diff options
author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc1997.txt | |
parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1997.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc1997.txt | 283 |
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] + |