idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-06.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 3978, Section 5.1.a on line 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 516. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 493. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 500. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 506. ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978, Section 5.4, paragraph 1 (on line 522), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 2026, Section 10.4C, paragraph 1 text on line 43. ** 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. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 13 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 (September 2004) is 7163 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) == Unused Reference: 'ISO-3166-2' is defined on line 440, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RIS-ISO-3166' is defined on line 442, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2028' is defined on line 455, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-07 -- 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-02 Summary: 8 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 11 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-06.txt 3 Category Best Current Practice 4 Expires: March 2005 September 2004 6 BGP Communities for Data Collection 7 9 Status of this Memo 11 Status of this Memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all 14 provisions of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this 15 Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable 16 patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have 17 been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she become 18 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet 21 Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working 22 groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working 23 documents as Internet-Drafts. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 26 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 27 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use 28 Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other 29 than as "work in progress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed 35 at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 This document is a product of the GROW WG. Comments should be 38 addressed to the author, or the mailing list at 39 grow@lists.uoregon.edu. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 45 Abstract 47 BGP communities (RFC 1997) are used by service providers for many 48 purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically 49 originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the 50 scope of redistribution of routes within a provider's network, and to 51 its peers and customers. With the advent of large scale BGP data 52 collection (and associated research), it has become clear that the 53 information carried in such communities is essential for a deeper 54 understanding of the global routing system. This memo defines 55 standard (outbound) communities and their encodings for export to BGP 56 route collectors. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 2.1. Peers and Peering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 2.2. Customer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 2.3. Peer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 2.4. Internal Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 2.5. Internal More Specific Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 2.6. Special Purpose Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 2.7. Upstream Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 2.8. National Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 2.9. Regional Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 3. RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 3.1. Community Values for BGP Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . 7 73 4. Extended Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 74 4.1. Four-octet AS specific extended communities . . . . . . . . 11 75 5. Note on BGP Update Packing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 76 6. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 7. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 7.1. Total Path Attribute Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 79 8. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 9.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 82 9.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 83 10. Author's Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 85 1. Introduction 87 BGP communities [RFC1997] are used by service providers for many 88 purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically 89 originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the 90 scope of redistribution of routes within a providers network, and to 91 its customers and peers. Communities are also used for a wide variety 92 of other applications, such as allowing customers to set attributes 93 such as LOCAL_PREF [RFC1771] by sending appropriate communities to 94 their service provider. Other applications include signaling various 95 types of VPNs (e.g., VPLS [VPLS]), and carrying link bandwidth for 96 traffic engineering applications [EXTCOMM]. 98 With the advent of large scale BGP data collection [RIS,ROUTEVIEWS] 99 (and associated research), it has become clear that the geographical 100 and topological information, as well as the relationship the provider 101 has to the source of a route (e.g., transit, peer, or customer), 102 carried in such communities is essential for a deeper understanding 103 of the global routing system. This memo defines standard communities 104 for export to BGP route collectors. These communities represent a 105 significant part of information carried by service providers as of 106 this writing, and as such could be useful for internal use by service 107 providers. However, such use is beyond the scope of this memo. 108 Finally, those involved in BGP data analysis are encouraged to verify 109 with their data sources as to which peers implement this scheme (as 110 there is a large amount of existing data as well as many legacy 111 peerings). 113 The remainder of this memo is organized as follows. Section 2 114 provides both the definition of terms used as well as the semantics 115 of the communities used for BGP data collection, and section 3 116 defines the corresponding encodings for RFC 1997 [RFC1997] 117 communities. Finally, section 4 defines the encodings for use with 118 extended communities [EXTCOMM]. 120 2. Definitions 122 In this section, we define the terms used and the categories of 123 routes that may be tagged with communities. This tagging is often 124 refered to as coloring, and we refer to a route's "color" as its 125 community value. The categories defined here are loosely modeled on 126 those described in [WANG] and [HUSTON]. 128 2.1. Peers and Peering 130 Consider two network service providers, A and B. Service providers A 131 and B are defined to be peers when (i). A and B exchange routes via 132 BGP, and (ii). traffic exchange between A and B is settlement-free. 133 This arrangement is also typically known as "peering". Peers 134 typically exchange only their respective customer routes (see 135 "Customer Routes" below), and hence exchange only their respective 136 customer traffic. See [HUSTON] for a more in-depth discussion of the 137 business models surrounding peers and peering. 139 2.2. Customer Routes 141 Customer routes are those routes which are heard from a customer via 142 BGP and are propagated to peers and other customers. Note that a 143 customer can be an enterprise or another network service provider. 144 These routes are sometimes called client routes [HUSTON]. 146 2.3. Peer Routes 148 Peer routes are those routes heard from peers via BGP, and not 149 propagated to other peers. In particular, these routes are only 150 propagated to the service provider's customers. 152 2.4. Internal Routes 154 Internal routes are those routes that a service provider originates 155 and passes to its peers and customers. These routes are frequently 156 taken out of the address space allocated to a provider. 158 2.5. Internal More Specific Routes 160 Internal more-specific routes are those routes which are frequently 161 used for circuit load balancing purposes, IGP route reduction, and 162 also may correspond to customer services which are not visible 163 outside the service provider's network. Internal more specific routes 164 are not exported to any external peer. 166 2.6. Special Purpose Routes 168 Special purpose routes are those routes which do not fall into any of 169 the other classes described here. In those cases in which such routes 170 need to be distinguished, a service provider may color such routes 171 with a unique value. Examples of special purpose routes include 172 anycast routes, and routes for overlay networks. 174 2.7. Upstream Routes 176 Upstream routes are typically learned from upstream service provider 177 as part of a transit service contract executed with the upstream 178 provider. 180 2.8. National Routes 182 These are route sets that are sourced from and/or received within a 183 particular country. 185 2.9. Regional Routes 187 Several global backbones implement regional policy based on their 188 deployed footprint, and on strategic and business imperatives. 189 Service providers often have settlement-free interconnections with an 190 AS in one region, and that same AS is a customer in another region. 191 This mandates use of regional routing, including community attributes 192 set by the network in question to allow easy discrimination among 193 regional routes. For example, service providers may treat a route set 194 received from another service provider in Europe differently than the 195 same route set received in North America, as it is common practice to 196 sell transit in one region while peering in the other. 198 3. RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values 200 In this section we provide RFC 1997 [RFC1997] community values for 201 the categories described above. RFC 1997 communities are encoded as 202 BGP Type Code 8, and are treated as 32 bit values ranging from 203 0x0000000 through 0xFFFFFFF. The values 0x0000000 through 0x0000FFFF 204 and 0xFFFF0000 through 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved. 206 The best current practice among service providers is to use the high 207 order two octets to represent the provider's AS number, and the low 208 order two octets to represent the classification of the route, as 209 depicted below: 211 0 1 2 3 212 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 1 213 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 | | | 215 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 217 where is the 16 bit AS number. For example, the encoding 218 0x2A7C029A would represent the AS 10876 with value 666. 220 3.1. Community Values for BGP Data Collection 222 In this section we define the RFC 1997 community encoding for the 223 route types described above for use in BGP data collection. It is 224 anticipated that a service provider's internal community values will 225 be converted to these standard values for output to a route 226 collector. 228 This memo follows the best current practice of using the basic format 229 :. The values for the route categories are described in 230 the following table: 232 Category Value 233 =============================================================== 234 Reserved :0000000000000000 235 Customer Routes :0000000000000001 236 Peer Routes :0000000000000010 237 Internal Routes :0000000000000011 238 Internal More Specific Routes :0000000000000100 239 Special Purpose Routes :0000000000000101 240 Upstream Routes :0000000000000110 241 Reserved :0000000000000111- 242 :0000011111111111 243 National and Regional Routes :0000100000000000- 244 :1111111111111111 245 Encoded as : 246 Reserved National and Regional values :0100000000000000- 247 :1111111111111111 249 Where 251 is the 16-bit AS 252 is the 5-bit Region Identifier 253 is the 1-bit satellite link indication 254 X = 1 for satellite links, 0 otherwise 255 is the 10-bit ISO-3166-2 country code 257 and takes the values: 259 Africa (AF) 00001 260 Oceania (OC) 00010 261 Asia (AS) 00011 262 Antarctica (AQ) 00100 263 Europe (EU) 00101 264 Latin America/Caribbean Islands (LAC) 00110 265 North America (NA) 00111 266 Reserved 01000-11111 268 That is: 270 0 1 2 3 271 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 1 272 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 273 | | |X| | 274 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 276 For example, the encoding for a national route over a terrestrial 277 link in AS 10876 from the Fiji Islands would be: 279 = 10876 = 0x2A7C 280 = 00010 281 = 0 282 = Fiji Islands Country Code = 242 = 0011110010 284 In this case, the low order 16 bits are 0001000011110010 = 0x10F2 286 0 1 2 3 287 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 1 288 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 289 | 0x2A7C | 0x10F2 | 290 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 292 Note that a configuration language might allow the specification of 293 this community as 10876:4338 (0x10F2 == 4338 decimal). 295 Finally, note that these categories are not intended to be mutually 296 exclusive, and multiple communities can be attached where 297 appropriate. 299 4. Extended Communities 301 In some cases, the encoding described in section 3.1 may clash with a 302 service provider's existing community assignments. Extended 303 communities [EXTCOMM] provide a convenient mechanism that can be used 304 to avoid such clashes. 306 The Extended Communities Attribute is a transitive optional BGP 307 attribute with the Type Code 16, and consists of a set of extended 308 communities of the following format: 310 0 1 2 3 311 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 1 312 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 313 | Type high | Type low(*) | | 314 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Value | 315 | | 316 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 318 For purposes of BGP data collection, we encode the communities 319 described in section 3.1 using the two-octet AS specific extended 320 community type, which has the following format: 322 0 1 2 3 323 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 1 324 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 325 | 0x00 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator | 326 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 327 | Local Administrator | 328 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 330 The two-octet AS specific extended community attribute encodes the 331 service provider's two octet Autonomous System number (as assigned by 332 a Regional Internet Registry, or RIR) in the Global Administrator 333 field, and the Local Administrator field may encode any information. 335 This memo assigns Sub-Type 0x05 for BGP data collection, and 336 specifies that the field, as defined in section 3.1, is 337 carried in the low order octets of the Local Administrator field. The 338 two high order octets of the Local Administrator field are reserved, 339 and are set to 0x00 when sending and ignored upon receipt. 341 For example, the extended community encoding for 10876:4338 342 (representing a terrestrial national route in AS 10876 from the Fiji 343 Islands) would be: 345 0 1 2 3 346 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 1 347 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 348 | 0x00 | 0x05 | 0x2A7C | 349 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 350 | 0x00 | 0x00 | 0x10F2 | 351 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 353 4.1. Four-octet AS specific extended communities 355 The four-octet AS specific extended community is encoded as follows: 357 0 1 2 3 358 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 1 359 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 360 | 0x02 | 0x05 | Global Administrator | 361 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 362 | Global Administrator (cont.) | 0x10F2 | 363 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 365 In this case, the 4 octet Global Administrator sub-field contains a 366 4-octets Autonomous System number assigned by the IANA. 368 5. Note on BGP Update Packing 370 Note that data collection communities have the potential of making 371 the attribute set of a specific route more unique than it would be 372 otherwise (since each route collects data that is specific to it's 373 path inside one or more ASes). This, in turn, can affect whether 374 multiple routes can be grouped in the same BGP update message, and 375 may lead to increased use of bandwidth, router CPU cycles, and 376 memory. 378 6. Acknowledgments 380 The community encoding described in this memo germinated from an 381 interesting suggestion from Akira Kato at WIDE. In particular, the 382 idea would be to use the collection community values to select paths 383 that would result in (hopefully) more efficient access to various 384 services. For example, in the case of RFC 3258 [RFC3258] based DNS 385 anycast service, BGP routers may see multiple paths to the same 386 prefix, and others might be coming from the same origin with 387 different paths, but others might be from different region/country 388 (with the same origin AS). 390 Joe Abley, Randy Bush, Sean Donelan, Xenofontas Dimitropoulos, Vijay 391 Gill, John Heasley, Geoff Huston, Steve Huter, Michael Patton, 392 Olivier Marce, Ryan McDowell, Rob Rockell, Rob Thomas, Pekka Savola, 393 Patrick Verkaik and Alex Zinin all made many insightful comments on 394 early versions of this draft. Henk Uijterwaal suggested the use of 395 the ISO-3166-2 country codes. 397 7. Security Considerations 399 While this memo introduces no additional security considerations into 400 the BGP protocol, the information contained in the communities 401 defined in this memo may in some cases reveal network structure that 402 was not previously visible outside the provider's network. As a 403 result, care should be taken when exporting such communities to route 404 collectors. Finally, routes exported to a route collector should also 405 be tagged with the NO_EXPORT community (0xFFFFFF01). 407 7.1. Total Path Attribute Length 409 The communities described in this memo are intended for use on egress 410 to a route collector. Hence an operator may choose to overwrite its 411 internal communities with the values specified in this memo when 412 exporting routes to a route collector. However, operators should in 413 general ensure that the behavior of their BGP implementation is well- 414 defined when the addition of an attribute causes a PDU to exceed 4096 415 octets. For example, since it is common practice to use community 416 attributes to implement policy (among other functionality such as 417 allowing customers to set attributes such as LOCAL_PREF), the 418 behavior of an implementation when the attribute space overflows is 419 crucial. Among other behaviors, an implementation might usurp the 420 intended attribute data or otherwise cause indeterminate failures. 421 These behaviors can result in unanticipated community attribute sets, 422 and hence result in unintended policy implications. 424 8. IANA Considerations 426 This memo assigns a new Sub-Type for the AS specific extended 427 community type. In particular, the IANA should assign Sub-type 0x05, 428 using the "First Come First Served" policy defined in RFC 2434 429 [RFC2434], for the Sub-Type defined in Section 4. This corresponds to 430 a Type Field value of 0x0005. 432 9. References 434 9.1. Normative References 436 [EXTCOMM] Sangali, S., D. Tappan and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended 437 Communities Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-07.txt, 438 Work in progress. 440 [ISO-3166-2] http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/index.html 442 [RIS-ISO-3166] ftp://ftp.ripe.net/iso3166-countrycodes.txt 444 [RFC1771] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li (Editors), "A Border 445 Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995. 447 [RFC1997] Chandra, R. and P. Traina, "BGP Communities 448 Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996. 450 9.2. Informative References 452 [HUSTON] Huston, G., "Interconnection, Peering, and Settlements", 453 http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/1e/1e_1.htm 455 [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations 456 Involved in the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, 457 RFC 2028, October 1996. 459 [RFC2434] Narten, T., and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for 460 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", 461 BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. 463 [RFC3258] Hardie, T., "Distributing Authoritative Name 464 Servers via Shared Unicast Addresses", RFC 3258, 465 April 2002. 467 [RIS] "Routing Information Service", http://www.ripe.net/ris 469 [ROUTEVIEWS] "The Routeviews Project", http://www.routeviews.org 471 [VPLS] Kompella, K., et al., "Virtual Private LAN 472 Service", draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-02.txt, 473 Work in Progress. 475 [WANG] Wang, F. and L. Gao, "Inferring and Characterizing 476 Internet Routing Policies", ACM SIGCOMM Internet 477 Measurement Conference 2003. 479 10. Author's Addresses 481 David Meyer 482 EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net 484 Intellectual Property Statement 486 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 487 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 488 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 489 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 490 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 491 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 492 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 493 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 495 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 496 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 497 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 498 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 499 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 500 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 502 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 503 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 504 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 505 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 506 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 508 Disclaimer of Validity 510 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 511 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 512 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 513 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 514 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 515 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 516 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 518 Copyright Statement 520 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 521 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 522 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 524 Acknowledgment 526 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 527 Internet Society.