idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 515. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 522. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 528. ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978, Section 5.4, paragraph 1 (on line 480), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 2026, Section 10.4C, paragraph 1 text on line 35. ** The document claims conformance with section 10 of RFC 2026, but uses some RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate. As RFC 3978/3979 replaces section 10 of RFC 2026, you should not claim conformance with it if you have changed to using RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Reference to BCP 78 -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.5 (updated by RFC 4748) Disclaimer -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? 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 7 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 11 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 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 (March 2004) is 7337 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 117, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'ISO-3166-2' is defined on line 423, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RIS-ISO-3166' is defined on line 425, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 439, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2026' is defined on line 443, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2028' is defined on line 446, 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. 'ISO-3166-2' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'RIS-ISO-3166' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1771 (Obsoleted by RFC 4271) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2028 (Obsoleted by RFC 9281) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-00 Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 9 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-03.txt 3 Category Best Current Practice 4 Expires: September 2004 March 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 This document is a product of the GROW WG. Comments should be 31 addressed to the authors, or the mailing list at grow@lists.uoregon.edu. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 37 Abstract 39 BGP communities (RFC 1997) are used by service providers for many 40 purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically 41 originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the 42 scope of redistribution of routes within a provider's network, and to 43 its peers and customers. With the advent of large scale BGP data 44 collection (and associated research), it has become clear that the 45 information carried in such communities is essential for a deeper 46 understanding of the global routing system. This document defines 47 standard (outbound) communities and their encodings for export to BGP 48 route collectors. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 2. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 2.1. Peers and Peering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 2.2. Customer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 2.3. Peer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 2.4. Internal Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 2.5. Internal More Specific Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 2.6. Special Purpose Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 2.7. Upstream Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 2.8. National Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 2.9. Regional Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 3. RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 3.1. Community Values for BGP Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . 7 65 4. Extended Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 4.1. Four-octet AS specific extended communities . . . . . . . . 10 67 5. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 6. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 69 6.1. Total Path Attribute Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 7. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 72 8.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 73 8.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 9. Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 75 10. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 76 11. Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 77 12. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 79 1. Introduction 81 BGP communities [RFC1997] are used by service providers for many 82 purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically 83 originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the 84 scope of redistribution of routes within a providers network, and to 85 its customers and peers. Communities are also used for a wide variety 86 of other applications, such as allowing customers to set attributes 87 such as LOCAL_PREF [RFC1771] by sending appropriate communities to 88 their service provider. Other applications include signaling various 89 types of VPNs (e.g., VPLS [VPLS]), and carrying link bandwidth for 90 traffic engineering applications [EXTCOMM]. 92 With the advent of large scale BGP data collection [RIS,ROUTEVIEWS] 93 (and associated research), it has become clear that the geographical 94 and topological information, as well as the relationship the provider 95 has to the source of a route (e.g., transit, peer, or customer), 96 carried in such communities is essential for a deeper understanding 97 of the global routing system. This document defines standard 98 communities for export to BGP route collectors. These communities 99 represent a significant part of information carried by service 100 providers as of this writing, and as such could be useful for 101 internal use by service providers. However, such use is beyond the 102 scope of this memo. Finally, those involved in BGP data analysis are 103 encouraged to verify with their data sources as to which peers 104 implement this scheme (as there is a large amount of existing data as 105 well as many legacy peerings). 107 The remainder of this document is organized as follows. Section 2 108 provides both the definition of terms used as well as the semantics 109 of the communities used for BGP data collection, and section 3 110 defines the corresponding encodings for RFC 1997 [RFC1997] 111 communities. Finally, section 4 defines the encodings for use with 112 extended communities [EXTCOMM]. 114 The key words "MUST"", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 115 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 116 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC 2119]. 118 2. Definitions 120 In this section, we define the terms used and the categories of 121 routes that may be tagged with communities. This tagging is often 122 referred to coloring, and we refer to a route's "color" as its 123 community value. The categories defined here are loosely modeled on 124 those described in [WANG] and [HUSTON]. 126 2.1. Peers and Peering 128 Consider two network service providers, A and B. Service providers A 129 and B are defined to be peers when (i). A and B exchange routes via 130 BGP, and (ii). traffic exchange between A and B is settlement-free. 131 This arrangement is also typically known as "peering". Peers 132 typically exchange only their respective customer routes (see 133 "Customer Routes" below), and hence exchange only their respective 134 customer traffic. See [HUSTON] for a more in-depth discussion of the 135 business models surrounding peers and peering. 137 2.2. Customer Routes 139 Customer routes are those routes which are heard from a customer via 140 BGP and are propagated to peers and other customers. Note that a 141 customer can be an enterprise or another network service provider. 142 These routes are sometimes called client routes [HUSTON]. 144 2.3. Peer Routes 146 Peer routes are those routes heard from peers via BGP, and not 147 propagated to other peers. In particular, these routes are only 148 propagated to the service provider's customers. 150 2.4. Internal Routes 152 Internal routes are those routes that a service provider originates 153 and passes to its peers and customers. These routes are frequently 154 taken out of the address space allocated to a provider. 156 2.5. Internal More Specific Routes 158 Internal more specific routes are those routes which are frequently 159 used for circuit load balancing purposes, IGP route reduction, and 160 also may correspond to customer services which are not visible 161 outside the service provider's network. Internal more specific routes 162 are not exported to any external peer. 164 2.6. Special Purpose Routes 166 Special purpose routes are those routes which do not fall into any of 167 the other classes described here. In those cases in which such routes 168 need to be distinguished, a service provider may color such routes 169 with a unique value. Examples of special purpose routes include 170 anycast routes, and routes for overlay networks. 172 2.7. Upstream Routes 174 Upstream routes are typically learned from upstream service provider 175 as part of a transit service contract executed with the upstream 176 provider. 178 2.8. National Routes 180 These are route sets that are sourced from and/or received within a 181 particular country. 183 2.9. Regional Routes 185 Several global backbones implement regional policy based on their 186 deployed footprint, and on strategic and business imperatives. 187 Service providers often have settlement free interconnections with an 188 AS in one region, and that same AS is a customer in another region. 189 This mandates use of regional routing, including community attributes 190 set by the network in question to allow easy discrimination among 191 regional routes. For example, service providers may treat a route set 192 received from another service provider in Europe differently than the 193 same route set received in North America, as it is common practice to 194 sell transit in one region while peering in the other. 196 3. RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values 198 In this section we provide RFC 1997 [RFC1997] community values for 199 the categories described above. RFC 1997 communities encoded as BGP 200 Type Code 8, and are treated as 32 bit values ranging from 0x0000000 201 through 0xFFFFFFF. The values 0x0000000 through 0x0000FFFF and 202 0xFFFF0000 through 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved. 204 The best current practice among service providers is to use the high 205 order two octets to represent the providers AS number, and the low 206 order two octets to represent the classification of the route, as 207 depicted below: 209 0 1 2 3 210 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 1 211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 212 | | | 213 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 215 where 16 bit AS number, and is the encoding of the 216 value. For example, the encoding 0x2A7C029A would represent the AS 217 10876 with value 666. 219 3.1. Community Values for BGP Data Collection 221 In this section we define the RFC 1997 community encoding for the 222 route types described above for use in BGP data collection. It is 223 anticipated that a service provider's internal community values will 224 be converted to these standard values for output to a route 225 collector. 227 This document follows the best current practice of using the basic 228 format :. The values for the route categories are 229 described in the following table: 231 Category Value 232 =============================================================== 233 Reserved :0000000000000000 234 Customer Routes :0000000000000001 235 Peer Routes :0000000000000010 236 Internal Routes :0000000000000011 237 Internal More Specific Routes :0000000000000100 238 Special Purpose Routes :0000000000000101 239 Upstream Routes :0000000000000110 240 Reserved :0000000000000011- 241 :0000111111111111 242 National and Regional Routes :0001000000000000- 243 :1111111111111111 244 Africa (AF) :0001 245 Oceania (OC) :0010 246 Asia (AS) :0011 247 Antarctica (AQ) :0100 248 Europe (EU) :0101 249 Latin America/Caribbean islands (LAC) :0110 250 North America (NA) :0111 251 Reserved :1000000000000000- 252 :1111111111111111 254 In the above table, 256 is the 16-bit AS 257 is the 5-bit Region 258 is 1-bit satellite link indication (1 if satellite link, 0 otherwise) 259 is the 10-bit ISO-3166-2 country code 261 That is: 263 0 1 2 3 264 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 1 265 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 266 | | |X| | 267 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 269 For example, the encoding for a national route over a terrestrial 270 link in AS 10876 from the Fiji Islands would be: 272 = 10876 = 0x2A7B 273 = OC = 0010 274 = 0x0 275 = Fiji Islands Country Code = 242 = 0011110010 277 so that the low order 16 bits look like 001000011110010 = 0x10F2. 279 0 1 2 3 280 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 1 281 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 282 | 0x2A7C | 0x10F2 | 283 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 285 Note that a configuration language might allow the specification of 286 this community as 10876:4338 (0x1F2 == 4338 decimal). 288 Finally, note that these categories are not intended to be mutually 289 exclusive, and multiple communities can be attached where 290 appropriate. 292 4. Extended Communities 294 In some cases, the encoding described in section 3.1 may clash with a 295 service provider's existing community assignments. Extended 296 communities [EXTCOMM] provide a convenient mechanism that can be used 297 to avoid such clashes. 299 The Extended Communities Attribute is a transitive optional BGP 300 attribute with the Type Code 16, and consists of a set of extended 301 communities of the following format: 303 0 1 2 3 304 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 1 305 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 306 | Type high | Type low(*) | | 307 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Value | 308 | | 309 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 311 For purposes of BGP data collection, we encode the communities 312 described in section 3.1 using the two-octet AS specific extended 313 community type, which has the following format: 315 0 1 2 3 316 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 1 317 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 318 | 0x00 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator | 319 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 320 | Local Administrator | 321 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 323 The two-octet AS specific extended community attribute encodes the 324 service provider's two octet Autonomous System number (as assigned by 325 an Internet Routing Registry) in the Global Administrator field, and 326 the Local Administrator field may encode any information. 328 This document assigns Sub-Type 0x05 for BGP data collection, and 329 specifies that the field, as defined in section 3.1, is 330 carried in the low order octets of the Local Administrator field. The 331 two high order octets of the Local Administrator field are reserved, 332 and are set to 0x00 when sending and ignored upon receipt. 334 For example, the extended community encoding for 10876:4338 335 (representing a terrestrial national route in AS 10876 from the Fiji 336 Islands) would be: 338 0 1 2 3 339 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 1 340 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 341 | 0x00 | 0x05 | 0x2A7C | 342 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 343 | 0x00 | 0x00 | 0x10F2 | 344 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 346 4.1. Four-octet AS specific extended communities 348 The four-octet AS specific extended community is encoded as follows: 350 0 1 2 3 351 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 1 352 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 353 | 0x02 | 0x05 | Global Administrator | 354 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 355 | Global Administrator (cont.) | 0x10F2 | 356 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 358 In this case, the 4 octet Global Administrator sub-field contains a 359 4-octets Autonomous System number assigned by the IANA. 361 5. Acknowledgments 363 The community encoding described in this document germinated from an 364 interesting suggestion from Akira Kato at WIDE. In particular, the 365 idea would be to use the collection community values to select paths 366 that would result in (hopefully) more efficient access to various 367 services. For example, in the case of RFC 3258 [RFC3258] based DNS 368 anycast service, BGP routers may see multiple paths to the same 369 prefix, and others might be coming from the same origin with 370 different paths, but others might be from different region/country 371 (with the same origin AS). 373 Joe Abley, Randy Bush, Sean Donelan, Xenofontas Dimitropoulos, Vijay 374 Gill, John Heasley, Geoff Huston, Steve Huter, Olivier Marce, Ryan 375 McDowell, Rob Rockell, Rob Thomas, Pekka Savola, and Patrick Verkaik 376 all made many insightful comments on early versions of this draft. 377 Henk Uijterwaal suggested the use of the ISO-3166-2 country codes. 379 6. Security Considerations 381 While this document introduces no additional security considerations 382 into the BGP protocol, the information contained in the communities 383 defined in this document may in some cases reveal network structure 384 that was not previously visible outside the provider's network. As a 385 result, care should be taken when exporting such communities to route 386 collectors. Finally, routes exported to a route collector should also 387 be tagged with the NO_EXPORT community (0xFFFFFF01). 389 6.1. Total Path Attribute Length 391 The communities described in this document are intended for use on 392 egress to a route collector. Hence an operator may choose to 393 overwrite its internal communities with the values specified in this 394 document when exporting routes to a route collector. However, 395 operators should in general ensure that the behavior of their BGP 396 implementation is well-defined when the addition of an attribute 397 causes a PDU to exceed 4096 octets. For example, since it is common 398 practice to use community attributes to implement policy (among other 399 functionality such as allowing customers to set attributes such as 400 LOCAL_PREF), the behavior of an implementation when the attribute 401 space overflows is crucial. Among other behaviors, an implementation 402 might usurp the intended attribute data or otherwise cause 403 indeterminate failures. These behaviors can result in unanticipated 404 community attribute sets, and hence result in unintended policy 405 implications. 407 7. IANA Considerations 409 This document assigns a new Sub-Type for the AS specific extended 410 community type. In particular, the IANA should assign Sub-type 0x05, 411 using the "First Come First Served" policy defined in RFC 2434 412 [RFC2434], for the Sub-Type defined in Section 4. This corresponds to 413 a Type Field value of 0x0005. 415 8. References 417 8.1. Normative References 419 [EXTCOMM] Sangali, S., D. Tappan and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities 420 Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-06.txt, 421 Work in Progress. 423 [ISO-3166-2] http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/index.html 425 [RIS-ISO-3166] ftp://ftp.ripe.net/iso3166-countrycodes.txt 427 [RFC1771] Rekhter, Y., and T. Li (Editors), "A Border 428 Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March, 429 1995. 431 [RFC1997] Chandra, R. and P. Traina, "BGP Communities 432 Attribute", RFC 1997, August, 1996. 434 8.2. Informative References 436 [HUSTON] Huston, G., "Interconnection, Peering, and Settlements", 437 http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/1e/1e_1.htm 439 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to 440 Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 441 1997. 443 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- 444 Revision 3", RFC 2026/BCP 9, October, 1996. 446 [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations 447 Involved in the IETF Standards Process", RFC 448 2028/BCP 11, October, 1996. 450 [RFC2434] Narten, T., and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for 451 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", 452 RFC 2434/BCP 26, October 1998. 454 [RFC3258] Hardie, T., "Distributing Authoritative Name 455 Servers via Shared Unicast Addresses", RFC 3258, 456 April, 2002. 458 [RIS] "Routing Information Service", http://www.ripe.net/ris 460 [ROUTEVIEWS] "The Routeviews Project", http://www.routeviews.org 462 [VPLS] 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. Author's Addresses 472 D. Meyer 474 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 476 10. Full Copyright Statement 478 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 479 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and 480 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 482 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 483 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 484 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 485 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 486 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 487 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 488 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 489 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 490 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 491 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 492 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 493 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 494 English. 496 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 497 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 499 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 500 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 501 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 502 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 503 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 504 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 506 11. Intellectual Property 508 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 509 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 510 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 511 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 512 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 513 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 514 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 515 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 517 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 518 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 519 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 520 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 521 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 522 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 524 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 525 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 526 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 527 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 528 ipr@ietf.org. 530 12. Acknowledgement 532 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 533 Internet Society.