idnits 2.17.1 draft-li-idr-flowspec-populate-to-fib-00.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 draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5575, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC5575, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2007-08-15) -- 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 11, 2017) is 2602 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-27) exists of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-00 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5575 (Obsoleted by RFC 8955) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IDR Z. Li 3 Internet-Draft China Mobile 4 Updates: 5575 (if approved) March 11, 2017 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: September 12, 2017 8 Populate to FIB Action for FlowSpec 9 draft-li-idr-flowspec-populate-to-fib-00 11 Abstract 13 A bit, F bit, is defined in traffic action extended community, which 14 is used by FlowSpec to indicate the associated specifications be 15 installed directly in FIB (Forwarding Information Base). 17 Requirements Language 19 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 20 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 21 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2017. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2. Populate to FIB Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 1. Introduction 66 BGP FlowSpec [RFC5575] provides a flexible mechanism to distribute 67 traffic flow specifications, where the matching rules are encoded in 68 the Border Gateway Protocol Network Layer Reachability Information 69 (BGP NLRI) with defined new format and the corresponding actions are 70 encoded in BGP Extended communities. 72 Traffic flow specifications distributed by BGP FlowSpec [RFC5575] are 73 ususlly seperated from the the routing tables and Forwarding 74 Information Base (FIB), and stored in dedicated hardware, which is 75 expensive and space limited. Furthermore, this kind of hardware is 76 shared with the ACL (Access Control List) rules. The number of both 77 ACL rules and FlowSpec specifications is large, especially when 78 FlowSpec specifications are used for dynanmic traffic flow steering, 79 which is one of the three BGP FlowSpec applications listed in 80 [RFC5575] and [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis], i.e. applications with 81 centralized control of traffic in a SDN or NFV context. In this 82 situation, to save the limited and expensive space of the dedicated 83 hardware, it is better to populate some FlowSpec specifications 84 directly to FIB if possible, becuase the space of FIB is sufficient 85 for several millions of entries. The destination prefix based 86 FlowSpec specifications, for example, are those that can be directly 87 populated to FIB. 89 However, there is no method in the current version of BGP FlowSpec 90 [RFC5575] and RFC5575bis [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] to indicate the 91 associated specifications are suitable to be populated to FIB 92 directly. This document defines a new bit, F bit (populate to FIB), 93 in 0x8007 traffic action extended community to satisfy the 94 requirement. 96 2. Populate to FIB Action 98 F bit, populate to FIB bit, is defined in 0x8007 traffic action 99 extended community [RFC5575] to indicate the associated BGP FlowSpec 100 specifications are suitable to be populated to FIB directly. Thus 101 the space of the dedicated hardware that is used to store the BGP 102 FlowSpec specifications can be saved for other kinds of BGP FlowSpec 103 specifications and ACL rules. 105 The encoding format of the traffic action extended community with F 106 bit is shown below. The F bit is solicited to be assigned by IANA. 108 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 109 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 110 | reserved | F | S | T | 111 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 113 Traffic-action extended community consists of 2 bytes for type and 114 subtype, the value of which MUST be 0x8007, and 6 bytes for value, of 115 which only the 3 least significant bits of the 6th byte (from left to 116 right) are currently defined. S and T are defined in BGP FlowSpec 117 [RFC5575]. F is defined as: 119 o F: Populate to FIB Action (bit 45, to be assined by IANA): When 120 this bit is set, the associated BGP FlowSpec specifications SHOULD 121 be populated to FIB directly. If not set, the associated BGP 122 FlowSpec specifications MUST NOT be populated to FIB. If this bit 123 is set and the associated BGP FlowSpec specifications can not be 124 populated to FIB, the associated BGP FlowSpec specifications MUST 125 be ignored. 127 3. Security Considerations 129 This document defines a new bit in the traffic action extended 130 community to indicate the associated BGP FlowSpec specifications 131 SHOULD be populated to FIB directly. This bit does not introduce any 132 new security issues. The same security considerations as for the BGP 133 FlowSpec [RFC5575] applies. 135 4. IANA Considerations 137 One bit, F bit, is solicited to be assigned from Traffic Action 138 Fields registry. This bit is used by BGP FlowSpec to indicate the 139 associated BGP FlowSpec specifications SHOULD be populated to FIB 140 directly. 142 5. Normative References 144 [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] 145 Hares, S., Raszuk, R., McPherson, D., Loibl, C., and M. 146 Bacher, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", 147 draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-00 (work in progress), February 148 2017. 150 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 151 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 152 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 153 . 155 [RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., 156 and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification 157 Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009, 158 . 160 Author's Address 162 Zhenqiang Li 163 China Mobile 164 No.32 Xuanwumenxi Ave., Xicheng District 165 Beijing 100032 166 P.R. China 168 Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com