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