idnits 2.17.1 draft-ymbk-grow-bgp-collector-communities-02.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 document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. -- 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 date (17 February 2022) is 771 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 (==), 2 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.M.J. Aben 5 Intended status: Best Current Practice RIPE NCC 6 Expires: 21 August 2022 17 February 2022 8 Marking Announcements to BGP Collectors 9 draft-ymbk-grow-bgp-collector-communities-02 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 the 15 collection of paths announced to a collector represents the ISP's 16 customer cone, includes internal routes, includes paths learned from 17 peerings or transits. This greatly reduces the utility of the 18 collected data. This document specifies the use of BGP communities 19 to differentiate the kinds of views being presented to the 20 collectors. 22 Requirements Language 24 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 25 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 26 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 27 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 28 capitals, as shown here. 30 Status of This Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 August 2022. 47 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2022 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 54 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 55 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 56 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 57 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as 58 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 59 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 64 2. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 3. Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 4. Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 5. Alternative Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 1. Introduction 76 BGP route collectors such as RIPE RIS [ris] and Route Views [rviews] 77 are used by both operators and researchers. Unfortunately, one can 78 not tell paths announced to a collector are solely from the ISP's 79 customer cone (one's own prefixes and the closure of those to whom 80 transit is provided; i.e. what one would announce to a peer), include 81 internal routes (e.g. inter-router links), or external paths learned 82 via peering or transit. This greatly reduces the utility of the 83 collected data, and has been a cause of much pain over the years. 84 This document suggests the use of BGP communities to differentiate 85 between these categories. 87 In 2006, [RFC4384] attempted a similar goal but failed to gain 88 traction in the operational community. We believe this was due to 89 its unnecessary complexity. This document proposes two much simpler 90 marking schemes and, if published, will obsolete [RFC4384]. 92 2. Rationale 94 When an operator uses a collector to look at an ISP's announcement of 95 a prefix, it is very useful to know if the ISP also announced it to 96 their customers and/or peers/transits. Researchers want to 97 differentiate similarly in order to understand expected route 98 propagation. 100 One usually wishes to ignore any internal-only routes, e.g. inter- 101 router point-to-point links, an ISP may announce to the collector, as 102 they would not be announcing them to peers, transits, or customers. 103 I.e. they would not be used operationally. 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 this document do 111 not propose to differentiate peers from transit providers. 113 3. Categories 115 We consider 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 ASs which do not peer with collectors MAY also choose to use these 142 markings. 144 +================+===========+ 145 | Category | Community | 146 +================+===========+ 147 | Customer Cone | ASN:64994 | 148 +----------------+-----------+ 149 | External Route | ASN:64995 | 150 +----------------+-----------+ 151 | Internal Route | ASN:64996 | 152 +----------------+-----------+ 154 Table 1 156 Community Markings 158 5. Alternative Signaling 160 Alternatively, should marking at the path granularity be considered 161 too revealing, the collector peer could announce a single well-known 162 prefix, for example 10.10.10.10/10, with one or more of the community 163 markings as above, describing the set of paths being announced to the 164 collector. 166 6. IANA Considerations 168 As the number of categories is intentionally minimal, an IANA 169 registry should not be needed. 171 7. References 173 7.1. Normative References 175 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 176 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 177 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 178 . 180 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 181 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 182 May 2017, . 184 [ris] "RIPE Routing Information Service (RIS)", 185 . 189 [rviews] "University of Oregon Route Views Project", 190 . 192 7.2. Informative References 194 [RFC4384] Meyer, D., "BGP Communities for Data Collection", BCP 114, 195 RFC 4384, DOI 10.17487/RFC4384, February 2006, 196 . 198 Authors' Addresses 200 Randy Bush 201 Internet Initiative Japan 202 5147 Crystal Springs 203 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 204 United States of America 205 Email: randy@psg.com 207 Emile Aben 208 RIPE NCC 209 Singel 258 210 1016 AB Amsterdam 211 Netherlands 212 Email: emile.aben@ripe.net