idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-02.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 (January 2004) is 7378 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 33, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'VPLS' is mentioned on line 93, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'HUSTON' is mentioned on line 139, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'HOUSTON' is defined on line 443, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'ISO-3166-2' is defined on line 447, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RIS-ISO-3166' is defined on line 451, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'VLPS' is defined on line 462, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 472, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2026' is defined on line 476, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2028' is defined on line 479, 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT D. Meyer 2 draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-02.txt 3 Category Best Current Practice 4 Expires: July 2004 January 2004 6 BGP Communities for Data Collection 7 9 Status of this Document 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 16 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 17 Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 25 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 27 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 30 The key words "MUST"", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 31 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 32 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC 2119]. 34 This document is a product of the GROW WG. Comments should be 35 addressed to the authors, or the mailing list at 36 grow@lists.uoregon.edu. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 42 Abstract 44 BGP communities (RFC 1997) are used by service providers for many 45 purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically 46 originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the 47 scope of redistribution of routes within a provider's network, and to 48 its peers and customers. With the advent of large scale BGP data 49 collection (and associated research), it has become clear that the 50 information carried in such communities is essential for a deeper 51 understanding of the global routing system. This document defines 52 standard (outbound) communities and their encodings for export to BGP 53 route collectors. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 2. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 2.1. Peers and Peering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 2.2. Customer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 2.3. Peer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 2.4. Internal Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 2.5. Internal More Specific Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 2.6. Special Purpose Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 2.7. Upstream Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 2.8. National Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 2.9. Regional Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 3. RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 3.1. Community Values for BGP Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . 7 70 4. Extended Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 4.1. Four-octet AS specific extended communities . . . . . . . . 10 72 5. Intellectual Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 6. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 7. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 7.1. Total Path Attribute Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 8. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 9.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 79 9.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 10. Author's Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 11. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 83 1. Introduction 85 BGP communities [RFC1997] are used by service providers for many 86 purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically 87 originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the 88 scope of redistribution of routes within a providers network, and to 89 it's customers and peers. Communities are also used for a wide 90 variety of other applications, such as allowing customers to set 91 attributes such as LOCAL_PREF [RFC1771] by sending appropriate 92 communities to their service provider. Other applications include 93 signaling various types of VPNs (e.g., VPLS [VPLS]), and carrying 94 link bandwidth for traffic engineering applications [EXTCOMM]. 96 With the advent of large scale BGP data collection [RIS,ROUTEVIEWS] 97 (and associated research), it has become clear that the geographical 98 and topological information, as well as the relationship the provider 99 has to the source of a route (e.g., transit, peer, or customer), 100 carried in such communities is essential for a deeper understanding 101 of the global routing system. This document defines standard 102 communities for export to BGP route collectors. These communities are 103 not (necessarily) intended for internal use by service providers. 104 Rather, they are meant to mirror the information that many service 105 providers carry today, and to be a standardized representation of 106 that information. 108 The remainder of this document is organized as follows. Section 2 109 provides both the definition of terms used as well as the semantics 110 of the communities used for BGP data collection, and section 3 111 defines the corresponding encodings for RFC 1997 [RFC1997] 112 communities. Finally, section 4 defines the encodings for use with 113 extended communities [EXTCOMM]. 115 2. Definitions 117 In this section, we define the terms used and the categories of 118 routes that may be tagged with communities. This tagging is often 119 referred to coloring, and we refer to a route's "color" as its 120 community value. The categories defined here are loosely modeled on 121 those described in [WANG] and [HUSTON]. 123 2.1. Peers and Peering 125 Consider two network service providers, A and B. Service providers A 126 and B are defined to be peers when (i). A and B exchange routes via 127 BGP, and (ii). traffic exchange between A and B is settlement-free. 128 This arrangement is also typically known as "peering". Peers 129 typically exchange only their respective customer routes (see 130 "Customer Routes" below), and hence exchange only their respective 131 customer traffic. See [HUSTON] for a more in-depth discussion of the 132 business models surrounding peers and peering. 134 2.2. Customer Routes 136 Customer routes are those routes which are heard from a customer via 137 BGP and are propagated to peers and other customers. Note that a 138 customer can be an enterprise or another network service provider. 139 These routes are sometimes called client routes [HUSTON]. 141 2.3. Peer Routes 143 Peer routes are those routes heard from peers via BGP, and not 144 propagated to other peers. In particular, these routes are only 145 propagated to the service provider's customers. 147 2.4. Internal Routes 149 Internal routes are those routes that a service provider originates 150 and passes to its peers and customers. These routes are frequently 151 taken out of the address space allocated to a provider. 153 2.5. Internal More Specific Routes 155 Internal more specific routes are those routes which are frequently 156 used for circuit balancing purposes, IGP route reduction, and also 157 may correspond to customer services which are not visible outside the 158 service provider's network. Internal more specific routes are not 159 exported to any external peer. 161 2.6. Special Purpose Routes 163 Special purpose routes are those routes which do not fall into any of 164 the other classes described here. In those cases in which such routes 165 need to be distinguished, a service provider may color such routes 166 with a unique value. Examples of special purpose routes include 167 anycast routes, and routes for overlay networks. 169 2.7. Upstream Routes 171 Upstream routes are typically learned from upstream service provider 172 as part of a transit service contract executed with the upstream 173 provider. 175 2.8. National Routes 177 These are route sets that are sourced from and/or received within a 178 particular country. 180 2.9. Regional Routes 182 Several global backbones implement regional policy based on their 183 deployed footprint, and on strategic and business imperatives. 184 Service providers often have settlement free interconnections with an 185 AS in one region, and that same AS is a customer in another region. 186 This mandates use of regional routing, including community attributes 187 set by the network in question to allow easy discrimination among 188 regional routes. For example, service providers may treat a route set 189 received from another service provider in Europe differently than the 190 same route set received in North America, as it is common practice to 191 sell transit in one region while peering in the other. 193 3. RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values 195 In this section we provide standardized RFC 1997 [RFC1997] community 196 values for the categories described above. RFC 1997 communities 197 encoded as BGP Type Code 8, and are treated as 32 bit values ranging 198 from 0x0000000 through 0xFFFFFFF. The values 0x0000000 through 199 0x0000FFFF and 0xFFFF0000 through 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved. 201 The best current practice among service providers is to use the high 202 order two octets to represent the providers AS number, and the low 203 order two octets to represent the classification of the route, as 204 depicted below: 206 0 1 2 3 207 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 1 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | | | 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 212 where 16 bit AS number, and is the encoding of the 213 value. For example, the encoding 0x2A7C029A would represent the AS 214 10876 with value 666. 216 3.1. Community Values for BGP Data Collection 218 In this section we define the RFC 1997 community encoding for the 219 route types described above for use in BGP data collection. It is 220 anticipated that a service provider's internal community values will 221 be converted to these standard values for output to a route 222 collector. 224 This document follows the best current practice of using the basic 225 format :. The values for the route categories are 226 described in the following table: 228 Category Value 229 =============================================================== 230 Reserved :0000000000000000 231 Customer Routes :0000000000000001 232 Peer Routes :0000000000000010 233 Internal Routes :0000000000000011 234 Internal More Specific Routes :0000000000000100 235 Special Purpose Routes :0000000000000101 236 Upstream Routes :0000000000000110 237 Reserved :0000000000000011- 238 :0000111111111111 239 National and Regional Routes :0001000000000000- 240 :1111111111111111 241 Africa (AF) :0001 242 Oceania (OC) :0010 243 Asia (AS) :0011 244 Antarctica (AQ) :0100 245 Europe (EU) :0101 246 Latin America/Caribbean islands (LAC) :0110 247 North America (NA) :0111 248 Reserved :1000000000000000- 249 :1111111111111111 251 In the above table, 253 is the 16-bit AS 254 is the 5-bit Region 255 is 1-bit satellite link indication (1 if satellite link, 0 otherwise) 256 is the 10-bit ISO-3166-2 country code 258 That is: 260 0 1 2 3 261 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 1 262 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 263 | | |X| | 264 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 266 For example, the encoding for a national route over a terrestrial 267 link in AS 10876 from the Fiji Islands would be: 269 = 10876 = 0x2A7B 270 = OC = 0010 271 = 0x0 272 = Fiji Islands Country Code = 242 = 0011110010 274 so that the low order 16 bits look like 001000011110010 = 0x10F2. 276 0 1 2 3 277 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 1 278 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 279 | 0x2A7C | 0x10F2 | 280 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 282 Note that a configuration language might have allow the specification 283 of this community as 10876:4338 (0x1F2 == 4338 decimal). 285 Finally, note that these categories are not intended to be mutually 286 exclusive, and multiple communities can be attached where 287 appropriate. 289 4. Extended Communities 291 In some cases, the encoding described in section 3.1 may clash with a 292 service provider's existing community assignments. Extended 293 communities [EXTCOMM] provide a convenient mechanism that can be used 294 to avoid such clashes. 296 The Extended Communities Attribute is a transitive optional BGP 297 attribute with the Type Code 16, and consists of a set of extended 298 communities of the following format: 300 0 1 2 3 301 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 1 302 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 303 | Type high | Type low(*) | | 304 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Value | 305 | | 306 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 308 For purposes of BGP data collection, we encode the communities 309 described in section 3.1 using the two-octet AS specific extended 310 community type, which has the following format: 312 0 1 2 3 313 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 1 314 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 315 | 0x00 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator | 316 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 317 | Local Administrator | 318 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 320 The two-octet AS specific extended community attribute encodes the 321 service provider's two octet Autonomous System number assigned by 322 IANA in the Global Administrator field, and the Local Administrator 323 field may encode any information. 325 This document assigns Sub-Type 0x05 for BGP data collection, and 326 specifies that the field, as defined in section 3.1, is 327 carried in the low order octets of the Local Administrator field. The 328 two high order octets of the Local Administrator field are reserved, 329 and are set to 0x00 when sending and ignored upon receipt. 331 For example, the extended community encoding for 10876:4338 332 (representing a terrestrial national route in AS 10876 from the Fiji 333 Islands) would be: 335 0 1 2 3 336 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 1 337 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 338 | 0x00 | 0x05 | 0x2A7C | 339 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 340 | 0x00 | 0x00 | 0x10F2 | 341 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 343 4.1. Four-octet AS specific extended communities 345 The four-octet AS specific extended community is encoded as follows: 347 0 1 2 3 348 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 1 349 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 350 | 0x02 | 0x05 | Global Administrator | 351 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 352 | Global Administrator (cont.) | 0x10F2 | 353 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 355 In this case, the 4 octet Global Administrator sub-field contains a 356 4-octets Autonomous System number assigned by the IANA. 358 5. Intellectual Property 360 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 361 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 362 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 363 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 364 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 365 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 366 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 367 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11 [RFC2028]. 368 Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any 369 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 370 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 371 such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this 372 specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 374 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 375 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 376 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 377 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 378 Director. 380 6. Acknowledgments 382 The community encoding described in this document germinated from an 383 interesting suggestion from Akira Kato at WIDE. In particular, the 384 idea would be to use the collection community values to select paths 385 that would result in (hopefully) more efficient access to various 386 services. For example, in the case of RFC 3258 [RFC3258] based DNS 387 anycast service, BGP routers may see multiple paths to the same 388 prefix, and others might be coming from the same origin with 389 different paths, but others might be from different region/country 390 (with the same origin AS). 392 Joe Abley, Randy Bush, Sean Donelan, Xenofontas Dimitropoulos, Vijay 393 Gill, John Heasley, Geoff Huston, Steve Huter, Olivier Marce, Ryan 394 McDowell, Rob Rockell, Rob Thomas, and Patrick Verkaik all made many 395 insightful comments on early versions of this draft. Henk Uijterwaal 396 suggested the use of the ISO-3166-2 country codes. 398 7. Security Considerations 400 While this document introduces no additional security considerations 401 into the BGP protocol, the information contained in the communities 402 defined in this document may in some cases reveal network structure 403 that was not previously visible outside the provider's network. As a 404 result, care should be taken when exporting such communities to route 405 collectors. Finally, routes exported to a route collector SHOULD also 406 be tagged with the NO_EXPORT community (0xFFFFFF01). 408 7.1. Total Path Attribute Length 410 The communities described in this document are intended for use on 411 egress to a route collector. Hence an operator may choose to 412 overwrite its internal communities with the values specified in this 413 document when exporting routes to a route collector. However, 414 operators should in general ensure that the behavior of their BGP 415 implementation is well-defined when the addition of an attribute 416 causes a PDU to exceed 4096 octets. For example, since it is common 417 practice to use community attributes to implement policy (among other 418 functionality such as allowing customers to set attributes such as 419 LOCAL_PREF), the behavior of an implementation when the attribute 420 space overflows is crucial. Among other behaviors, an implementation 421 might usurp the intended attribute data or otherwise cause 422 indeterminate failures. These behaviors can result in unanticipated 423 community attribute sets, and hence result in unintended policy 424 implications. 426 8. IANA Considerations 428 This document assigns a new Sub-Type for the AS specific extended 429 community type. In particular, the IANA should assign Sub-type 0x05, 430 using the "First Come First Served" policy defined in RFC 2434 431 [RFC2434], for the Sub-Type defined in Section 4. This corresponds to 432 a Type Field value of 0x0005. 434 9. References 436 9.1. Normative References 438 [EXTCOMM] Sangali, S., D. Tappan and Y. Rekhter, "BGP 439 Extended Communities Attribute", 440 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-06.txt, 441 Work in Progress. 443 [HOUSTON] Huston, G., "Interconnection, Peering, and 444 Settlements", 445 http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/1e/1e_1.htm 447 [ISO-3166-2] http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/index.html 449 [RIS] "Routing Information Service", http://www.ripe.net/ris 451 [RIS-ISO-3166] ftp://ftp.ripe.net/iso3166-countrycodes.txt 453 [ROUTEVIEWS] "The Routeviews Project", http://www.routeviews.org 455 [RFC1771] Rekhter, Y., and T. Li (Editors), "A Border 456 Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March, 457 1995. 459 [RFC1997] Chandra, R. and P. Traina, "BGP Communities 460 Attribute", RFC 1997, August, 1996. 462 [VLPS] Kompella, K., et. al., "Virtual Private LAN 463 Service", draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-00.txt, 464 Work in Progress. 466 [WANG] Wang, F. and L. Gao, "Inferring and Characterizing 467 Internet Routing Policies", ACM SIGCOMM Internet 468 Measurement Conference 2003. 470 9.2. Informative References 472 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to 473 Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 474 1997. 476 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- 477 Revision 3", RFC 2026/BCP 9, October, 1996. 479 [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations 480 Involved in the IETF Standards Process", RFC 481 2028/BCP 11, October, 1996. 483 [RFC2434] Narten, T., and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for 484 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", 485 RFC 2434/BCP 26, October 1998. 487 [RFC3258] Hardie, T., "Distributing Authoritative Name 488 Servers via Shared Unicast Addresses", RFC 3258, 489 April, 2002. 491 10. Author's Addresses 493 D. Meyer 495 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 497 11. Full Copyright Statement 499 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 501 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 502 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 503 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 504 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 505 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 506 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 507 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 508 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 509 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 510 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 511 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 512 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 513 English. 515 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 516 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 518 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 519 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 520 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 521 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 522 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 523 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.