idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-va-auto-03.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 (February 22, 2011) is 4783 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for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-grow-va-01 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: August 26, 2011 Huawei 6 H. Ballani 7 Cornell U. 8 D. Jen 9 UCLA 10 R. Raszuk 11 Cisco 12 L. Zhang 13 UCLA 14 February 22, 2011 16 Auto-Configuration in Virtual Aggregation 17 draft-ietf-grow-va-auto-03.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. This draft 29 has no changes from the 02 draft. 31 Status of this Memo 33 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 34 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 36 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 37 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 38 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 39 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 41 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 42 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 43 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 44 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2011. 48 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 57 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 58 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 59 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 60 described in the Simplified BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 2. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 1. Introduction 76 As the current VA specification stands ([I-D.ietf-grow-va]), routers 77 have to know which prefixes they must FIB-install and and which they 78 need not FIB-install. The VP-List tells them this: they must FIB- 79 install routes to Virtual Prefixes (VP), and they need not FIB- 80 install routes to prefixes that fall within VPs for which they are 81 not an Aggregation Point Router (APR). The same VP-List must be 82 installed in every router. 84 This draft specifies an optional alternative to the VP-List that 85 requires far less configuration. Specifically, a list of one or more 86 "VP-Ranges" is configured in ASBRs --- typically ASBRs that do not 87 connect to customer networks. These ASBRs then simply tag routes as 88 to whether the route can be suppressed. This is simpler than the 89 current configured VP-List approach in two regards. First, fewer 90 routers need to be configured. Second, the VP-Range is simpler than 91 the VP-List. In most cases, once an ISP is past its initial VA roll- 92 out phase, the VP-Range consists of a single 0/0 entry. 94 This draft uses terms defined in [I-D.ietf-grow-va]. 96 1.1. Requirements notation 98 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 99 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 100 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 102 2. Specification 104 With the "VP-Range" approach to determining suppressability, certain 105 ASBRs are designated as "tagging routers". Tagging routers 106 explicitly tag routes with an Extended Communities Attribute that 107 indicates whether the route can be FIB-suppressed. All ASBRs that 108 connect to one or more transit provider ISPs MUST be tagging routers. 109 ASBRs that connect to one or more peer ISPs SHOULD be tagging 110 routers. ASBRs that connect to customer networks SHOULD NOT be 111 tagging routers. 113 Tagging routers are configured with a "VP-Range" list. This consists 114 of the ranges of IP address that are collectively covered by all VPs 115 in the AS. In a mature deployment of VA, the range would amount to 116 all IP addresses, in which case the VP-Range is simply 0/0. Early in 117 VA deployment, when an ISP is still in the testing or roll-out phase, 118 the VP-Range may consist of multiple entries. 120 Tagging routers SHOULD tag any route whose prefix falls within the 121 VP-Range with a "can-suppress" tag, with the following exceptions: 123 1. Tagging routers MUST NOT tag VP routes with can-suppress (where a 124 VP route is that route to the VP that the router originates in 125 its role as an APR). 126 2. If the ISP has a policy of FIB-installing customer routes, then 127 routes received from customers SHOULD NOT be tagged with can- 128 suppress. 130 The can-suppress tag itself is an Extended Communities Attribute 131 [RFC4360] to be assigned by IANA. The Transitive Bit MUST be set to 132 value 1 (the community is non-transitive across ASes). 134 Routers install or suppress FIB entries according to the following 135 rules. Note that tagging routers conceptually follow these rules 136 after tagging (or not tagging) the route. Note also that these rules 137 apply only to the route used by the router as the best route. In 138 other words, if a router receives two routes for the same prefix, and 139 one route is tagged can-suppress and the other is not, the router 140 follows these rules only with respect to the route that it selects as 141 the best route. 143 1. Routes without the can-suppress tag MUST be FIB-installed. 144 2. APRs MUST FIB-install routes for sub-prefixes that fall within 145 the APR's VPs, whether or not the route is tagged can-suppress. 146 3. Otherwise, routers MAY FIB-suppress routes tagged as can- 147 suppress. 149 3. IANA Considerations 151 IANA must assign type values for the Extended Communities Attributes 152 that convey the tags. 154 4. Security Considerations 156 As of this writing, there are no known new security threats 157 introduced by this draft. 159 5. References 161 5.1. Normative References 163 [I-D.ietf-grow-va] 164 Francis, P., Xu, X., Ballani, H., Jen, D., Raszuk, R., and 165 L. Zhang, "FIB Suppression with Virtual Aggregation", 166 draft-ietf-grow-va-01 (work in progress), Oct 2009. 168 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 169 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 171 [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended 172 Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. 174 5.2. Informative References 176 Authors' Addresses 178 Paul Francis 179 Max Planck Institute for Software Systems 180 Gottlieb-Daimler-Strasse 181 Kaiserslautern 67633 182 Germany 184 Phone: +49 631 930 39600 185 Email: francis@mpi-sws.org 187 Xiaohu Xu 188 Huawei Technologies 189 No.3 Xinxi Rd., Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District 190 Beijing, Beijing 100085 191 P.R.China 193 Phone: +86 10 82836073 194 Email: xuxh@huawei.com 196 Hitesh Ballani 197 Cornell University 198 4130 Upson Hall 199 Ithaca, NY 14853 200 US 202 Phone: +1 607 279 6780 203 Email: hitesh@cs.cornell.edu 204 Dan Jen 205 UCLA 206 4805 Boelter Hall 207 Los Angeles, CA 90095 208 US 210 Phone: 211 Email: jenster@cs.ucla.edu 213 Robert Raszuk 214 Cisco Systems, Inc. 215 170 West Tasman Drive 216 San Jose, CA 95134 217 USA 219 Phone: 220 Email: raszuk@cisco.com 222 Lixia Zhang 223 UCLA 224 3713 Boelter Hall 225 Los Angeles, CA 90095 226 US 228 Phone: 229 Email: lixia@cs.ucla.edu