idnits 2.17.1 draft-zzhang-idr-bitmask-route-target-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 seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (July 12, 2020) is 1383 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 Z. Zhang 3 Internet-Draft S. Sangli 4 Intended status: Standards Track J. Haas 5 Expires: January 13, 2021 Juniper Networks 6 July 12, 2020 8 Bitmask Route Target 9 draft-zzhang-idr-bitmask-route-target-00 11 Abstract 13 This document specifies a new type of Route Target called Bitmask 14 Route Target as a BGP Community Container. The key element of a 15 Bitmask Route Target is a Bitmask. Two Bitmask Route Targets are 16 considered equivalent for the purpose of controlling route 17 propagation (via Route Target Constraints) and importation if the 18 result of logical "AND" operation of the Bitmask of the two is non- 19 zero. 21 Requirements Language 23 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 24 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 25 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 26 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 27 capitals, as shown here. 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 https://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 January 13, 2021. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2020 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 (https://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 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 64 2. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 1. Introduction 75 The importation and propagation of BGP routes can be controled using 76 Route Targets [RFC4364] and Route Target Constrains [RFC4684]. Both 77 relies on comparing two Route Targets based on full match of the 78 8-octet encoding. 80 There are situations where it is desired to consider two Route 81 Targets to be equivalent (hence the route could be imported or 82 propagated) as long as certain bits have matching set values. This 83 document defines a new type of Route Target for that purpose. 85 An example use case of this Bitmask Route Target is documented in [I- 86 D.zzhang-teas-network-slicing-with-flex-te]. 88 The use of Bitmask Route Target with Route Target Constrains is 89 specified separately in [I-D.zzhang-idr-bgp-route-target-constrains- 90 extension]. 92 2. Specification 94 The Bitmask Route Target is a Transitive BGP Community Container of 95 type TBD [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]. 97 The container includes a 1-octet Global Administrator (GA) Type, 98 1-octet GA Length, a variable length GA, a 4-octet Local 99 Administrator (LA), a 1-octet Bitmask Length in number of octets, and 100 the Bitmask. 102 0 1 2 3 103 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 104 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 105 | GA Type | GA Length | 106 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 107 | Global Administrator (variable length) ~ 108 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 109 | Local Administrator | 110 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 111 | Bitmask Length | 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 ~ Bitmask (variable length) ~ 114 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 The following GA Types and corresponding lengths are defined in this 117 document: 119 o TBD1: AS Number, 4-octet 121 o TBD2: IPv4 Address, 4-octet 123 o TBD3: IPv6 Address, 16-octet 125 A Bitmask Route Targets A is considered to match Bitmask Route Target 126 B for the purpose of controlling propagation and importation of a 127 route with an attached Bitmask Route Target B if the following 128 conditions are met: 130 o The GA Type, GA Length, GA, and LA fields in A and B match. 132 o The result of the logical "AND" operation of the Bitmask field in 133 A and B is not 0. If A and B have different Bitmask Lengths, the 134 smaller one is used to truncate the longer Bitmask. 136 3. Security Considerations 138 This document does not change security aspects as discussed in 139 [RFC4364] and [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]. 141 4. IANA Considerations 143 This document requests IANA to assign a BGP Community Container Type 144 for the Bitmask Route Target from the "BGP Community Container Types" 145 registry. 147 This document requests IANA to setup a "Bitmask Route Target Global 148 Administrator Type Registry" and assign three type values as listed 149 in Section 2. Allocation from the first half of the number is based 150 on standardization and allocation from the second half is First Come 151 First Serve. 153 5. Acknowledgements 155 The authors thank John Scudder for his comments and suggestions. 157 6. References 159 6.1. Normative References 161 [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities] 162 Raszuk, R., Haas, J., Lange, A., Decraene, B., Amante, S., 163 and P. Jakma, "BGP Community Container Attribute", draft- 164 ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05 (work in progress), July 165 2018. 167 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 168 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 169 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 170 . 172 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 173 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 174 May 2017, . 176 6.2. Informative References 178 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 179 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 180 2006, . 182 [RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk, 183 R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route 184 Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol 185 Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual 186 Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684, 187 November 2006, . 189 Authors' Addresses 191 Zhaohui Zhang 192 Juniper Networks 194 EMail: zzhang@juniper.net 196 Srihari Sangli 197 Juniper Networks 199 EMail: ssangli@juniper.net 201 Jeffrey Haas 202 Juniper Networks 204 EMail: jhaas@juniper.net