draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-03.txt   draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-04.txt 
Network Working Group P. Mohapatra Network Working Group P. Mohapatra
Internet-Draft Cumulus Networks Internet-Draft Sproute Networks
Intended status: Standards Track K. Patel Intended status: Standards Track K. Patel
Expires: March 02, 2014 Cisco Systems Expires: August 18, 2014 Cisco Systems
J. Scudder J. Scudder
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
D. Ward D. Ward
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
R. Bush R. Bush
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.
August 29, 2013 February 14, 2014
BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community
draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-03 draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-04
Abstract Abstract
As part of the origination AS validation process, it can be desirable As part of the origination AS validation process, it can be desirable
to automatically consider the validation state of routes in the BGP to automatically consider the validation state of routes in the BGP
decision process. The purpose of this document is to provide a decision process. The purpose of this document is to provide a
specification for doing so. The document also defines a new BGP specification for doing so. The document also defines a new BGP
opaque extended community to carry the validation state inside an opaque extended community to carry the validation state inside an
autonomous system to influence the decision process of the IBGP autonomous system to influence the decision process of the IBGP
speakers. speakers.
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 02, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Origin Validation State Extended Community . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Origin Validation State Extended Community . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Changes to the BGP Decision Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Changes to the BGP Decision Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Policy Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Policy Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
As part of the origination AS validation process, it can be desirable As part of the origination AS validation process, it can be desirable
to automatically consider the validation state of routes in the BGP to automatically consider the validation state of routes in the BGP
decision process. The purpose of this document is to provide a decision process. The purpose of this document is to provide a
specification for doing so. The document defines a new BGP opaque specification for doing so. The document defines a new BGP opaque
extended community to carry the validation state inside an autonomous extended community to carry the validation state inside an autonomous
system to influence the decision process of the IBGP speakers. system to influence the decision process of the IBGP speakers.
skipping to change at page 3, line 19 skipping to change at page 3, line 17
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x43 | TBD | Reserved | | 0x43 | TBD | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |validationstate| | Reserved |validationstate|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The value of the high-order octet of the extended Type Field is 0x43, The value of the high-order octet of the extended Type Field is 0x43,
which indicates it is non-transitive. The value of the low-order which indicates it is non-transitive. The value of the low-order
octet of the extended type field for this community is TBD. The last octet of the extended type field for this community is TBD. The last
octet of the extended community encodes the route's validation octet of the extended community encodes the route's validation
state([I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate]. It can assume the following state[RFC6811]. It can assume the following values:
values:
+-------+-----------------------------+ +-------+-----------------------------+
| Value | Meaning | | Value | Meaning |
+-------+-----------------------------+ +-------+-----------------------------+
| 0 | Lookup result = "valid" | | 0 | Lookup result = "valid" |
| 1 | Lookup result = "not found" | | 1 | Lookup result = "not found" |
| 2 | Lookup result = "invalid" | | 2 | Lookup result = "invalid" |
+-------+-----------------------------+ +-------+-----------------------------+
If the router is configured to support the extensions defined in this If the router is configured to support the extensions defined in this
draft, it SHOULD attach the origin validation state extended draft, it SHOULD attach the origin validation state extended
community to BGP UPDATE messages sent to IBGP peers by mapping the community to BGP UPDATE messages sent to IBGP peers by mapping the
computed validation state in the last octet of the extended computed validation state in the last octet of the extended
community. Similarly on the receiving IBGP speakers, the validation community. Similarly on the receiving IBGP speakers, the validation
state of an IBGP route SHOULD be derived directly from the last octet state of an IBGP route SHOULD be derived directly from the last octet
of the extended community, if present. Note that routers do not of the extended community, if present.
perform prefix origin validation (compute the validation state as
defined in [I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate]) for IBGP learnt routes.
3. Changes to the BGP Decision Process 3. Changes to the BGP Decision Process
If a BGP router supports prefix origin validation and is configured If a BGP router supports prefix origin validation and is configured
for the extensions defined in this document, the validation step MUST for the extensions defined in this document, the validation step
be performed prior to any of the steps defined in the decision SHOULD be performed prior to any of the steps defined in the decision
process of [RFC4271]. The validation step is stated as follows: process of [RFC4271]. The validation step is stated as follows:
When comparing a pair of routes for a BGP destination, the route When comparing a pair of routes for a BGP destination, the route
with the lowest "validation state" value is preferred. with the lowest "validation state" value is preferred.
In all other respects, the decision process remains unchanged. In all other respects, the decision process remains unchanged.
3.1. Policy Control 3.1. Policy Control
It MUST be possible to enable or disable the validation step as It MUST be possible to enable or disable the validation step as
defined in Section 3 through configuration. The default SHOULD be defined in Section 3 through configuration. The default SHOULD be
for the validation step to be disabled. for the validation step to be disabled.
4. Deployment Considerations 4. Deployment Considerations
In deployment scenarios where not all the speakers in an autonomous In deployment scenarios where not all the speakers in an autonomous
system are upgraded to support the extensions defined in this system are upgraded to support the extensions defined in this
document, it is necessary to define policies that match on the origin document, it is necessary to define policies that match on the origin
validation extended community and set another BGP attribute validation extended community and set another BGP attribute [RFC6811]
[I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate] that influences the best path selection that influences the best path selection the same way as what would
the same way as what would have been enabled by an implementation of have been enabled by an implementation of this extension.
this extension.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable review and The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable review and
suggestions from Wesley George and Roque Gagliano on this document. suggestions from Wesley George and Roque Gagliano on this document.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA shall assign a new value from the "BGP Opaque Extended IANA shall assign a new value from the "BGP Opaque Extended
Community" type registry from the non-transitive range, to be called Community" type registry from the non-transitive range, to be called
"BGP Origin Validation State Extended Community". "BGP Origin Validation State Extended Community".
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security concerns beyond what is This document introduces no new security concerns beyond what is
described in [I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate]. described in [RFC6811].
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
8.2. Informational References 8.2. Informational References
[I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate]
Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R.
Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", draft-ietf-sidr-
pfx-validate-10 (work in progress), October 2012.
[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support [RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012. Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.
[RFC6482] Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route [RFC6482] Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route
Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, February 2012. Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482, February 2012.
[RFC6811] Mohapatra, P., Scudder, J., Ward, D., Bush, R., and R.
Austein, "BGP Prefix Origin Validation", RFC 6811, January
2013.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Pradosh Mohapatra Pradosh Mohapatra
Cumulus Networks Sproute Networks
Email: mpradosh@yahoo.com Email: mpradosh@yahoo.com
Keyur Patel Keyur Patel
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive 170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: keyupate@cisco.com Email: keyupate@cisco.com
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 21 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/