idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-va-auto-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([I-D.ietf-grow-va]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (August 31, 2010) is 4985 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-grow-va-01 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Francis 3 Internet-Draft MPI-SWS 4 Intended status: Informational X. Xu 5 Expires: March 4, 2011 Huawei 6 H. Ballani 7 Cornell U. 8 D. Jen 9 UCLA 10 R. Raszuk 11 Cisco 12 L. Zhang 13 UCLA 14 August 31, 2010 16 Auto-Configuration in Virtual Aggregation 17 draft-ietf-grow-va-auto-02.txt 19 Abstract 21 Virtual Aggregation as specified in [I-D.ietf-grow-va] requires 22 configuration of a static "VP-List" on all routers. The VP-List 23 allows routers to know which prefixes may or may not be FIB- 24 installed. This draft specified an optional method of determining 25 this that requires far less configuration. Specifically, it requires 26 the configuration of a "VP-Range" in ASBRs connected to transit and 27 peer ISPs. An Extended Communities Attribute is used to convey to 28 other routers that a given route can be FIB-suppressed. 30 Status of this Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 4, 2011. 47 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 1. Introduction 75 As the current VA specification stands ([I-D.ietf-grow-va]), routers 76 have to know which prefixes they must FIB-install and and which they 77 need not FIB-install. The VP-List tells them this: they must FIB- 78 install routes to Virtual Prefixes (VP), and they need not FIB- 79 install routes to prefixes that fall within VPs for which they are 80 not an Aggregation Point Router (APR). The same VP-List must be 81 installed in every router. 83 This draft specifies an optional alternative to the VP-List that 84 requires far less configuration. Specifically, a list of one or more 85 "VP-Ranges" is configured in ASBRs --- typically ASBRs that do not 86 connect to customer networks. These ASBRs then simply tag routes as 87 to whether the route can be suppressed. This is simpler than the 88 current configured VP-List approach in two regards. First, fewer 89 routers need to be configured. Second, the VP-Range is simpler than 90 the VP-List. In most cases, once an ISP is past its initial VA roll- 91 out phase, the VP-Range consists of a single 0/0 entry. 93 This draft uses terms defined in [I-D.ietf-grow-va]. 95 1.1. Requirements notation 97 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 98 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 99 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 101 2. Specification 103 With the "VP-Range" approach to determining suppressability, certain 104 ASBRs are designated as "tagging routers". Tagging routers 105 explicitly tag routes with an Extended Communities Attribute that 106 indicates whether the route can be FIB-suppressed. All ASBRs that 107 connect to one or more transit provider ISPs MUST be tagging routers. 108 ASBRs that connect to one or more peer ISPs SHOULD be tagging 109 routers. ASBRs that connect to customer networks SHOULD NOT be 110 tagging routers. 112 Tagging routers are configured with a "VP-Range" list. This consists 113 of the ranges of IP address that are collectively covered by all VPs 114 in the AS. In a mature deployment of VA, the range would amount to 115 all IP addresses, in which case the VP-Range is simply 0/0. Early in 116 VA deployment, when an ISP is still in the testing or roll-out phase, 117 the VP-Range may consist of multiple entries. 119 Tagging routers SHOULD tag any route whose prefix falls within the 120 VP-Range with a "can-suppress" tag, with the following exceptions: 122 1. Tagging routers MUST NOT tag VP routes with can-suppress (where a 123 VP route is that route to the VP that the router originates in 124 its role as an APR). 125 2. If the ISP has a policy of FIB-installing customer routes, then 126 routes received from customers SHOULD NOT be tagged with can- 127 suppress. 129 The can-suppress tag itself is an Extended Communities Attribute 130 [RFC4360] to be assigned by IANA. The Transitive Bit MUST be set to 131 value 1 (the community is non-transitive across ASes). 133 Routers install or suppress FIB entries according to the following 134 rules. Note that tagging routers conceptually follow these rules 135 after tagging (or not tagging) the route. Note also that these rules 136 apply only to the route used by the router as the best route. In 137 other words, if a router receives two routes for the same prefix, and 138 one route is tagged can-suppress and the other is not, the router 139 follows these rules only with respect to the route that it selects as 140 the best route. 142 1. Routes without the can-suppress tag MUST be FIB-installed. 143 2. APRs MUST FIB-install routes for sub-prefixes that fall within 144 the APR's VPs, whether or not the route is tagged can-suppress. 145 3. Otherwise, routers MAY FIB-suppress routes tagged as can- 146 suppress. 148 3. IANA Considerations 150 IANA must assign type values for the Extended Communities Attributes 151 that convey the tags. 153 4. Security Considerations 155 As of this writing, there are no known new security threats 156 introduced by this draft. 158 5. References 160 5.1. Normative References 162 [I-D.ietf-grow-va] 163 Francis, P., Xu, X., Ballani, H., Jen, D., Raszuk, R., and 164 L. Zhang, "FIB Suppression with Virtual Aggregation", 165 draft-ietf-grow-va-01 (work in progress), Oct 2009. 167 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 168 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 170 [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended 171 Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. 173 5.2. Informative References 175 Authors' Addresses 177 Paul Francis 178 Max Planck Institute for Software Systems 179 Gottlieb-Daimler-Strasse 180 Kaiserslautern 67633 181 Germany 183 Phone: +49 631 930 39600 184 Email: francis@mpi-sws.org 186 Xiaohu Xu 187 Huawei Technologies 188 No.3 Xinxi Rd., Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District 189 Beijing, Beijing 100085 190 P.R.China 192 Phone: +86 10 82836073 193 Email: xuxh@huawei.com 195 Hitesh Ballani 196 Cornell University 197 4130 Upson Hall 198 Ithaca, NY 14853 199 US 201 Phone: +1 607 279 6780 202 Email: hitesh@cs.cornell.edu 203 Dan Jen 204 UCLA 205 4805 Boelter Hall 206 Los Angeles, CA 90095 207 US 209 Phone: 210 Email: jenster@cs.ucla.edu 212 Robert Raszuk 213 Cisco Systems, Inc. 214 170 West Tasman Drive 215 San Jose, CA 95134 216 USA 218 Phone: 219 Email: raszuk@cisco.com 221 Lixia Zhang 222 UCLA 223 3713 Boelter Hall 224 Los Angeles, CA 90095 225 US 227 Phone: 228 Email: lixia@cs.ucla.edu