Internet DRAFT - draft-chakrabarti-idr-rfc4893-mod
draft-chakrabarti-idr-rfc4893-mod
Internet Domain Routing S. Chakrabarti
Internet-Draft IP Infusion - An Access Company
Intended status: Standards Track March 2008
Expires: September 2, 2008
A proposal for modification of BGP 4-octet AS number usage
draft-chakrabarti-idr-rfc4893-mod-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
RFC 4893 defines BGP support for four-octet AS number space. This
document proposes clarification texts for RFC 4893 for clear
understanding of the transition behavior between existing
implementations with two-octet AS numbers and the new BGP
implementations with four-octet AS numbers. This document also
proposes an addition of notification message and clearly defines the
processing of "My AS Number" field in the BGP OPEN message for better
interoperability during the transition phase of two-octet and four-
Chakrabarti Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 4893 Calrification March 2008
octet compliant BGP speakers.
Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Clarification issue-I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Proposal for new text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Clarification - issue-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Proposal for new text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Clarification - issue-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Proposal for change in protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Calrification issue-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Proposal for a NOTIFICATION message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chakrabarti Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 4893 Calrification March 2008
1. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [3].
2. Introduction
RFC 4893[1] defines the extensions to BGP in order to use 4-byte
autonomous system (AS) number and it also describes the behavior of
BGP speakers with 4-byte AS numbers and the existing BGP speakers
with 2-byte AS numbers for ease of transitions. However, the
specification requires more clarity in handling the AS numbers in
OPEN and UPDATE messages between the 2-byte AS number speakers and
4-byte AS number speakers. Without the clear understanding of
handling of these messages the existing and new implementations of
BGP speakers may fail to interoperate or may degrade routing services
over the Internet.
This document is initiated based on some questions raised during an
implementation of RFC 4893. Thus the goal of this document is to
point out the areas of clarification required in the 4-byte AS number
specification[1]. Besides the clarification text, it also proposes a
notification message and clearly defines the processing of "MY AS
Number" field in BGP[2] when 4-byte AS number capability message is
present.
3. Terminology
OLD BGP Speaker: A BGP speaker which is RFC 4271[2] compliant and
does not implement 4byte extension to the AS number as defined in RFC
4893.
NEW BGP Speaker: A BGP speaker which implements the 4-byte AS number
support as defined in RFC 4893.
4. Clarification issue-I
RFC4893 is unclear about the processing of "My AS Number" field in
the OPEN message[2]. Section 3 mentions about the capability message
for 4byte ASN support: "The Capability that is used by a BGP speaker
to convey to its BGP peer the 4-octet Autonomous System number
capability, also carries the 4-octet Autonomous System number of the
speaker in the Capability Value field of the Capability Optional
Parameter. The Capability Length field of the Capability is set to
Chakrabarti Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 4893 Calrification March 2008
4. " and "We denote this special AS number as AS_TRANS for ease of
description in the rest of this specification. This AS number is
also placed in the "My Autonomous System" field of the OPEN message
originated by a NEW BGP speaker, if the speaker does not have a
(globally unique) 2-octet AS number."
The questions are : 1) When 4-byte AS number capability message is
present and the receiver is able to process the capability message,
should it ignore the AS number field in the OPEN message? [ note:
2-byte mappable As Numbered BGP speaker may send 4-byte AS capability
support]
4.1. Proposal for new text
A separate section on handling OPEN message would be very useful. A
suggested text is below.
Processing and sending OPEN message:
1) Sending OPEN message:If the BGP speaker has a 2byte AS number
or 2-byte mappable 4-byte AS number, it uses the 2 byte ASN in the
"My AS number" field of OPEN message. If the BGP speaker has a
4-byte non-mappable AS number, then it uses AS_TRANS in "My AS
Number" field of OPEN message.
2) Receiving OPEN message: If a NEW BGP speaker receives a OPEN
message with extended AS number capability, then it uses the
4-byte AS number from the extended AS capability message and may
disregard the value in the "My AS number" field in the OPEN
message. If there is no extended AS capability is present and the
OPEN messge "My AS number" field contains AS_TRANS, then the NEW
BGP implementation sends a notification message to the peer and
closes connection. An OLD BGP speaker-implementation is not aware
of the extended AS number capability; it processes the OPEN
message as per RFC 4271.
5. Clarification - issue-2
Currently, in section 4.2.1 RFC 4893 states:
"Note that peering between a NEW BGP speaker and an OLD one is
possible only if the NEW BGP speaker has a 2-octet AS number.
However, this document does not assume that an Autonomous System with
NEW speakers has to have a globally unique 2-octet AS number -
AS_TRANS could be used instead (even if a multiple Autonomous System
would use it)."
Chakrabarti Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 4893 Calrification March 2008
R1 R2 R3 R4
o-------------------o-------------------o----------------------o
OLD NEW OLD NEW
(50) (77777) (100) (65666)
A scenario with OLD and NEW BGP speakers
In the above scenario, if both R2 and R4 peer with R3, R3
configuration may assume that R4 and R2 are part of same AS. This
may cause R3 to make undesirable routing decision. Some
clarification/recommendation is required in this case.
5.1. Proposal for new text
Note that peering between a NEW BGP speaker and an OLD one is
possible only if the NEW BGP speaker has a 2-octet AS number or a
2-octet mappable extended AS number. However, this document does not
assume that an Autonomous System with NEW speakers has to have a
globally unique 2-octet AS number - AS_TRANS could be used
instead;careful considerations are required such that it does not
affect the routing path of the traffic due to some local policy on AS
number at the OLD BGP speaker. During transition to NEW BGP speaker
from an OLD BGP speaker, the above scenario should be avoided.
6. Clarification - issue-3
Section 3 of RFC4893 states: "NEW BGP speakers carry AS path
information expressed in terms of 4-octet Autonomous Systems numbers
by using the existing AS_PATH attribute, except that each AS number
in this attribute is encoded not as a 2-octet, but as a 4-octet
entity."
R1 R2 R3 R4
o-------------------o-------------------o----------------------o
NEW NEW OLD NEW
(77777) (65666) (100) (200)
2nd scenario with OLD and NEW BGP speakers
According to the current specification, R1 will send AS_PATH with
4-byte AS numbers to R2. Since R2 is peering with an OLD BGP
speaker, it will make the conversion of 4-byte AS_PATH attributes to
2-byte AS_PATH attributes and pass them to R3 along with AS4_PATH
attributes.
Chakrabarti Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC 4893 Calrification March 2008
Since OLD and NEW BGP speakers will exist in the network for a long
time, it might be clean to use 4-byte numbers in AS4_PATH attributes
only and corresponding value AS_TRANS in AS_PATH attribute even when
two NEW BGP peers with non-mappable 4-byte AS number exchange
information. It also simplifies the NEW BGP speaker implementation
and processing of AS_PATH. This simplifies the NEW BGP
implementation and saves the extra time in processing an UPDATE
message.
6.1. Proposal for change in protocol
A NEW BGP speaker with 4-byte AS number always includes AS4_PATH
attribute containing the extended 4-byte AS number. If the AS number
is 2-byte mappable, then it adds the corresponding 2-byte mapped AS
number in the AS_PATH attribute, otherwise it uses AS_TRANS as the AS
number in the corresponding AS_PATH attribute. Thus the NEW BGP
speaker will always have AS4_PATH and a corresponding AS_PATH
attribute. Following a complete transition to 4-byte AS numbered
systems, AS_PATH may be replaced by AS4_PATH by turning a
configuration knob on each system. Thus a NEW BGP implementation may
consider providing a configuration knob which disables AS_PATH
attribute sending and processing.
7. Calrification issue-4
Minor nit: "truly 4-octet" should be defined as a quantity higher
than 65535.
Should the NEW BGP speaker send a NOTIFICATION message when it
receives a OPEN message with AS_TRANS but without any corresponding
capability message ? Note that although AS_TRANS(23456) is a
reserved number now, it is still possible to receive a OPEN message
with AS_TRANS value from an OLD BGP speaker or from a ill-behaving
NEW BGP speaker.
8. Proposal for a NOTIFICATION message
When two BGP speakers correspond with each other by sending AS_TRANS
value in the 'My AS number' field, then the OPEN message MUST contain
the 4-octet AS number capability option. If the 4-octet capability
is missing in OPEN message where the 'My AS Number' field contains
AS_TRANS value, a NEW BGP speaker-receiver SHOULD send a notification
with code=2, subcode=2 [bad peer AS] to the sender of the OPEN
message.
If an OLD BGP speaker receives a OPEN message with AS_TRANS value in
Chakrabarti Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC 4893 Calrification March 2008
the 'My AS number' field it should treat it normally as per RFC 4271
and local policy.
9. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
10. Acknowledgements
11. Normative References
[1] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number
Space", RFC 4893, May 2007.
[2] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "Border Gateway Protocol 4",
RFC 4271, January 2006.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Author's Address
Samita Chakrabarti
IP Infusion - An Access Company
125 S. Market Street
San Jose
USA
Email: samitac@ipinfusion.com
Chakrabarti Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC 4893 Calrification March 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Chakrabarti Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 8]
