AND AS1;
from AS2 action pref = 1; accept community(3560:10) AND AS2;
from AS2 action pref = 2; accept community(3560:20) AND AS2;
from AS3 action pref = 1; accept community(3560:10) AND AS3;
from AS3 action pref = 2; accept community(3560:20) AND AS3;
}
Note that the common peerings between "from AS1" and "from AS-ANY"
are those peerings in "from AS1". Even though we do not formally
define "common peerings", it is straight forward to deduce the
definition from the definitions of peerings (please see Section 5.6).
Consider the following example:
import: {
from AS-ANY action med = 0; accept {0.0.0.0/0^0-18};
} refine {
from AS1 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 1; accept AS1;
from AS1 action pref = 2; accept AS1;
}
where only routes of length 0 to 18 are accepted and med's value is
set to 0 to disable med's effect for all peerings; In addition, from
AS1 only AS1's routes are imported, and AS1's routes imported at
7.7.7.1 are preferred over other peerings. This is equivalent to:
import: {
from AS1 at 7.7.7.1 action med=0; pref=1; accept {0.0.0.0/0^0-
18} AND AS1;
from AS1 action med=0; pref=2; accept {0.0.0.0/0^0-
18} AND AS1;
}
The above syntax and semantics also apply equally to structured
export policies with "from" replaced with "to" and "accept" is
replaced with "announce".
7 dictionary Class
The dictionary class provides extensibility to RPSL. Dictionary
objects define routing policy attributes, types, and routing
protocols. Routing policy attributes, henceforth called rp-
attributes, may correspond to actual protocol attributes, such as the
BGP path attributes (e.g. community, dpa, and AS-path), or they may
correspond to router features (e.g. BGP route flap damping). As new
protocols, new protocol attributes, or new router features are
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
introduced, the dictionary object is updated to include appropriate
rp-attribute and protocol definitions.
An rp-attribute is an abstract class; that is a data representation
is not available. Instead, they are accessed through access methods.
For example, the rp-attribute for the BGP AS-path attribute is called
aspath; and it has an access method called prepend which stuffs extra
AS numbers to the AS-path attributes. Access methods can take
arguments. Arguments are strongly typed. For example, the method
prepend above takes AS numbers as arguments.
Once an rp-attribute is defined in the dictionary, it can be used to
describe policy filters and actions. Policy analysis tools are
required to fetch the dictionary object and recognize newly defined
rp-attributes, types, and protocols. The analysis tools may
approximate policy analyses on rp-attributes that they do not
understand: a filter method may always match, and an action method
may always perform no-operation. Analysis tools may even download
code to perform appropriate operations using mechanisms outside the
scope of RPSL.
We next describe the syntax and semantics of the dictionary class.
This description is not essential for understanding dictionary
objects (but it is essential for creating one). Please feel free to
skip to the RPSL Initial Dictionary subsection (Section 7.1).
The attributes of the dictionary class are shown in Figure 24. The
dictionary attribute is the name of the dictionary object, obeying
the RPSL naming rules. There can be many dictionary objects, however
there is always one well-known dictionary object "RPSL". All tools
use this dictionary by default.
Attribute Value Type
dictionary <object-name> mandatory, single-valued,
class key
rp-attribute see description in text optional, multi valued
typedef see description in text optional, multi valued
protocol see description in text optional, multi valued
Figure 24: dictionary Class Attributes
The rp-attribute attribute has the following syntax:
rp-attribute: <name>
<method-1>(<type-1-1>, ..., <type-1-N1> [, "..."])
...
<method-M>(<type-M-1>, ..., <type-M-NM> [, "..."])
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
where <name> is the name of the rp-attribute; and <method-i> is the
name of an access method for the rp-attribute, taking Ni arguments
where the j-th argument is of type <type-i-j>. A method name is
either an RPSL name or one of the operators defined in Figure 25.
The operator methods with the exception of operator() and operator[]
can take only one argument.
operator= operator==
operator<<= operator<
operator>>= operator>
operator+= operator>=
operator-= operator<=
operator*= operator!=
operator/= operator()
operator.= operator[]
Figure 25: Operators
An rp-attribute can have many methods defined for it. Some of the
methods may even have the same name, in which case their arguments
are of different types. If the argument list is followed by "...",
the method takes a variable number of arguments. In this case, the
actual arguments after the Nth argument are of type <type-N>.
Arguments are strongly typed. A <type> in RPSL is either a
predefined type, a union type, a list type, or a dictionary defined
type. The predefined types are listed in Figure 26.
integer[lower, upper] ipv4_address
real[lower, upper] address_prefix
enum[name, name, ...] address_prefix_range
string dns_name
boolean filter
rpsl_word as_set_name
free_text route_set_name
email rtr_set_name
as_number filter_set_name
peering_set_name
Figure 26: Predefined Types
The integer and the real predefined types can be followed by a lower
and an upper bound to specify the set of valid values of the
argument. The range specification is optional. We use the ANSI C
language conventions for representing integer, real and string
values. The enum type is followed by a list of RPSL names which are
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
the valid values of the type. The boolean type can take the values
true or false. as_number, ipv4_address, address_prefix and dns_name
types are as in Section 2. filter type is a policy filter as in
Section 6. The value of filter type is suggested to be enclosed in
parenthesis.
The syntax of a union type is as follows:
union <type-1>, ... , <type-N>
where <type-i> is an RPSL type. The union type is either of the
types <type-1> through <type-N> (analogous to unions in C[14]).
The syntax of a list type is as follows:
list [<min_elems>:<max_elems>] of <type>
In this case, the list elements are of <type> and the list contains
at least <min_elems> and at most <max_elems> elements. The size
specification is optional. If it is not specified, there is no
restriction in the number of list elements. A value of a list type
is represented as a sequence of elements separated by the character
"," and enclosed by the characters "{" and "}".
The typedef attribute in the dictionary defines named types as
follows:
typedef: <name> <type>
where <name> is a name for type <type>. typedef attribute is
paticularly useful when the type defined is not a predefined type
(e.g. list of unions, list of lists, etc.).
A protocol attribute of the dictionary class defines a protocol and a
set of peering parameters for that protocol (which are used in inet-
rtr class in Section 9). Its syntax is as follows:
protocol: <name>
MANDATORY | OPTIONAL <parameter-1>(<type-1-1>,...,
<type-1-N1> [,"..."])
...
MANDATORY | OPTIONAL <parameter-M>(<type-M-1>,...,
<type-M-NM> [,"..."])
where <name> is the name of the protocol; MANDATORY and OPTIONAL are
keywords; and <parameter-i> is a peering parameter for this protocol,
taking Ni many arguments. The syntax and semantics of the arguments
are as in the rp-attribute. If the keyword MANDATORY is used, the
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
parameter is mandatory and needs to be specified for each peering of
this protocol. If the keyword OPTIONAL is used, the parameter can be
skipped.
7.1 Initial RPSL Dictionary and Example Policy Actions and Filters
dictionary: RPSL
rp-attribute: # preference, smaller values represent higher preferences
pref
operator=(integer[0, 65535])
rp-attribute: # BGP multi_exit_discriminator attribute
med
# to set med to 10: med = 10;
# to set med to the IGP metric: med = igp_cost;
operator=(union integer[0, 65535], enum[igp_cost])
rp-attribute: # BGP destination preference attribute (dpa)
dpa
operator=(integer[0, 65535])
rp-attribute: # BGP aspath attribute
aspath
# prepends AS numbers from last to first order
prepend(as_number, ...)
typedef: # a community value in RPSL is either
# - a 4 byte integer (ok to use 3561:70 notation)
# - internet, no_export, no_advertise (see RFC-1997)
community_elm union
integer[1, 4294967295],
enum[internet, no_export, no_advertise],
typedef: # list of community values { 40, no_export, 3561:70 }
community_list list of community_elm
rp-attribute: # BGP community attribute
community
# set to a list of communities
operator=(community_list)
# append community values
operator.=(community_list)
append(community_elm, ...)
# delete community values
delete(community_elm, ...)
# a filter: true if one of community values is contained
contains(community_elm, ...)
# shortcut to contains: community(no_export, 3561:70)
operator()(community_elm, ...)
# order independent equality comparison
operator==(community_list)
rp-attribute: # next hop router in a static route
next-hop
# to set to 7.7.7.7: next-hop = 7.7.7.7;
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
# to set to router's own address: next-hop = self;
operator=(union ipv4_address, enum[self])
rp-attribute: # cost of a static route
cost
operator=(integer[0, 65535])
protocol: BGP4
# as number of the peer router
MANDATORY asno(as_number)
# enable flap damping
OPTIONAL flap_damp()
OPTIONAL flap_damp(integer[0,65535],
# penalty per flap
integer[0,65535],
# penalty value for supression
integer[0,65535],
# penalty value for reuse
integer[0,65535],
# halflife in secs when up
integer[0,65535],
# halflife in secs when down
integer[0,65535])
# maximum penalty
protocol: OSPF
protocol: RIP
protocol: IGRP
protocol: IS-IS
protocol: STATIC
protocol: RIPng
protocol: DVMRP
protocol: PIM-DM
protocol: PIM-SM
protocol: CBT
protocol: MOSPF
Figure 27: RPSL Dictionary
Figure 27 shows the initial RPSL dictionary. It has seven rp-
attributes: pref to assign local preference to the routes accepted;
med to assign a value to the MULTI_EXIT_DISCRIMINATOR BGP attribute;
dpa to assign a value to the DPA BGP attribute; aspath to prepend a
value to the AS_PATH BGP attribute; community to assign a value to or
to check the value of the community BGP attribute; next-hop to assign
next hop routers to static routes; and cost to assign a cost to
static routes. The dictionary defines two types: community_elm and
community_list. community_elm type is either a 4-byte unsigned
integer, or one of the keywords internet, no_export or no_advertise
(defined in [9]). An integer can be specified using two 2-byte
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
integers seperated by ":" to partition the community number space so
that a provider can use its AS number as the first two bytes, and
assigns a semantics of its choice to the last two bytes.
The initial dictionary (Figure 27) defines only options for the
Border Gateway Protocol: asno and flap_damp. The mandatory asno
option is the AS number of the peer router. The optional flap_damp
option instructs the router to damp route flaps [21] when importing
routes from the peer router.
It can be specified with or without parameters. If parameters are
missing, they default to:
flap_damp(1000, 2000, 750, 900, 900, 20000)
That is, a penalty of 1000 is assigned at each route flap, the route
is suppressed when penalty reaches 2000. The penalty is reduced in
half after 15 minutes (900 seconds) of stability regardless of
whether the route is up or down. A supressed route is reused when
the penalty falls below 750. The maximum penalty a route can be
assigned is 20,000 (i.e. the maximum suppress time after a route
becomes stable is about 75 minutes). These parameters are consistent
with the default flap damping parameters in several routers.
Policy Actions and Filters Using RP-Attributes
The syntax of a policy action or a filter using an rp-attribute x is
as follows:
x.method(arguments)
x "op" argument
where method is a method and "op" is an operator method of the rp-
attribute x. If an operator method is used in specifying a composite
policy filter, it evaluates earlier than the composite policy filter
operators (i.e. AND, OR, NOT, and implicit or operator).
The pref rp-attribute can be assigned a positive integer as follows:
pref = 10;
The med rp-attribute can be assigned either a positive integer or the
word "igp_cost" as follows:
med = 0;
med = igp_cost;
The dpa rp-attribute can be assigned a positive integer as follows:
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
dpa = 100;
The BGP community attribute is list-valued, that is it is a list of
4-byte integers each representing a "community". The following
examples demonstrate how to add communities to this rp-attribute:
community .= { 100 };
community .= { NO_EXPORT };
community .= { 3561:10 };
In the last case, a 4-byte integer is constructed where the more
significant two bytes equal 3561 and the less significant two bytes
equal 10. The following examples demonstrate how to delete
communities from the community rp-attribute:
community.delete(100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10);
Filters that use the community rp-attribute can be defined as
demonstrated by the following examples:
community.contains(100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10);
community(100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10); # shortcut
The community rp-attribute can be set to a list of communities as
follows:
community = {100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10, 200};
community = {};
In this first case, the community rp-attribute contains the
communities 100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10, and 200. In the latter case,
the community rp-attribute is cleared. The community rp-attribute
can be compared against a list of communities as follows:
community == {100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10, 200}; # exact match
To influence the route selection, the BGP as_path rp-attribute can be
made longer by prepending AS numbers to it as follows:
aspath.prepend(AS1);
aspath.prepend(AS1, AS1, AS1);
The following examples are invalid:
med = -50; # -50 is not in the range
med = igp; # igp is not one of the enum values
med.assign(10); # method assign is not defined
community.append(AS3561:20); # the first argument should be 3561
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
Figure 28 shows a more advanced example using the rp-attribute
community. In this example, AS3561 bases its route selection
preference on the community attribute. Other ASes may indirectly
affect AS3561's route selection by including the appropriate
communities in their route announcements.
aut-num: AS1
export: to AS2 action community.={3561:90};
to AS3 action community.={3561:80};
announce AS1
as-set: AS3561:AS-PEERS
members: AS2, AS3
aut-num: AS3561
import: from AS3561:AS-PEERS
action pref = 10;
accept community(3561:90)
import: from AS3561:AS-PEERS
action pref = 20;
accept community(3561:80)
import: from AS3561:AS-PEERS
action pref = 20;
accept community(3561:70)
import: from AS3561:AS-PEERS
action pref = 0;
accept ANY
Figure 28: Policy example using the community rp-attribute.
8 Advanced route Class
8.1 Specifying Aggregate Routes
The components, aggr-bndry, aggr-mtd, export-comps, inject, and holes
attributes are used for specifying aggregate routes [11]. A route
object specifies an aggregate route if any of these attributes, with
the exception of inject, is specified. The origin attribute for an
aggregate route is the AS performing the aggregation, i.e. the
aggregator AS. In this section, we used the term "aggregate" to refer
to the route generated, the term "component" to refer to the routes
used to generate the path attributes of the aggregate, and the term
"more specifics" to refer to any route which is a more specific of
the aggregate regardless of whether it was used to form the path
attributes.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
The components attribute defines what component routes are used to
form the aggregate. Its syntax is as follows:
components: [ATOMIC] [[<filter>] [protocol <protocol> <filter> ...]]
where <protocol> is a routing protocol name such as BGP4, OSPF or RIP
(valid names are defined in the dictionary) and <filter> is a policy
expression. The routes that match one of these filters and are
learned from the corresponding protocol are used to form the
aggregate. If <protocol> is omitted, it defaults to any protocol.
<filter> implicitly contains an "AND" term with the more specifics of
the aggregate so that only the component routes are selected. If the
keyword ATOMIC is used, the aggregation is done atomically [11]. If
a <filter> is not specified it defaults to more specifics. If the
components attribute is missing, all more specifics without the
ATOMIC keyword is used.
route: 128.8.0.0/15
origin: AS1
components: <^AS2>
route: 128.8.0.0/15
origin: AS1
components: protocol BGP4 {128.8.0.0/16^+}
protocol OSPF {128.9.0.0/16^+}
Figure 29: Two aggregate route objects.
Figure 29 shows two route objects. In the first example, more
specifics of 128.8.0.0/15 with AS paths starting with AS2 are
aggregated. In the second example, some routes learned from BGP and
some routes learned form OSPF are aggregated.
The aggr-bndry attribute is an AS expression over AS numbers and sets
(see Section 5.6). The result defines the set of ASes which form the
aggregation boundary. If the aggr-bndry attribute is missing, the
origin AS is the sole aggregation boundary. Outside the aggregation
boundary, only the aggregate is exported and more specifics are
suppressed. However, within the boundary, the more specifics are
also exchanged.
The aggr-mtd attribute specifies how the aggregate is generated. Its
syntax is as follows:
aggr-mtd: inbound
| outbound [<as-expression>]
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
where <as-expression> is an expression over AS numbers and sets (see
Section 5.6). If <as-expression> is missing, it defaults to AS-ANY.
If outbound aggregation is specified, the more specifics of the
aggregate will be present within the AS and the aggregate will be
formed at all inter-AS boundaries with ASes in <as-expression> before
export, except for ASes that are within the aggregating boundary
(i.e. aggr-bndry is enforced regardless of <as-expression>). If
inbound aggregation is specified, the aggregate is formed at all
inter-AS boundaries prior to importing routes into the aggregator AS.
Note that <as-expression> can not be specified with inbound
aggregation. If aggr-mtd attribute is missing, it defaults to
"outbound AS-ANY".
route: 128.8.0.0/15 route: 128.8.0.0/15
origin: AS1 origin: AS2
components: {128.8.0.0/15^-} components: {128.8.0.0/15^-}
aggr-bndry: AS1 OR AS2 aggr-bndry: AS1 OR AS2
aggr-mtd: outbound AS-ANY aggr-mtd: outbound AS-ANY
Figure 30: Outbound multi-AS aggregation example.
Figure 30 shows an example of an outbound aggregation. In this
example, AS1 and AS2 are coordinating aggregation and announcing only
the less specific 128.8.0.0/15 to outside world, but exchanging more
specifics between each other. This form of aggregation is useful
when some of the components are within AS1 and some are within AS2.
When a set of routes are aggregated, the intent is to export only the
aggregate route and suppress exporting of the more specifics outside
the aggregation boundary. However, to satisfy certain policy and
topology constraints (e.g. a multi-homed component), it is often
required to export some of the components. The export-comps
attribute equals an RPSL filter that matches the more specifics that
need to be exported outside the aggregation boundary. If this
attribute is missing, more specifics are not exported outside the
aggregation boundary. Note that, the export-comps filter contains an
implicit "AND" term with the more specifics of the aggregate.
Figure 31 shows an example of an outbound aggregation. In this
example, the more specific 128.8.8.0/24 is exported outside AS1 in
addition to the aggregate. This is useful, when 128.8.8.0/24 is
multi-homed site to AS1 with some other AS.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
route: 128.8.0.0/15
origin: AS1
components: {128.8.0.0/15^-}
aggr-mtd: outbound AS-ANY
export-comps: {128.8.8.0/24}
Figure 31: Outbound aggregation with export exception.
The inject attribute specifies which routers perform the aggregation
and when they perform it. Its syntax is as follow:
inject: [at <router-expression>] ...
[action <action>]
[upon <condition>]
where <action> is an action specification (see Section 6.1.1),
<condition> is a boolean expression described below, and <router-
expression> is as described in Section 5.6.
All routers in <router-expression> and in the aggregator AS perform
the aggregation. If a <router-expression> is not specified, all
routers inside the aggregator AS perform the aggregation. The
<action> specification may set path attributes of the aggregate, such
as assign a preferences to the aggregate.
The upon clause is a boolean condition. The aggregate is generated
if and only if this condition is true. <condition> is a boolean
expression using the logical operators AND and OR (i.e. operator NOT
is not allowed) over:
HAVE-COMPONENTS { list of prefixes }
EXCLUDE { list of prefixes }
STATIC
The list of prefixes in HAVE-COMPONENTS can only be more specifics of
the aggregate. It evaluates to true when all the prefixes listed are
present in the routing table of the aggregating router. The list can
also include prefix ranges (i.e. using operators ^-, ^+, ^n, and ^n-
m). In this case, at least one prefix from each prefix range needs
to be present in the routing table for the condition to be true. The
list of prefixes in EXCLUDE can be arbitrary. It evaluates to true
when none of the prefixes listed is present in the routing table.
The list can also include prefix ranges, and no prefix in that range
should be present in the routing table. The keyword static always
evaluates to true. If no upon clause is specified the aggregate is
generated if an only if there is a component in the routing table
(i.e. a more specific that matches the filter in the components
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
attribute).
route: 128.8.0.0/15
origin: AS1
components: {128.8.0.0/15^-}
aggr-mtd: outbound AS-ANY
inject: at 1.1.1.1 action dpa = 100;
inject: at 1.1.1.2 action dpa = 110;
route: 128.8.0.0/15
origin: AS1
components: {128.8.0.0/15^-}
aggr-mtd: outbound AS-ANY
inject: upon HAVE-COMPONENTS {128.8.0.0/16, 128.9.0.0/16}
holes: 128.8.8.0/24
Figure 32: Examples of inject.
Figure 32 shows two examples. In the first case, the aggregate is
injected at two routers each one setting the dpa path attribute
differently. In the second case, the aggregate is generated only if
both 128.8.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/16 are present in the routing table,
as opposed to the first case where the presence of just one of them
is sufficient for injection.
The holes attribute lists the component address prefixes which are
not reachable through the aggregate route (perhaps that part of the
address space is unallocated). The holes attribute is useful for
diagnosis purposes. In Figure 32, the second example has a hole,
namely 128.8.8.0/24. This may be due to a customer changing
providers and taking this part of the address space with it.
8.1.1 Interaction with policies in aut-num class
An aggregate formed is announced to other ASes only if the export
policies of the AS allows exporting the aggregate. When the
aggregate is formed, the more specifics are suppressed from being
exported except to the ASes in aggr-bndry and except the components
in export-comps. For such exceptions to happen, the export policies
of the AS should explicitly allow exporting of these exceptions.
If an aggregate is not formed (due to the upon clause), then the more
specifics of the aggregate can be exported to other ASes, but only if
the export policies of the AS allows it. In other words, before a
route (aggregate or more specific) is exported it is filtered twice,
once based on the route objects, and once based on the export
policies of the AS.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
route: 128.8.0.0/16
origin: AS1
route: 128.9.0.0/16
origin: AS1
route: 128.8.0.0/15
origin: AS1
aggr-bndry: AS1 or AS2 or AS3
aggr-mtd: outbound AS3 or AS4 or AS5
components: {128.8.0.0/16, 128.9.0.0/16}
inject: upon HAVE-COMPONENTS {128.9.0.0/16, 128.8.0.0/16}
aut-num: AS1
export: to AS2 announce AS1
export: to AS3 announce AS1 and not {128.9.0.0/16}
export: to AS4 announce AS1
export: to AS5 announce AS1
export: to AS6 announce AS1
Figure 33: Interaction with policies in aut-num class.
In Figure 33 shows an interaction example. By examining the route
objects, the more specifics 128.8.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/16 should be
exchanged between AS1, AS2 and AS3 (i.e. the aggregation boundary).
Outbound aggregation is done to AS4 and AS5 and not to AS3, since AS3
is in the aggregation boundary. The aut-num object allows exporting
both components to AS2, but only the component 128.8.0.0/16 to AS3.
The aggregate can only be formed if both components are available.
In this case, only the aggregate is announced to AS4 and AS5.
However, if one of the components is not available the aggregate will
not be formed, and any available component or more specific will be
exported to AS4 and AS5. Regardless of aggregation is performed or
not, only the more specifics will be exported to AS6 (it is not
listed in the aggr-mtd attribute).
When doing an inbound aggregation, configuration generators may
eliminating the aggregation statements on routers where import policy
of the AS prohibits importing of any more specifics.
8.1.2 Ambiguity resolution with overlapping aggregates
When several aggregate routes are specified and they overlap, i.e.
one is less specific of the other, they must be evaluated more
specific to less specific order. When an outbound aggregation is
performed for a peer, the aggregate and the components listed in the
export-comps attribute for that peer are available for generating the
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
next less specific aggregate. The components that are not specified
in the export-comps attribute are not available. A route is
exportable to an AS if it is the least specific aggregate exportable
to that AS or it is listed in the export-comps attribute of an
exportable route. Note that this is a recursive definition.
route: 128.8.0.0/15
origin: AS1
aggr-bndry: AS1 or AS2
aggr-mtd: outbound
inject: upon HAVE-COMPONENTS {128.8.0.0/16, 128.9.0.0/16}
route: 128.10.0.0/15
origin: AS1
aggr-bndry: AS1 or AS3
aggr-mtd: outbound
inject: upon HAVE-COMPONENTS {128.10.0.0/16, 128.11.0.0/16}
export-comps: {128.11.0.0/16}
route: 128.8.0.0/14
origin: AS1
aggr-bndry: AS1 or AS2 or AS3
aggr-mtd: outbound
inject: upon HAVE-COMPONENTS {128.8.0.0/15, 128.10.0.0/15}
export-comps: {128.10.0.0/15}
Figure 34: Overlapping aggregations.
In Figure 34, AS1 together with AS2 aggregates 128.8.0.0/16 and
128.9.0.0/16 into 128.8.0.0/15. Together with AS3, AS1 aggregates
128.10.0.0/16 and 128.11.0.0/16 into 128.10.0.0/15. But altogether
they aggregate these four routes into 128.8.0.0/14. Assuming all
four components are available, a router in AS1 for an outside AS, say
AS4, will first generate 128.8.0.0/15 and 128.10.0.0/15. This will
make 128.8.0.0/15, 128.10.0.0/15 and its exception 128.11.0.0/16
available for generating 128.8.0.0/14. The router will then generate
128.8.0.0/14 from these three routes. Hence for AS4, 128.8.0.0/14
and its exception 128.10.0.0/15 and its exception 128.11.0.0/16 will
be exportable.
For AS2, a router in AS1 will only generate 128.10.0.0/15. Hence,
128.10.0.0/15 and its exception 128.11.0.0/16 will be exportable.
Note that 128.8.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/16 are also exportable since
they did not participate in an aggregate exportable to AS2.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
Similarly, for AS3, a router in AS1 will only generate 128.8.0.0/15.
In this case 128.8.0.0/15, 128.10.0.0/16, 128.11.0.0/16 are
exportable.
8.2 Specifying Static Routes
The inject attribute can be used to specify static routes by using
"upon static" as the condition:
inject: [at <router-expression>] ...
[action <action>]
upon static
In this case, the routers in <router-expression> executes the
<action> and injects the route to the interAS routing system
statically. <action> may set certain route attributes such as a
next-hop router or a cost.
In the following example, the router 7.7.7.1 injects the route
128.7.0.0/16. The next-hop routers (in this example, there are two
next-hop routers) for this route are 7.7.7.2 and 7.7.7.3 and the
route has a cost of 10 over 7.7.7.2 and 20 over 7.7.7.3.
route: 128.7.0.0/16
origin: AS1
inject: at 7.7.7.1 action next-hop = 7.7.7.2; cost = 10; upon static
inject: at 7.7.7.1 action next-hop = 7.7.7.3; cost = 20; upon static
9 inet-rtr Class
Routers are specified using the inet-rtr class. The attributes of the
inet-rtr class are shown in Figure 35. The inet-rtr attribute is a valid
DNS name of the router described. Each alias attribute, if present, is a
canonical DNS name for the router. The local-as attribute specifies the AS
number of the AS which owns/operates this router.
Attribute Value Type
inet-rtr <dns-name> mandatory, single-valued, class key
alias <dns-name> optional, multi-valued
local-as <as-number> mandatory, single-valued
ifaddr see description in text mandatory, multi-valued
peer see description in text optional, multi-valued
member-of list of <rtr-set-names> optional, multi-valued
Figure 35: inet-rtr Class Attributes
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
The value of an ifaddr attribute has the following syntax:
<ipv4-address> masklen <integer> [action <action>]
The IP address and the mask length are mandatory for each interface.
Optionally an action can be specified to set other parameters of this
interface.
Figure 36 presents an example inet-rtr object. The name of the
router is "amsterdam.ripe.net". "amsterdam1.ripe.net" is a canonical
name for the router. The router is connected to 4 networks. Its IP
addresses and mask lengths in those networks are specified in the
ifaddr attributes.
inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net
alias: amsterdam1.ripe.net
local-as: AS3333
ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 masklen 24
ifaddr: 192.87.4.28 masklen 24
ifaddr: 193.0.0.222 masklen 27
ifaddr: 193.0.0.158 masklen 27
peer: BGP4 192.87.45.195 asno(AS3334), flap_damp()
Figure 36: inet-rtr Objects
Each peer attribute, if present, specifies a protocol peering with
another router. The value of a peer attribute has the following
syntax:
<protocol> <ipv4-address> <options>
| <protocol> <inet-rtr-name> <options>
| <protocol> <rtr-set-name> <options>
| <protocol> <peering-set-name> <options>
where <protocol> is a protocol name, <ipv4-address> is the IP address
of the peer router, and <options> is a comma separated list of
peering options for <protocol>. Instead of the peer's IP address,
its inet-rtr-name can be used. Possible protocol names and
attributes are defined in the dictionary (please see Section 7). In
the above example, the router has a BGP peering with the router
192.87.45.195 in AS3334 and turns the flap damping on when importing
routes from this router.
Instead of a single peer, a group of peers can be specified by using
the <rtr-set-name> and <peering-set-name> forms. If <peering-set-
name> form is being used only the peerings in the corresponding
peering set that are with this router are included. Figure 37 shows
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
an example inet-rtr object with peering groups.
rtr-set: rtrs-ibgp-peers
members: 1.1.1.1, 2.2.2.2, 3.3.3.3
peering-set: prng-ebgp-peers
peering: AS3334 192.87.45.195
peering: AS3335 192.87.45.196
inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net
alias: amsterdam1.ripe.net
local-as: AS3333
ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 masklen 24
ifaddr: 192.87.4.28 masklen 24
ifaddr: 193.0.0.222 masklen 27
ifaddr: 193.0.0.158 masklen 27
peer: BGP4 rtrs-ibgp-peers asno(AS3333), flap_damp()
peer: BGP4 prng-ebgp-peers asno(PeerAS), flap_damp()
Figure 37: inet-rtr Object with peering groups
10 Extending RPSL
Our experience with earlier routing policy languages and data formats
(PRDB [2], RIPE-81 [8], and RIPE-181 [7]) taught us that RPSL had to
be extensible. As a result, extensibility was a primary design goal
for RPSL. New routing protocols or new features to existing routing
protocols can be easily handled using RPSL's dictionary class. New
classes or new attributes to the existing classes can also be added.
This section provides guidelines for extending RPSL. These guidelines
are designed with an eye toward maintaining backward compatibility
with existing tools and databases. We next list the available
options for extending RPSL from the most preferred to the least
preferred order.
10.1 Extensions by changing the dictionary class
The dictionary class is the primary mechanism provided to extend
RPSL. Dictionary objects define routing policy attributes, types,
and routing protocols.
We recommend updating the RPSL dictionary to include appropriate rp-
attribute and protocol definitions as new path attributes or router
features are introduced. For example, in an earlier version of the
RPSL document, it was only possible to specify that a router performs
route flap damping on a peer, but it was not possible to specify the
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
parameters of route flap damping. Later the parameters were added by
changing the dictionary.
When changing the dictionary, full compatibility should be
maintained. For example, in our flap damping case, we made the
parameter specification optional in case this level of detail was not
desired by some ISPs. This also achieved compatibility. Any object
registered without the parameters will continue to be valid. Any
tool based on RPSL is expected to do a default action on routing
policy attributes that they do not understand (e.g. issue a warning
and otherwise ignore). Hence, old tools upon encountering a flap
damping specification with parameters will ignore the parameters.
10.2 Extensions by adding new attributes to existing classes
New attributes can be added to any class. To ensure full
compatibility, new attributes should not contradict the semantics of
the objects they are attached to. Any tool that uses the IRR should
be designed so that it ignores attributes that it doesn't understand.
Most existing tools adhere to this design principle.
We recommend adding new attributes to existing classes when a new
aspect of a class is discovered. For example, RPSL route class
extends its RIPE-181 predecessor by including several new attributes
that enable aggregate and static route specification.
10.3 Extensions by adding new classes
New classes can be added to RPSL to store new types of policy data.
Providing full compatibility is straight forward as long as existing
classes are still understood. Since a tool should only query the IRR
for the classes that it understand, full compatibility should not be
a problem in this case.
Before adding a new class, one should question if the information
contained in the objects of the new class could have better belonged
to some other class. For example, if the geographic location of a
router needs to be stored in IRR, it may be tempting to add a new
class called, say router-location class. However, the information
better belongs to the inet-rtr class, perhaps in a new attribute
called location.
10.4 Extensions by changing the syntax of existing RPSL attributes
If all of the methods described above fail to provide the desired
extension, it may be necessary to change the syntax of RPSL. Any
change in RPSL syntax must provide backwards compatibility, and
should be considered only as a last resort since full compatibility
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
may not be achievable. However, we require that the old syntax to be
still valid.
11 Security Considerations
This document describes RPSL, a language for expressing routing
policies. The language defines a maintainer (mntner class) object
which is the entity which controls or "maintains" the objects stored
in a database expressed by RPSL. Requests from maintainers can be
authenticated with various techniques as defined by the "auth"
attribute of the maintainer object.
The exact protocols used by IRR's to communicate RPSL objects is
beyond the scope of this document, but it is envisioned that several
techniques may be used, ranging from interactive query/update
protocols to store and forward protocols similar to or based on
electronic mail (or even voice telephone calls). Regardless of which
protocols are used in a given situation, it is expected that
appropriate security techniques such as IPSEC, TLS or PGP/MIME will
be utilized.
12 Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jessica Yu, Randy Bush, Alan Barrett, Bill
Manning, Sue Hares, Ramesh Govindan, Kannan Varadhan, Satish Kumar,
Craig Labovitz, Rusty Eddy, David J. LeRoy, David Whipple, Jon
Postel, Deborah Estrin, Elliot Schwartz, Joachim Schmitz, Mark Prior,
Tony Przygienda, David Woodgate, Rob Coltun, Sanjay Wadhwa, Ardas
Cilingiroglu, and the participants of the IETF RPS Working Group for
various comments and suggestions.
References
[1] Internet routing registry. procedures.
http://www.ra.net/RADB.tools.docs/,
http://www.ripe.net/db/doc.html.
[2] Nsfnet policy routing database (prdb). Maintained by MERIT
Network Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. Contents available from
nic.merit.edu.:/nsfnet/announced.networks/nets.tag.now by
anonymous ftp.
[3] Alaettinouglu, C., Bates, T., Gerich, E., Karrenberg, D., Meyer,
D., Terpstra, M. and C. Villamizer, "Routing Policy Specification
Language (RPSL)", RFC 2280, January 1998.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
[4] C. Alaettinouglu, D. Meyer, and J. Schmitz. Application of
routing policy specification language (rpsl) on the internet.
Work in Progress.
[5] T. Bates. Specifying an `internet router' in the routing
registry. Technical Report RIPE-122, RIPE, RIPE NCC, Amsterdam,
Netherlands, October 1994.
[6] T. Bates, E. Gerich, L. Joncheray, J-M. Jouanigot, D. Karrenberg,
M. Terpstra, and J. Yu. Representation of ip routing policies in
a routing registry. Technical Report ripe-181, RIPE, RIPE NCC,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, October 1994.
[7] Bates, T., Gerich, E., Joncheray, L., Jouanigot, J-M.,
Karrenberg, D., Terpstra, M. and J. Yu, " Representation of IP
Routing Policies in a Routing Registry", RFC 1786, March 1995.
[8] T. Bates, J-M. Jouanigot, D. Karrenberg, P. Lothberg, and M.
Terpstra. Representation of ip routing policies in the ripe
database. Technical Report ripe-81, RIPE, RIPE NCC, Amsterdam,
Netherlands, February 1993.
[9] Chandra, R., Traina, P. and T. Li, "BGP Communities Attribute",
RFC 1997, August 1996.
[10] Crocker, D., "Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages", STD 11,
RFC 822, August 1982.
[11] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J. and K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter-
Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation
Strategy", RFC 1519, September 1993.
[12] D. Karrenberg and T. Bates. Description of inter-as networks in
the ripe routing registry. Technical Report RIPE-104, RIPE, RIPE
NCC, Amsterdam, Netherlands, December 1993.
[13] D. Karrenberg and M. Terpstra. Authorisation and notification of
changes in the ripe database. Technical Report ripe-120, RIPE,
RIPE NCC, Amsterdam, Netherlands, October 1994.
[14] B. W. Kernighan and D. M. Ritchie. The C Programming Language.
Prentice-Hall, 1978.
[15] A. Lord and M. Terpstra. Ripe database template for networks and
persons. Technical Report ripe-119, RIPE, RIPE NCC, Amsterdam,
Netherlands, October 1994.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
[16] A. M. R. Magee. Ripe ncc database documentation. Technical Report
RIPE-157, RIPE, RIPE NCC, Amsterdam, Netherlands, May 1997.
[17] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD
13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[18] Y. Rekhter. Inter-domain routing protocol (idrp). Journal of
Internetworking Research and Experience, 4:61--80, 1993.
[19] Rekhter Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC
1771, March 1995.
[20] C. Villamizar, C. Alaettinouglu, D. Meyer, S. Murphy, and C.
Orange. Routing policy system security", Work in Progress.
[21] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R. and R. Govindan, "BGP Route Flap
Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998.
[22] J. Zsako, "PGP authentication for ripe database updates", Work in
Progress.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
A Routing Registry Sites
The set of routing registries as of November 1996 are RIPE, RADB,
CANet, MCI and ANS. You may contact one of these registries to find
out the current list of registries.
B Grammar Rules
In this section we provide formal grammar rules for RPSL. Basic data
types are defined in Section 2. We do not provide formal grammar
rules for attributes whose values are of basic types or list of basic
types. The rules are written using the input language of GNU Bison
parser. Hence, they can be cut and pasted to that program.
//**** Generic Attributes **********************************************
changed_attribute: ATTR_CHANGED TKN_EMAIL TKN_INT
//**** aut-num class ***************************************************
//// as_expression /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
opt_as_expression:
| as_expression
as_expression: as_expression OP_OR as_expression_term
| as_expression_term
as_expression_term: as_expression_term OP_AND as_expression_factor
| as_expression_term KEYW_EXCEPT as_expression_factor
| as_expression_factor
as_expression_factor: '(' as_expression ')'
| as_expression_operand
as_expression_operand: TKN_ASNO
| TKN_ASNAME
//// router_expression /////////////////////////////////////////////////
opt_router_expression:
| router_expression
opt_router_expression_with_at:
| KEYW_AT router_expression
router_expression: router_expression OP_OR router_expression_term
| router_expression_term
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 59]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
router_expression_term: router_expression_term OP_AND
router_expression_factor
| router_expression_term KEYW_EXCEPT router_expression_factor
| router_expression_factor
router_expression_factor: '(' router_expression ')'
| router_expression_operand
router_expression_operand: TKN_IPV4
| TKN_DNS
| TKN_RTRSNAME
//// peering ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
peering: as_expression opt_router_expression opt_router_expression_with_at
| TKN_PRNGNAME
//// action ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
opt_action:
| KEYW_ACTION action
action: single_action
| action single_action
single_action: TKN_RP_ATTR '.' TKN_WORD '(' generic_list ')' ';'
| TKN_RP_ATTR TKN_OPERATOR list_item ';'
| TKN_RP_ATTR '(' generic_list ')' ';'
| TKN_RP_ATTR '[' generic_list ']' ';'
| ';'
//// filter ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
filter: filter OP_OR filter_term
| filter filter_term %prec OP_OR
| filter_term
filter_term : filter_term OP_AND filter_factor
| filter_factor
filter_factor : OP_NOT filter_factor
| '(' filter ')'
| filter_operand
filter_operand: KEYW_ANY
| '<' filter_aspath '>'
| filter_rp_attribute
| TKN_FLTRNAME
| filter_prefix
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
filter_prefix: filter_prefix_operand OP_MS
| filter_prefix_operand
filter_prefix_operand: TKN_ASNO
| KEYW_PEERAS
| TKN_ASNAME
| TKN_RSNAME
| '{' opt_filter_prefix_list '}'
opt_filter_prefix_list:
| filter_prefix_list
filter_prefix_list: filter_prefix_list_prefix
| filter_prefix_list ',' filter_prefix_list_prefix
filter_prefix_list_prefix: TKN_PRFXV4
| TKN_PRFXV4RNG
filter_aspath: filter_aspath '|' filter_aspath_term
| filter_aspath_term
filter_aspath_term: filter_aspath_term filter_aspath_closure
| filter_aspath_closure
filter_aspath_closure: filter_aspath_closure '*'
| filter_aspath_closure '?'
| filter_aspath_closure '+'
| filter_aspath_factor
filter_aspath_factor: '^'
| '$'
| '(' filter_aspath ')'
| filter_aspath_no
filter_aspath_no: TKN_ASNO
| KEYW_PEERAS
| TKN_ASNAME
| '.'
| '[' filter_aspath_range ']'
| '[' '^' filter_aspath_range ']'
filter_aspath_range:
| filter_aspath_range TKN_ASNO
| filter_aspath_range KEYW_PEERAS
| filter_aspath_range '.'
| filter_aspath_range TKN_ASNO '-' TKN_ASNO
| filter_aspath_range TKN_ASNAME
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 61]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
filter_rp_attribute: TKN_RP_ATTR '.' TKN_WORD '(' generic_list ')'
| TKN_RP_ATTR TKN_OPERATOR list_item
| TKN_RP_ATTR '(' generic_list ')'
| TKN_RP_ATTR '[' generic_list ']'
//// peering action pair ///////////////////////////////////////////////
import_peering_action_list: KEYW_FROM peering opt_action
| import_peering_action_list KEYW_FROM peering opt_action
export_peering_action_list: KEYW_TO peering opt_action
| export_peering_action_list KEYW_TO peering opt_action
//// import/export factor //////////////////////////////////////////////
import_factor: import_peering_action_list KEYW_ACCEPT filter
import_factor_list: import_factor ';'
| import_factor_list import_factor ';'
export_factor: export_peering_action_list KEYW_ANNOUNCE filter
export_factor_list: export_factor ';'
| export_factor_list export_factor ';'
//// import/export term ////////////////////////////////////////////////
import_term: import_factor ';'
| '{' import_factor_list '}'
export_term: export_factor ';'
| '{' export_factor_list '}'
//// import/export expression //////////////////////////////////////////
import_expression: import_term
| import_term KEYW_REFINE import_expression
| import_term KEYW_EXCEPT import_expression
export_expression: export_term
| export_term KEYW_REFINE export_expression
| export_term KEYW_EXCEPT export_expression
//// protocol ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
opt_protocol_from:
| KEYW_PROTOCOL tkn_word
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 62]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
opt_protocol_into:
| KEYW_INTO tkn_word
//**** import/export attributes ****************************************
import_attribute: ATTR_IMPORT
| ATTR_IMPORT opt_protocol_from opt_protocol_into import_factor
export_attribute: ATTR_EXPORT
| ATTR_EXPORT opt_protocol_from opt_protocol_into export_factor
opt_default_filter:
| KEYW_NETWORKS filter
default_attribute: ATTR_DEFAULT KEYW_TO peering
filter_attribute: ATTR_FILTER filter
peering_attribute: ATTR_PEERING peering
//**** inet-rtr class **************************************************
ifaddr_attribute: ATTR_IFADDR TKN_IPV4 KEYW_MASKLEN TKN_INT opt_action
//// peer attribute ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
opt_peer_options:
| peer_options
peer_options: peer_option
| peer_options ',' peer_option
peer_option: tkn_word '(' generic_list ')'
peer_id: TKN_IPV4
| TKN_DNS
| TKN_RTRSNAME
| TKN_PRNGNAME
peer_attribute: ATTR_PEER tkn_word peer_id opt_peer_options
//**** route class *****************************************************
aggr_bndry_attribute: ATTR_AGGR_BNDRY as_expression
aggr_mtd_attribute: ATTR_AGGR_MTD KEYW_INBOUND
| ATTR_AGGR_MTD KEYW_OUTBOUND opt_as_expression
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 63]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
//// inject attribute //////////////////////////////////////////////////
opt_inject_expression:
| KEYW_UPON inject_expression
inject_expression: inject_expression OP_OR inject_expression_term
| inject_expression_term
inject_expression_term: inject_expression_term OP_AND
inject_expression_factor
| inject_expression_factor
inject_expression_factor: '(' inject_expression ')'
| inject_expression_operand
inject_expression_operand: KEYW_STATIC
| KEYW_HAVE_COMPONENTS '{' opt_filter_prefix_list '}'
| KEYW_EXCLUDE '{' opt_filter_prefix_list '}'
inject_attribute: ATTR_INJECT opt_router_expression_with_at opt_action
opt_inject_expression
//// components attribute //////////////////////////////////////////////
opt_atomic:
| KEYW_ATOMIC
components_list:
| filter
| components_list KEYW_PROTOCOL tkn_word filter
components_attribute: ATTR_COMPONENTS opt_atomic components_list
//**** route-set *******************************************************
opt_rs_members_list: /* empty list */
| rs_members_list
rs_members_list: rs_member
| rs_members_list ',' rs_member
rs_member: TKN_ASNO
| TKN_ASNO OP_MS
| TKN_ASNAME
| TKN_ASNAME OP_MS
| TKN_RSNAME
| TKN_RSNAME OP_MS
| TKN_PRFXV4
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 64]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
| TKN_PRFXV4RNG
rs_members_attribute: ATTR_RS_MEMBERS opt_rs_members_list
//**** dictionary ******************************************************
rpattr_attribute: ATTR_RP_ATTR TKN_WORD methods
| ATTR_RP_ATTR TKN_RP_ATTR methods
methods: method
| methods method
method: TKN_WORD '(' ')'
| TKN_WORD '(' typedef_type_list ')'
| TKN_WORD '(' typedef_type_list ',' TKN_3DOTS ')'
| KEYW_OPERATOR TKN_OPERATOR '(' typedef_type_list ')'
| KEYW_OPERATOR TKN_OPERATOR '(' typedef_type_list ',' TKN_3DOTS ')'
//// typedef attribute ////////////////////////////////////////////////
typedef_attribute: ATTR_TYPEDEF TKN_WORD typedef_type
typedef_type_list: typedef_type
| typedef_type_list ',' typedef_type
typedef_type: KEYW_UNION typedef_type_list
| KEYW_RANGE KEYW_OF typedef_type
| TKN_WORD
| TKN_WORD '[' TKN_INT ',' TKN_INT ']'
| TKN_WORD '[' TKN_REAL ',' TKN_REAL ']'
| TKN_WORD '[' enum_list ']'
| KEYW_LIST '[' TKN_INT ':' TKN_INT ']' KEYW_OF typedef_type
| KEYW_LIST KEYW_OF typedef_type
enum_list: tkn_word
| enum_list ',' tkn_word
//// protocol attribute ////////////////////////////////////////////////
protocol_attribute: ATTR_PROTOCOL tkn_word protocol_options
protocol_options:
| protocol_options protocol_option
protocol_option: KEYW_MANDATORY method
| KEYW_OPTIONAL method
//**** Token Definitions ***********************************************
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 65]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
//// flex macros used in token definitions /////////////////////////////
INT [[:digit:]]+
SINT [+-]?{INT}
REAL [+-]?{INT}?\.{INT}({WS}*E{WS}*[+-]?{INT})?
NAME [[:alpha:]]([[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]])?
ASNO AS{INT}
ASNAME AS-[[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]]
RSNAME RS-[[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]]
RTRSNAME RTRS-[[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]]
PRNGNAME PRNG-[[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]]
FLTRNAME FLTR-[[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]]
IPV4 [0-9]+(\.[0-9]+){3,3}
PRFXV4 {IPV4}\/[0-9]+
PRFXV4RNG {PRFXV4}("^+"|"^-"|"^"{INT}|"^"{INT}-{INT})
ENAMECHAR [^()<>,;:\\\"\.[\] \t\r]
ENAME ({ENAMECHAR}+(\.{ENAMECHAR}+)*\.?)|(\"[^\"@\\\r\n]+\")
DNAME [[:alnum:]_-]+
//// Token Definitions ////////////////////////////////////////////////
TKN_INT {SINT}
TKN_INT {INT}:{INT} if each {INT} is two octets
TKN_INT {INT}.{INT}.{INT}.{INT} if each {INT} is one octet
TKN_REAL {REAL}
TKN_STRING Same as in programming language C
TKN_IPV4 {IPV4}
TKN_PRFXV4 {PRFXV4}
TKN_PRFXV4RNG {PRFXV4RNG}
TKN_ASNO {ASNO}
TKN_ASNAME (({ASNO}|peeras|{ASNAME}):)*{ASNAME}\
(:({ASNO}|peeras|{ASNAME}))*
TKN_RSNAME (({ASNO}|peeras|{RSNAME}):)*{RSNAME}\
(:({ASNO}|peeras|{RSNAME}))*
TKN_RTRSNAME (({ASNO}|peeras|{RTRSNAME}):)*{RTRSNAME}\
(:({ASNO}|peeras|{RTRSNAME}))*
TKN_PRNGNAME (({ASNO}|peeras|{PRNGNAME}):)*{PRNGNAME}\
(:({ASNO}|peeras|{PRNGNAME}))*
TKN_FLTRNAME (({ASNO}|peeras|{FLTRNAME}):)*{FLTRNAME}\
(:({ASNO}|peeras|{FLTRNAME}))*
TKN_BOOLEAN true|false
TKN_RP_ATTR {NAME} if defined in dictionary
TKN_WORD {NAME}
TKN_DNS {DNAME}("."{DNAME})+
TKN_EMAIL {ENAME}@({DNAME}("."{DNAME})+|{IPV4})
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 66]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
C Changes from RFC 2280
RFC 2280 [3] contains an earlier version of RPSL. This section
summarizes the changes since then. They are as follows:
o It is now possible to write integers as sequence of four 1-octet
integers (e.g. 1.1.1.1) or as sequence of two 2-octet integers
(e.g. 3561:70). Please see Section 2.
o The definition of address prefix range is extended so that an
address prefix is also an address prefix range. Please see Section
2.
o The semantics for a range operator applied to a set containing
address prefix ranges is defined (e.g. {30.0.0.0/8^24-28}^27-30).
Please see Section 2.
o All dates are now in UTC. Please see Section 2.
o Plus ('+') character is added to space and tab characters to split
an attribute's value to multiple lines (i.e. by starting the
following lines with a space, a tab or a plus ('+') character).
Please see Section 2.
o The withdrawn attribute of route class is removed from the
language.
o filter-set class is introduced. Please see Section 5.4.
o rtr-set class is introduced. Please see Section 5.5.
o peering-set class is introduced. Please see Section 5.6.
o Filters can now refer to filter-set names. Please see Section 5.4.
o Peerings can now refer to peering-set, rtr-set names. Both local
and peer routers can be specified using router expressions. Please
see Section 5.6.
o The peer attribute of the inet-rtr class can refer to peering-set,
rtr-set names. Please see Section 9.
o The syntax and semantics of union, and list types and typedef
attribute have changed. Please see Section 7.
o In the initial dictionary, the typedef attribute defining the
community_elm, rp-attribute defining the community attribute has
changed. Please see Section 7.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 67]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
o Guideliness for extending RPSL is added. Please see Section 10.
o Formal grammar rules are added. Please see Appendix B.
D Authors' Addresses
Cengiz Alaettinoglu
USC/Information Sciences Institute
EMail: cengiz@isi.edu
Curtis Villamizar
Avici Systems
EMail: curtis@avici.com
Elise Gerich
At Home Network
EMail: epg@home.net
David Kessens
Qwest Communications
EMail: David.Kessens@qwest.net
David Meyer
University of Oregon
EMail: meyer@antc.uoregon.edu
Tony Bates
Cisco Systems, Inc.
EMail: tbates@cisco.com
Daniel Karrenberg
RIPE NCC
EMail: dfk@ripe.net
Marten Terpstra
c/o Bay Networks, Inc.
EMail: marten@BayNetworks.com
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 68]
RFC 2622 RPSL June 1999
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN
WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Alaettinoglu, et al. Standards Track [Page 69]