summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1997.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
committerThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
commit4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch)
treee3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc1997.txt
parentea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff)
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1997.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc1997.txt283
1 files changed, 283 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1997.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1997.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..413f8dd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1997.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group R. Chandra
+Request for Comments: 1997 P. Traina
+Category: Standards Track cisco Systems
+ T. Li
+ August 1996
+
+
+ BGP Communities Attribute
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+ Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+ improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+ Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+ and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+ Border Gateway Protocol [1] is an inter-autonomous system routing
+ protocol designed for TCP/IP internets.
+
+ This document describes an extension to BGP which may be used to pass
+ additional information to both neighboring and remote BGP peers.
+
+ The intention of the proposed technique is to aid in policy
+ administration and reduce the management complexity of maintaining
+ the Internet.
+
+Introduction
+
+ BGP supports transit policies via controlled distribution of routing
+ information. Mechanisms for this are described in [1] and have been
+ successfully used by transit service providers. However, control
+ over the distribution of routing information is presently based on
+ either IP address prefixes or on the value of the AS_PATH attribute
+ (or part of it).
+
+ To facilitate and simplify the control of routing information this
+ document suggests a grouping of destinations so that the routing
+ decision can also be based on the identity of a group. Such a scheme
+ is expected to significantly simplify a BGP speaker's configuration
+ that controls distribution of routing information.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chandra, et. al. Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute August 1996
+
+
+Terms and Definitions
+
+ Community
+ A community is a group of destinations which share some common
+ property.
+
+ Each autonomous system administrator may define which communities
+ a destination belongs to. By default, all destinations belong to
+ the general Internet community.
+
+Examples
+
+ A property such as "NSFNET sponsored/AUP" could be added to all AUP
+ compliant destinations advertised into the NSFNET. NSFNET operators
+ could define a policy that would advertise all routes, tagged or not,
+ to directly connected AUP compliant customers and only tagged routes
+ to commercial or external sites. This would insure that at least one
+ side of a given connection is AUP compliant as a way of enforcing NSF
+ transit policy guidelines.
+
+ In this example, we have just eliminated the primary motivation for a
+ complex policy routing database that is used to generate huge prefix
+ and AS path based filter rules. We have also eliminated the delays
+ caused by the out-of-band maintenance of this database (mailing in
+ NACRs, weekly configuration runs, etc.)
+
+ A second example comes from experience with aggregation. It is often
+ useful to advertise both an aggregate prefix and the component more-
+ specific prefixes that were used to form the aggregate to optimize
+ "next hop" routing. These component prefixes are only useful to the
+ neighboring BGP peer or perhaps the autonomous system of the
+ neighboring BGP peer, so it is desirable to filter this information.
+ By specifying a community value that the neighboring peer or peers
+ will match and filter on, these more specific routes may be
+ advertised with the assurance that they will not propagate beyond
+ their desired scope.
+
+COMMUNITIES attribute
+
+ This document creates the COMMUNITIES path attribute is an optional
+ transitive attribute of variable length. The attribute consists of a
+ set of four octet values, each of which specify a community. All
+ routes with this attribute belong to the communities listed in the
+ attribute.
+
+ The COMMUNITIES attribute has Type Code 8.
+
+
+
+
+
+Chandra, et. al. Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute August 1996
+
+
+ Communities are treated as 32 bit values, however for administrative
+ assignment, the following presumptions may be made:
+
+ The community attribute values ranging from 0x0000000 through
+ 0x0000FFFF and 0xFFFF0000 through 0xFFFFFFFF are hereby reserved.
+
+ The rest of the community attribute values shall be encoded using an
+ autonomous system number in the first two octets. The semantics of
+ the final two octets may be defined by the autonomous system (e.g. AS
+ 690 may define research, educational and commercial community values
+ that may be used for policy routing as defined by the operators of
+ that AS using community attribute values 0x02B20000 through
+ 0x02B2FFFF).
+
+Well-known Communities
+
+ The following communities have global significance and their
+ operations shall be implemented in any community-attribute-aware BGP
+ speaker.
+
+ NO_EXPORT (0xFFFFFF01)
+ All routes received carrying a communities attribute
+ containing this value MUST NOT be advertised outside a BGP
+ confederation boundary (a stand-alone autonomous system that
+ is not part of a confederation should be considered a
+ confederation itself).
+ NO_ADVERTISE (0xFFFFFF02)
+ All routes received carrying a communities attribute
+ containing this value MUST NOT be advertised to other BGP
+ peers.
+ NO_EXPORT_SUBCONFED (0xFFFFFF03)
+ All routes received carrying a communities attribute
+ containing this value MUST NOT be advertised to external BGP
+ peers (this includes peers in other members autonomous
+ systems inside a BGP confederation).
+
+Operation
+
+ A BGP speaker may use this attribute to control which routing
+ information it accepts, prefers or distributes to other neighbors.
+
+ A BGP speaker receiving a route that does not have the COMMUNITIES
+ path attribute may append this attribute to the route when
+ propagating it to its peers.
+
+ A BGP speaker receiving a route with the COMMUNITIES path attribute
+ may modify this attribute according to the local policy.
+
+
+
+
+Chandra, et. al. Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute August 1996
+
+
+Aggregation
+
+ If a range of routes is to be aggregated and the resultant aggregates
+ attribute section does not carry the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute, then
+ the resulting aggregate should have a COMMUNITIES path attribute
+ which contains all communities from all of the aggregated routes.
+
+Applicability
+
+ The COMMUNITIES path attribute may be used with BGP version 2 and all
+ subsequent versions of BGP unless specifically noted otherwise.
+
+Security Considerations
+
+ Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+Acknowledgments
+
+ We'd like to thank Vince Fuller, Sean Doran, and Andrew Partan for
+ bringing to our attention the problems that we believe the BGP
+ communities attribute will help solve. We'd also like to thank Yakov
+ Rekhter his review of this document as well as his constructive and
+ valuable comments.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Paul Traina
+ cisco Systems, Inc.
+ 170 W. Tasman Dr.
+ San Jose, CA 95134
+
+ EMail: pst@cisco.com
+
+
+ Ravishanker Chandrasekeran
+ (Ravi Chandra)
+ cisco Systems, Inc.
+ 170 W. Tasman Dr.
+ San Jose, CA 95134
+
+ EMail: rchandra@cisco.com
+
+
+ Tony Li
+ EMail: tli@skat.usc.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chandra, et. al. Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute August 1996
+
+
+References
+
+ [1] RFC 1771
+ Rekhter, Y., and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
+ March 1995.
+
+ [2] RFC 1965
+ Traina, P., "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", June 1996.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chandra, et. al. Standards Track [Page 5]
+