idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 8 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (December 2003) is 7431 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) == Missing Reference: 'RFC 2119' is mentioned on line 34, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'VPLS' is mentioned on line 94, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'HUSTON' is mentioned on line 140, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'HOUSTON' is defined on line 444, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'ISO-3166-2' is defined on line 448, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RIS-ISO-3166' is defined on line 452, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'VLPS' is defined on line 463, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 473, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2026' is defined on line 477, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2028' is defined on line 480, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-06 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'HOUSTON' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO-3166-2' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'RIS' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'RIS-ISO-3166' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ROUTEVIEWS' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1771 (Obsoleted by RFC 4271) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-00 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'WANG' -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2028 (Obsoleted by RFC 9281) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 15 warnings (==), 10 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 INTERNET-DRAFT D. Meyer 3 draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-01.txt 4 Category Best Current Practice 5 Expires: June 2004 December 2003 7 BGP Communities for Data Collection 8 10 Status of this Document 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 The key words "MUST"", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 32 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 33 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC 2119]. 35 This document is a product of the GROW WG. Comments should be 36 addressed to the authors, or the mailing list at 37 grow@lists.uoregon.edu. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 43 Abstract 45 BGP communities (RFC 1997) are used by service providers for many 46 purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically 47 originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the 48 scope of redistribution of routes within a provider's network, and to 49 its peers and customers. With the advent of large scale BGP data 50 collection (and associated research), it has become clear that the 51 information carried in such communities is essential for a deeper 52 understanding of the global routing system. This document defines 53 standard (outbound) communities and their encodings for export to BGP 54 route collectors. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 2. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.1. Peers and Peering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 2.2. Customer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 2.3. Peer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 2.4. Internal Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 2.5. Internal More Specific Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 2.6. Special Purpose Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 2.7. Upstream Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 2.8. National Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 2.9. Regional Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 3. RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 3.1. Community Values for BGP Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . 7 71 4. Extended Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 4.1. Four-octet AS specific extended communities . . . . . . . . 10 73 5. Intellectual Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 6. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 75 7. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 7.1. Total Path Attribute Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 8. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 79 9.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 9.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 81 10. Author's Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 82 11. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 84 1. Introduction 86 BGP communities [RFC1997] are used by service providers for many 87 purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically 88 originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the 89 scope of redistribution of routes within a providers network, and to 90 it's customers and peers. Communities are also used for a wide 91 variety of other applications, such as allowing customers to set 92 attributes such as LOCAL_PREF [RFC1771] by sending appropriate 93 communities to their service provider. Other applications include 94 signaling various types of VPNs (e.g., VPLS [VPLS]), and carrying 95 link bandwidth for traffic engineering applications [EXTCOMM]. 97 With the advent of large scale BGP data collection [RIS,ROUTEVIEWS] 98 (and associated research), it has become clear that the geographical 99 and topological information, as well as the relationship the provider 100 has to the source of a route (e.g., transit, peer, or customer), 101 carried in such communities is essential for a deeper understanding 102 of the global routing system. This document defines standard 103 communities for export to BGP route collectors. These communities are 104 not (necessarily) intended for internal use by service providers. 105 Rather, they are meant to mirror the information that many service 106 providers carry today, and to be a standardized representation of 107 that information. 109 The remainder of this document is organized as follows. Section 2 110 provides both the definition of terms used as well as the semantics 111 of the communities used for BGP data collection, and section 3 112 defines the corresponding encodings for RFC 1997 [RFC1997] 113 communities. Finally, section 4 defines the encodings for use with 114 extended communities [EXTCOMM]. 116 2. Definitions 118 In this section, we define the terms used and the categories of 119 routes that may be tagged with communities. This tagging is often 120 referred to coloring, and we refer to a route's "color" as its 121 community value. The categories defined here are loosely modeled on 122 those described in [WANG] and [HUSTON]. 124 2.1. Peers and Peering 126 Consider two network service providers, A and B. Service providers A 127 and B are defined to be peers when (i). A and B exchange routes via 128 BGP, and (ii). traffic exchange between A and B is settlement-free. 129 This arrangement is also typically known as "peering". Peers 130 typically exchange only their respective customer routes (see 131 "Customer Routes" below), and hence exchange only their respective 132 customer traffic. See [HUSTON] for a more in-depth discussion of the 133 business models surrounding peers and peering. 135 2.2. Customer Routes 137 Customer routes are those routes which are heard from a customer via 138 BGP and are propagated to peers and other customers. Note that a 139 customer can be an enterprise or another network service provider. 140 These routes are sometimes called client routes [HUSTON]. 142 2.3. Peer Routes 144 Peer routes are those routes heard from peers via BGP, and not 145 propagated to other peers. In particular, these routes are only 146 propagated to the service provider's customers. 148 2.4. Internal Routes 150 Internal routes are those routes that a service provider originates 151 and passes to its peers and customers. These routes are frequently 152 taken out of the address space allocated to a provider. 154 2.5. Internal More Specific Routes 156 Internal more specific routes are those routes which are frequently 157 used for circuit balancing purposes, IGP route reduction, and also 158 may correspond to customer services which are not visible outside the 159 service provider's network. Internal more specific routes are not 160 exported to any external peer. 162 2.6. Special Purpose Routes 164 Special purpose routes are those routes which do not fall into any of 165 the other classes described here. In those cases in which such routes 166 need to be distinguished, a service provider may color such routes 167 with a unique value. Examples of special purpose routes include 168 anycast routes, and routes for overlay networks. 170 2.7. Upstream Routes 172 Upstream routes are typically learned from upstream service provider 173 as part of a transit service contract executed with the upstream 174 provider. 176 2.8. National Routes 178 These are route sets that are sourced from and/or received within a 179 particular country. 181 2.9. Regional Routes 183 Several global backbones implement regional policy based on their 184 deployed footprint, and on strategic and business imperatives. 185 Service providers often have settlement free interconnections with an 186 AS in one region, and that same AS is a customer in another region. 187 This mandates use of regional routing, including community attributes 188 set by the network in question to allow easy discrimination among 189 regional routes. For example, service providers may treat a route set 190 received from another service provider in Europe differently than the 191 same route set received in North America, as it is common practice to 192 sell transit in one region while peering in the other. 194 3. RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values 196 In this section we provide standardized RFC 1997 [RFC1997] community 197 values for the categories described above. RFC 1997 communities 198 encoded as BGP Type Code 8, and are treated as 32 bit values ranging 199 from 0x0000000 through 0xFFFFFFF. The values 0x0000000 through 200 0x0000FFFF and 0xFFFF0000 through 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved. 202 The best current practice among service providers is to use the high 203 order two octets to represent the providers AS number, and the low 204 order two octets to represent the classification of the route, as 205 depicted below: 207 0 1 2 3 208 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 209 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 210 | | | 211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 213 where 16 bit AS number, and is the encoding of the 214 value. For example, the encoding 0x2A7C029A would represent the AS 215 10876 with value 666. 217 3.1. Community Values for BGP Data Collection 219 In this section we define the RFC 1997 community encoding for the 220 route types described above for use in BGP data collection. It is 221 anticipated that a service provider's internal community values will 222 be converted to these standard values for output to a route 223 collector. 225 This document follows the best current practice of using the basic 226 format :. The values for the route categories are 227 described in the following table: 229 Category Value 230 =============================================================== 231 Reserved :0000000000000000 232 Customer Routes :0000000000000001 233 Peer Routes :0000000000000010 234 Internal Routes :0000000000000011 235 Internal More Specific Routes :0000000000000100 236 Special Purpose Routes :0000000000000101 237 Upstream Routes :0000000000000110 238 Reserved :0000000000000110- 239 :0000111111111111 240 National and Regional Routes :0001000000000000- 241 :1111111111111111 242 Africa (AF) :0001 243 Oceania (OC) :0010 244 Asia (AS) :0011 245 Antarctica (AQ) :0100 246 Europe (EU) :0101 247 Latin America/Caribbean islands (LAC) :0110 248 North America (NA) :0111 249 Reserved :1000000000000000- 250 :1111111111111111 252 In the above table, 254 is the 16-bit AS 255 is the 5-bit Region 256 is 1-bit satellite link indication (1 if satellite link, 0 otherwise) 257 is the 10-bit ISO-3166-2 country code 259 that is: 261 0 1 2 3 262 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 263 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 264 | | |X| | 265 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 267 For example, the encoding for a national route over a terrestrial 268 link in AS 10876 from the Fiji Islands would be: 270 = 10876 = 0x2A7B 271 = OC = 0010 272 = 0x0 273 = Fiji Islands Country Code = 242 = 0011110010 275 so that the low order 16 bits look like 001000011110010 = 0x10F2. 277 0 1 2 3 278 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 279 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 280 | 0x2A7C | 0x10F2 | 281 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 283 Note that a configuration language might have allow the specification 284 of this community as 10876:4338 (0x1F2 == 4338 decimal). 286 Finally, note that these categories are not intended to be mutually 287 exclusive, and multiple communities can be attached where 288 appropriate. 290 4. Extended Communities 292 In some cases, the encoding described in section 3.1 may clash with a 293 service provider's existing community assignments. Extended 294 communities [EXTCOMM] provide a convenient mechanism that can be used 295 to avoid such clashes. 297 The Extended Communities Attribute is a transitive optional BGP 298 attribute with the Type Code 16, and consists of a set of extended 299 communities of the following format: 301 0 1 2 3 302 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 303 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 304 | Type high | Type low(*) | | 305 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Value | 306 | | 307 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 309 For purposes of BGP data collection, we encode the communities 310 described in section 3.1 using the two-octet AS specific extended 311 community type, which has the following format: 313 0 1 2 3 314 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 315 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 316 | 0x00 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator | 317 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 318 | Local Administrator | 319 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 321 The two-octet AS specific extended community attribute encodes the 322 service provider's two octet Autonomous System number assigned by 323 IANA in the Global Administrator field, and the Local Administrator 324 field may encode any information. 326 This document assigns Sub-Type 0x05 for BGP data collection, and 327 specifies that the field, as defined in section 3.1, is 328 carried in the low order octets of the Local Administrator field. The 329 two high order octets of the Local Administrator field are reserved, 330 and are set to 0x00 when sending and ignored upon receipt. 332 For example, the extended community encoding for 10876:4338 333 (representing a terrestrial national route in AS 10876 from the Fiji 334 Islands) would be: 336 0 1 2 3 337 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 338 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 339 | 0x00 | 0x05 | 0x2A7C | 340 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 341 | 0x00 | 0x00 | 0x10F2 | 342 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 344 4.1. Four-octet AS specific extended communities 346 The four-octet AS specific extended community is encoded as follows: 348 0 1 2 3 349 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 350 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 351 | 0x02 | 0x05 | Global Administrator | 352 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 353 | Global Administrator (cont.) | 0x10F2 | 354 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 356 In this case, the 4 octet Global Administrator sub-field contains a 357 4-octets Autonomous System number assigned by the IANA. 359 5. Intellectual Property 361 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 362 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 363 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 364 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 365 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 366 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 367 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 368 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11 [RFC2028]. 369 Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any 370 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 371 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 372 such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this 373 specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 375 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 376 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 377 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 378 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 379 Director. 381 6. Acknowledgments 383 The community encoding described in this document germinated from an 384 interesting suggestion from Akira Kato at WIDE. In particular, the 385 idea would be to use the collection community values to select paths 386 that would result in (hopefully) more efficient access to various 387 services. For example, in the case of RFC 3258 [RFC3258] based DNS 388 anycast service, BGP routers may see multiple paths to the same 389 prefix, and others might be coming from the same origin with 390 different paths, but others might be from different region/country 391 (with the same origin AS). 393 Joe Abley, Randy Bush, Sean Donelan, Xenofontas Dimitropoulos, Vijay 394 Gill, John Heasley, Geoff Huston, Steve Huter, Olivier Marce, Ryan 395 McDowell, Rob Rockell, Rob Thomas, and Patrick Verkaik all made many 396 insightful comments on early versions of this draft. Henk Uijterwaal 397 suggested the use of the ISO-3166-2 country codes. 399 7. Security Considerations 401 While this document introduces no additional security considerations 402 into the BGP protocol, the information contained in the communities 403 defined in this document may in some cases reveal network structure 404 that was not previously visible outside the provider's network. As a 405 result, care should be taken when exporting such communities to route 406 collectors. Finally, routes exported to a route collector SHOULD also 407 be tagged with the NO_EXPORT community (0xFFFFFF01). 409 7.1. Total Path Attribute Length 411 The communities described in this document are intended for use on 412 egress to a route collector. Hence an operator may choose to 413 overwrite its internal communities with the values specified in this 414 document when exporting routes to a route collector. However, 415 operators should in general ensure that the behavior of their BGP 416 implementation is well-defined when the addition of an attribute 417 causes a PDU to exceed 4096 octets. For example, since it is common 418 practice to use community attributes to implement policy (among other 419 functionality such as allowing customers to set attributes such as 420 LOCAL_PREF), the behavior of an implementation when the attribute 421 space overflows is crucial. Among other behaviors, an implementation 422 might usurp the intended attribute data or otherwise cause 423 indeterminate failures. These behaviors can result in unanticipated 424 community attribute sets, and hence result in unintended policy 425 implications. 427 8. IANA Considerations 429 This document assigns a new Sub-Type for the AS specific extended 430 community type. In particular, the IANA should assign Sub-type 0x05, 431 using the "First Come First Served" policy defined in RFC 2434 432 [RFC2434], for the Sub-Type defined in Section 4. This corresponds to 433 a Type Field value of 0x0005. 435 9. References 437 9.1. Normative References 439 [EXTCOMM] Sangali, S., D. Tappan and Y. Rekhter, "BGP 440 Extended Communities Attribute", 441 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-06.txt, 442 Work in Progress. 444 [HOUSTON] Huston, G., "Interconnection, Peering, and 445 Settlements", 446 http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/1e/1e_1.htm 448 [ISO-3166-2] http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/index.html 450 [RIS] "Routing Information Service", http://www.ripe.net/ris 452 [RIS-ISO-3166] ftp://ftp.ripe.net/iso3166-countrycodes.txt 454 [ROUTEVIEWS] "The Routeviews Project", http://www.routeviews.org 456 [RFC1771] Rekhter, Y., and T. Li (Editors), "A Border 457 Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March, 458 1995. 460 [RFC1997] Chandra, R. and P. Traina, "BGP Communities 461 Attribute", RFC 1997, August, 1996. 463 [VLPS] Kompella, K., et. al., "Virtual Private LAN 464 Service", draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-00.txt, 465 Work in Progress. 467 [WANG] Wang, F. and L. Gao, "Inferring and Characterizing 468 Internet Routing Policies", ACM SIGCOMM Internet 469 Measurement Conference 2003. 471 9.2. Informative References 473 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to 474 Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 475 1997. 477 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- 478 Revision 3", RFC 2026/BCP 9, October, 1996. 480 [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations 481 Involved in the IETF Standards Process", RFC 482 2028/BCP 11, October, 1996. 484 [RFC2434] Narten, T., and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for 485 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", 486 RFC 2434/BCP 26, October 1998. 488 [RFC3258] Hardie, T., "Distributing Authoritative Name 489 Servers via Shared Unicast Addresses", RFC 3258, 490 April, 2002. 492 10. Author's Addresses 494 D. Meyer 496 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 498 11. Full Copyright Statement 500 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 502 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 503 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 504 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 505 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 506 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 507 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 508 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 509 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 510 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 511 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 512 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 513 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 514 English. 516 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 517 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 519 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 520 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 521 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 522 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 523 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 524 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.