idnits 2.17.1 draft-ymbk-grow-bgp-collector-communities-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document has an IETF Trust Provisions (28 Dec 2009) Section 6.c(ii) Publication Limitation clause. If this document is intended for submission to the IESG for publication, this constitutes an error. 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 document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4384, 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 == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (September 7, 2015) is 3151 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group R. Bush 3 Internet-Draft Internet Initiative Japan 4 Obsoletes: 4384 (if approved) E. Aben 5 Intended status: Best Current Practice RIPE NCC 6 Expires: March 10, 2016 September 7, 2015 8 Marking Announcements to BGP Collectors 9 draft-ymbk-grow-bgp-collector-communities-01 11 Abstract 13 When BGP route collectors such as RIPE RIS and Route Views are used 14 by operators and researchers, currently one can not tell if a path 15 announced to a collector is from the ISP's customer cone, an internal 16 route, or one learned from peering or transit. This greatly reduces 17 the utility of the collected data. This document specifies the use 18 of BGP communities to differentiate the kinds of views being 19 presented to the collectors. 21 Requirements Language 23 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 24 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to 25 be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] only when they appear in all 26 upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English 27 words, without normative meaning. 29 Status of This Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 10, 2016. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2015 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 This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not 62 be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft. 64 Table of Contents 66 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 67 2. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 3. Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 4. Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 76 1. Introduction 78 BGP route collectors such as RIPE RIS [ris] and Route Views [rviews] 79 are used by both operators and researchers. Unfortunately, one can 80 not tell if a path announced to a collector is from the ISP's 81 customer cone (one's own prefixes and the closure of those to whom 82 transit is provided; i.e. what one would announce to a peer), an 83 internal route, or an external route learned via peering or transit. 84 This greatly reduces the utility of the collected data, and has been 85 a cause of much pain over the years. This document specifies the use 86 of BGP communities to differentiate between these categories. 88 In 2006, [RFC4384] attempted a similar goal but failed to gain 89 traction in the operational community. We believe this was due to 90 its unnecessary complexity. This document proposes a much simpler 91 marking scheme and, if published, will obsolete [RFC4384]. 93 2. Rationale 95 When an operator uses a collector to look at an ISP's announcement of 96 a prefix, it is very useful to know if the ISP also announced it to 97 their customers and/or peers/transits. Researchers want to 98 differentiate similarly in order to understand expected route 99 propagation. 101 One usually wishes to ignore any internal-only routes an ISP may 102 announce to the collector, as they would not be announcing them to 103 peers, transits, or customers. 105 An ISP is expected to announce customer routes to their customers, 106 and announce customer routes to their external peers and transits. 108 In general, one does not need to differentiate whether the ISP will 109 announce to peers or transits; and the ISP may not wish to expose the 110 business relationships with external providers. So we do not propose 111 to differentiate peers from transit providers. 113 3. Categories 115 We define only three categories of announcements: 117 Customer Cone: One's own prefixes and the closure of those to whom 118 transit is provided including routes announced by BGP customers, 119 static prefixes used for non-BGP customers, datacenter routes, 120 etc. 121 External Routes: Routes learned from peers and transit providers 122 which the ISP would normally announce to customers but not to 123 peers. Often, ISPs do not announce such routes to collectors. 124 But, as there is no general practice, this category is important 125 to mark. 126 Internal Routes: ISPs occasionally announce to the collector 127 Internal point to point and other routes they would not normally 128 announce to customers, peers, or transit providers. 130 4. Signaling 132 BGP announcements to route collectors SHOULD be marked with 133 communities indicating into which category the announcement falls. 134 As most collector peers already use community markings similar to 135 these, but ad hoc, the additional effort should be trivial. 137 The ASN in the marking SHOULD be that of the collector peer. The 138 communities were selected from community values which were unused at 139 the time of this document and SHOULD be as follows: 141 +----------------+-----------+ 142 | Category | Community | 143 +----------------+-----------+ 144 | Customer Cone | ASN:64994 | 145 | External Route | ASN:64995 | 146 | Internal Route | ASN:64996 | 147 +----------------+-----------+ 149 Community Markings 151 Table 1 153 5. IANA Considerations 155 As the number of categories is intentionally minimal, an IANA 156 registry should not be needed. 158 6. References 160 6.1. Normative References 162 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 163 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 165 [ris] "RIPE Routing Information Service (RIS)", 166 . 170 [rviews] "University of Oregon Route Views Project", 171 . 173 6.2. Informative References 175 [RFC4384] Meyer, D., "BGP Communities for Data Collection", BCP 114, 176 RFC 4384, February 2006. 178 Authors' Addresses 180 Randy Bush 181 Internet Initiative Japan 182 5147 Crystal Springs 183 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 184 US 186 Email: randy@psg.com 187 Emile Aben 188 RIPE NCC 189 Singel 258 190 Amsterdam, NL.NH 1016 AB 191 NL 193 Email: emile.aben@ripe.net