idnits 2.17.1 draft-snijders-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet has text resembling RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (October 28, 2016) is 2738 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-idr-large-community-05 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IDR J. Snijders 3 Internet-Draft NTT 4 Intended status: Standards Track October 28, 2016 5 Expires: May 1, 2017 7 Deprecation of BGP Path Attribute 30, 31, 129 8 draft-snijders-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-00 10 Abstract 12 This document requests IANA to deprecate the following BGP path 13 attributes values 30, 31 and 129. 15 Requirements Language 17 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 18 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to 19 be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] only when they appear in all 20 upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English 21 words, without normative meaning. 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 May 1, 2017. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2016 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. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 1. Introduction 68 It has been discovered that certain BGP Path Attribute values have 69 been used in BGP implementations which have been deployed in the wild 70 while not being assigned by the IANA for such usage. This has led to 71 deployment problems for new technologies such as Large BGP 72 Communities [I-D.ietf-idr-large-community]. 74 The squatting of values 30, 31 and 129 has been confirmed by the 75 involved vendors. 77 2. IANA Considerations 79 Per this document, IANA has marked the BGP Path Attributes registry 80 entries for values 30, 31, 129 as "deprecated". 82 3. Security Considerations 84 There are no meaningful security consequences arising from this 85 registry update. 87 4. References 89 4.1. Normative References 91 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 92 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 93 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 94 . 96 4.2. Informative References 98 [I-D.ietf-idr-large-community] 99 Heitz, J., Snijders, J., Patel, K., Bagdonas, I., Simpson, 100 A., and N. Hilliard, "Large BGP Communities", draft-ietf- 101 idr-large-community-05 (work in progress), October 2016. 103 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 105 The author would like to gratefully acknowledge Marlien Vijfhuizen 106 who helped discover the squatting of value 30. 108 Author's Address 110 Job Snijders 111 NTT Communications 112 Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 113 Amsterdam 1065 SZ 114 NL 116 Email: job@ntt.net