idnits 2.17.1 draft-hares-deprecate-atomic-aggregate-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4271, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC4271 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC4271, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2006-01-13) -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (March 13, 2017) is 2601 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IDR S. Hares 3 Internet-Draft Huawei 4 Updates: 4271 (if approved) March 13, 2017 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: September 14, 2017 8 Decprecate Atomic Aggregate 9 draft-hares-deprecate-atomic-aggregate-00.txt 11 Abstract 13 This document deprecates the support for the BGP well-know 14 discretionary attribute ATOMIC_AGGREGATE specified in RFC4271. It 15 proposes the changes to RFC4271 to remove its support. 17 Requirements Language 19 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 20 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 21 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 56 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 57 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 58 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 59 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 60 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 61 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 62 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 63 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 64 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 65 than English. 67 Table of Contents 69 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 70 2. Changes to Section 4.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 71 3. Changes to Section 5 - Path Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . 3 72 4. Changes to Section 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 73 4.1. Changes to section 9.1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 74 4.2. Section 9.2 Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 75 5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 76 6. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 77 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 78 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 81 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 83 1. Introduction 85 The ATOMIC_AGGREGATE well-known discretionary attribute is specified 86 in [RFC4271] in section 5.1.6. This document specifies the changes 87 to RFC4271 in order to remove the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. 89 2. Changes to Section 4.3 91 delete the following text: 93 f) ATOMIC_AGGREGATE (Type Code 6) 95 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is a well-known discretionary attribute of 96 length 0. 98 Usage of this attribute is defined in 5.1.6. 100 3. Changes to Section 5 - Path Attributes 102 1: Section 5.0 should have the following changes (p. 24) 104 Old: 106 attribute EBGP IBGP 107 ORIGIN mandatory mandatory 108 AS_PATH mandatory mandatory 109 NEXT_HOP mandatory mandatory 110 MULTI_EXIT_DISC discretionary discretionary 111 LOCAL_PREF see Section 5.1.5 required 112 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE see Section 5.1.6 and 9.1.4 113 AGGREGATOR discretionary discretionary 115 New: 117 attribute EBGP IBGP 118 ORIGIN mandatory mandatory 119 AS_PATH mandatory mandatory 120 NEXT_HOP mandatory mandatory 121 MULTI_EXIT_DISC discretionary discretionary 122 LOCAL_PREF see Section 5.1.5 required 123 AGGREGATOR discretionary discretionary 125 2: Delete Section 5.1.6 127 4. Changes to Section 9 129 4.1. Changes to section 9.1.4 131 3: Changes to section 9.1.4 133 Old: 135 If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it SHOULD either include 136 all ASes used to form the aggregate in an AS_SET, or add the 137 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. 139 New 140 If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it SHOULD either include 141 all ASes used to form the aggregate in an AS_SET. 143 delete the following text: 145 "In particular, a route that carries the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute 146 MUST NOT be de-aggregated." 148 4.2. Section 9.2 Changes 150 Text to delete: 152 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: 153 If at least one of the routes to be aggregated has 154 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE path attribute, then the aggregated route 155 SHALL have this attribute as well. 157 5. Operational Considerations 159 Input needed here. 161 6. Error Handling 163 An ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute received should be silently ignored. 165 7. IANA Considerations 167 IANA Is asked to deprecate the BGP Attribute: Atomic_Aggregate with 168 this document as reference. 170 8. Security Considerations 172 Deprecating a BGP attribute does not change the BGP messages sent on 173 over a secure transport. 175 Users of this mechanism should be aware that unless a transport that 176 provides integrity (such as TCP-AO [RFC5925]) is used for the BGP 177 session in question, BGP Attributes can be forged. This could become 178 an attack vector. 180 Unless a transport that provides confidentiality (such as IPSec 181 [RFC4303]) is used, BGP attributes Communication messages could be 182 snooped by an attacker allowing access to BGP attributes. These 183 issues are common to any BGP message but may be of greater interest 184 in the context of this proposal since a BGP Attribute is being 185 deleted. 187 9. Normative References 189 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 190 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 191 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 192 . 194 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 195 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 196 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 197 . 199 [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 200 RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, 201 . 203 [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP 204 Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, 205 June 2010, . 207 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 209 The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the IDR WG discussion 211 Author's Address 213 Susan Hares 214 Huawei 215 7453 Hickory Hill 216 Saline, MI 48176 217 USA 219 Email: shares@ndzh.com