idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ipv6-rt-constrain-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 ([RFC5701]), 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 == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: Route targets can then be expressed as prefixes, where, for instance, a prefix would encompass all route target extended communities assigned by a given Global Administrator [RFC4360] and [RFC5701]. Alternatively, route target prefixes could be aggregated however if done so, then only the Local Administrator field of the Route Target can be aggregated. Route Target Type and the Global Administrator Route Target fields MUST not be aggregated. -- The document date (December 18, 2012) is 4144 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: 'RFC4271' is defined on line 161, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group K. Patel 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Standards Track R. Raszuk 5 Expires: June 21, 2013 NTT MCL Inc. 6 M. Djernaes 7 Juniper Networks 8 J. Dong 9 M. Chen 10 Huawei Technologies 11 December 18, 2012 13 IPv6 Extensions for Route Target Distribution 14 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ipv6-rt-constrain-03 16 Abstract 18 The current route target distribution specification described in 19 RFC4684 defines Route Target NLRIs of maximum length of 12 bytes. 20 The IPv6 specific Route Target extended community is defined in 21 [RFC5701] as length of 20 bytes. Since the current specification 22 only supports prefixes of maximum length of 12 bytes, the lack of an 23 IPv6 specific Route Target reachability information may be a problem 24 when an operator wants to use this application in a pure IPv6 25 environment. This document defines an extension that allows BGP to 26 exchange longer length IPv6 Route Target prefixes. 28 Requirements Language 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 [RFC2119]. 34 Status of this Memo 36 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 37 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 39 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 40 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 41 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 42 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 44 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 45 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 46 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 47 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 48 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 2013. 50 Copyright Notice 52 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 53 document authors. All rights reserved. 55 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 56 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 57 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 58 publication of this document. Please review these documents 59 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 60 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 61 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 62 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 63 described in the Simplified BSD License. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 2. BGP IPv6 Constrained Route Target Capability . . . . . . . . . 4 69 3. IPv6 Constrained Route Target NLRI Advertisements . . . . . . . 4 70 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 1. Introduction 80 The current constrained route distribution specification defined in 81 [RFC4684] supports prefixes with a maximum length of 12 bytes. The 82 prefix length needs to be extended to support the IPv6 specific Route 83 Target extended community defined in [RFC5701] which is 20 bytes in 84 length. This document defines an extension to the current 85 constrained route distribution specification that allows BGP speakers 86 to distribute longer length Route Target prefixes. A new BGP 87 capability known as BGP IPv6 Constrained Route Target capability is 88 defined as part of extension that allows an exchange of longer length 89 Route Target prefixes. BGP speakers that do not exchange this 90 capability MUST use Route Target NLRIs of maximum length of 12 bytes. 91 In this way, the current extension would preserve the backward 92 compatibility with [RFC4684]. 94 2. BGP IPv6 Constrained Route Target Capability 96 The "BGP IPV6 Constrained Route Target Capability" is a new BGP 97 capability [RFC5492]. The Capability code for this capability is 98 specified in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The 99 Capability length field of this capability is zero. 101 By advertising this capability to a peer, a BGP speaker conveys to 102 the peer that the speaker support the longer length Route Target 103 prefixes and the related procedures described in this document. 105 3. IPv6 Constrained Route Target NLRI Advertisements 107 Route Target membership NLRI is advertised in BGP UPDATE messages 108 using the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes as defined in 109 [RFC4760]. The NLRI field in the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI 110 is a prefix of 0 to 24 octets, encoded as defined in Section 4 of 111 [RFC4760] for all the constrained route distribution. 113 This prefix is structured as follows: 115 +-------------------------------+ 116 | origin as (4 octets) | 117 +-------------------------------+ 118 | route target (8 or 20 octets)| 119 ~ ~ 120 | | 121 +-------------------------------+ 122 Except for the default route target, which is encoded as a zero- 123 length prefix, the minimum prefix length is 32 bits. As the 124 origin-AS field cannot be interpreted as a prefix. 126 Route targets can then be expressed as prefixes, where, for instance, 127 a prefix would encompass all route target extended communities 128 assigned by a given Global Administrator [RFC4360] and [RFC5701]. 129 Alternatively, route target prefixes could be aggregated however if 130 done so, then only the Local Administrator field of the Route Target 131 can be aggregated. Route Target Type and the Global Administrator 132 Route Target fields MUST not be aggregated. 134 The default route target can be used to indicate to a peer the 135 willingness to receive all VPN route advertisements such as, for 136 instance, the case of a route reflector speaking to one of its PE 137 router clients. 139 4. IANA Considerations 141 This document defined the IPV6 Constrained Route Target Capability 142 for BGP. The Capability code needs to be assigned by the IANA. 144 5. Security Considerations 146 This extension to [RFC4684] does not change the underlying security 147 issues inherent in the existing BGP and [RFC4684]. 149 6. Acknowledgements 151 The authors would like to thank Pedro Marques, John Scudder, Alton Lo 152 and Zhenqiang Li for discussions and review. 154 7. References 156 7.1. Normative References 158 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 159 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 161 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway 162 Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. 164 [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended 165 Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. 167 [RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk, 168 R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route 169 Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol 170 Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual 171 Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, November 2006. 173 [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement 174 with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009. 176 [RFC5701] Rekhter, Y., "IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended Community 177 Attribute", RFC 5701, November 2009. 179 7.2. Informative References 181 [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, 182 "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, 183 January 2007. 185 Authors' Addresses 187 Keyur Patel 188 Cisco Systems 189 170 W. Tasman Drive 190 San Jose, CA 95134 191 USA 193 Email: keyupate@cisco.com 195 Robert Raszuk 196 NTT MCL Inc. 197 101 S Ellsworth Avenue Suite 350 198 San Mateo, CA 94401 199 USA 201 Email: robert@raszuk.net 203 Martin Djernaes 204 Juniper Networks 205 1194 N. Mathilda Avenue 206 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 207 USA 209 Email: mdjernaes@juniper.net 210 Jie Dong 211 Huawei Technologies 212 Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd. 213 Beijing 100095 214 China 216 Email: jie.dong@huawei.com 218 Mach(Guoyi) Chen 219 Huawei Technologies 220 Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd. 221 Beijing 100095 222 China 224 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com