summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1965.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1965.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc1965.txt395
1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1965.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1965.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..047a539
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1965.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group P. Traina
+Request for Comments: 1965 cisco Systems
+Category: Experimental June 1996
+
+
+ Autonomous System Confederations for BGP
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
+ community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any
+ kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
+ Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+ Border Gateway Protocol [1] is an inter-autonomous system routing
+ protocol designed for TCP/IP networks.
+
+ This document describes an extension to BGP which may be used to
+ create a confederation of autonomous systems which is represented as
+ one single autonomous system to BGP peers external to the
+ confederation.
+
+ The intention of this extension is to aid in policy administration
+ and reduce the management complexity of maintaining a large
+ autonomous system.
+
+ The extension this document describes is widely deployed in the
+ Internet today.
+
+Introduction
+
+ It may be useful to subdivide autonomous systems with a very large
+ number of BGP speakers into smaller domains for purposes of
+ controlling routing policy via information contained in the BGP
+ AS_PATH attribute. For example, one may chose to consider all BGP
+ speakers in a geographic region as a single entity.
+
+ In addition to improvements in routing policy control, current
+ techniques for deploying BGP among speakers in the same autonomous
+ system establish a full mesh of TCP connections among all speakers
+ for the purpose of exchanging exterior routing information. In
+ autonomous systems the number of intra-domain connections that need
+ to be maintained by each border router can become significant.
+
+ Subdividing a large autonomous system allows a significant reduction
+ in the total number of intra-domain BGP connections, as the
+
+
+
+Traina Experimental [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1965 AS Confederations for BGP June 1996
+
+
+ connectivity requirements simplify to the model used for inter-domain
+ connections.
+
+ Unfortunately subdividing an autonomous system may increase the
+ complexity of policy routing based on AS_PATH information for all
+ members of the Internet. Additionally, this division increases the
+ maintenance overhead of coordinating external peering when the
+ internal topology of this collection of autonomous systems is
+ modified.
+
+ Finally, dividing a large AS may unnecessarily increase the length of
+ the sequence portions of the AS_PATH attribute. Several common BGP
+ implementations can use the number of "hops" required to reach a
+ given destination as part of the path selection criteria. While this
+ is not an optimal method of determining route preference, given the
+ lack of other in-band information, it provides a reasonable default
+ behavior which is widely used across the Internet. Therefore,
+ division of an autonomous system into separate systems may adversely
+ affect optimal routing of packets through the Internet.
+
+ However, there is usually no need to expose the internal topology of
+ this divided autonomous system, which means it is possible to regard
+ a collection of autonomous systems under a common administration as a
+ single entity or autonomous system when viewed from outside the
+ confines of the confederation of autonomous systems itself.
+
+Terms and Definitions
+
+ AS Confederation
+ A collection of autonomous systems advertised as a single AS
+ number to BGP speakers that are not members of the confederation.
+
+ AS Confederation Identifier
+ An externally visible autonomous system number that identifies the
+ confederation as a whole.
+
+ Member-AS
+ An autonomous system that is contained in a given AS
+ confederation.
+
+Overview
+
+ IDRP[2] has the concept of a routing domain confederation. An IDRP
+ routing domain confederation appears to IDRP speakers external to the
+ confederation as a single administrative entity. This extension is
+ based upon that work.
+
+
+
+
+
+Traina Experimental [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1965 AS Confederations for BGP June 1996
+
+
+ In IDRP, routing domain confederations may be nested within each
+ other or disjoint portions of still larger confederations. The
+ algorithm BGP defines for additions to the AS_PATH attribute imposes
+ an additional restriction that AS confederations must be strictly
+ hierarchical in nature.
+
+AS_CONFED segment type extension
+
+ Currently, BGP specifies that the AS_PATH attribute is a well-known
+ mandatory attribute that is composed of a sequence of AS path
+ segments. Each AS path segment is represented by a type/length/value
+ triple.
+
+ In [1], the path segment type is a 1-octet long field with the two
+ following values defined:
+
+ Value Segment Type
+
+ 1 AS_SET: unordered set of ASs a route in the
+ UPDATE message has traversed
+
+ 2 AS_SEQUENCE: ordered set of ASs a route in
+ the UPDATE message has traversed
+
+ This document reserves two additional segment types:
+
+ 3 AS_CONFED_SET: unordered set of ASs in the local
+ confederation that the UPDATE message
+ has traversed
+
+ 4 AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE: ordered set of ASs in the
+ local confederation that the UPDATE
+ message has traversed
+
+Operation
+
+ A member of a BGP confederation will use its confederation identifier
+ in all transactions with peers that are not members of its
+ confederation. This confederation identifier is considered to be the
+ "externally visible" AS number and this number is used in OPEN
+ messages and advertised in the AS_PATH attribute.
+
+ A member of a BGP confederation will use its routing domain
+ identifier (the internally visible AS number) in all transactions
+ with peers that are members of the same confederation as the given
+ router.
+
+
+
+
+
+Traina Experimental [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1965 AS Confederations for BGP June 1996
+
+
+ A BGP speaker receiving an AS_PATH attribute containing a
+ confederation ID matching its own confederation shall treat the path
+ in the same fashion as if it had received a path containing its own
+ AS number.
+
+AS_PATH modification rules
+
+ Section 5.1.2 of [1] is replaced with the following text.
+
+ When a BGP speaker propagates a route which it has learned from
+ another BGP speaker's UPDATE message, it shall modify the route's
+ AS_PATH attribute based on the location of the BGP speaker to which
+ the route will be sent:
+
+ a) When a given BGP speaker advertises the route to another BGP
+ speaker located in its own autonomous system, the advertising
+ speaker shall not modify the AS_PATH attribute associated with
+ the route.
+
+ b) When a given BGP speaker advertises the route to a BGP
+ speaker located in a neighboring autonomous system that is a
+ member of the local autonomous system confederation, then the
+ advertising speaker shall update the AS_PATH attribute as
+ follows:
+
+ 1) if the first path segment of the AS_PATH is of type
+ AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE, the local system shall prepend its own AS
+ number as the last element of the sequence (put it in the
+ leftmost position).
+
+ 2) if the first path segment of the AS_PATH is not of type
+ AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE the local system shall prepend a new path
+ segment of type AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE to the AS_PATH, including
+ its own confederation identifier in that segment.
+
+ c) When a given BGP speaker advertises the route to a BGP
+ speaker located in a neighboring autonomous system that is not a
+ member of the current routing domain confederation, then the
+ advertising speaker shall update the AS_PATH attribute as
+ follows:
+
+ 1) if the first path segment of the AS_PATH is of type
+ AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE, that segment and any immediately
+ following segments of the type AS_CONFED_SET are removed from
+ the AS_PATH attribute, leaving the sanitized AS_PATH
+ attribute to be operated on by steps 2, or 3.
+
+
+
+
+
+Traina Experimental [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1965 AS Confederations for BGP June 1996
+
+
+ 2) if the first path segment of the remaining AS_PATH is of
+ type AS_SEQUENCE, the local system shall prepend its own
+ confederation identifier as the last element of the sequence
+ (put it in the leftmost position).
+
+ 3) if there are no path segments following the removal of the
+ first AS_CONFED_SET/AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE segments, or if the
+ first path segment of the remaining AS_PATH is of type AS_SET
+ the local system shall prepend a new path segment of type
+ AS_SEQUENCE to the AS_PATH, including its own confederation
+ identifier in that segment.
+
+ When a BGP speaker originates a route:
+
+ a) the originating speaker shall include an empty AS_PATH
+ attribute in all UPDATE messages sent to BGP speakers located in
+ its own autonomous system. (An empty AS_PATH attribute is one
+ whose length field contains the value zero).
+
+ b) the originating speaker shall include its own AS number in an
+ AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE segment of the AS_PATH attribute of all
+ UPDATE messages sent to BGP speakers located in neighboring
+ autonomous systems that are members of the local confederation.
+ (In this case, the AS number of the originating speaker's member
+ autonomous system number will be the only entry in the AS_PATH
+ attribute).
+
+ c) the originating speaker shall include its own confederation
+ identifier in a AS_SEQUENCE segment of the AS_PATH attribute of
+ all UPDATE messages sent to BGP speakers located in neighboring
+ autonomous systems that are not members of the local
+ confederation. (In this case, the confederation identifier of
+ the originating speaker's member confederation will be the only
+ entry in the AS_PATH attribute).
+
+Common Administration Issues
+
+ It is reasonable for member ASs of a confederation to share a common
+ administration and IGP information for the entire confederation.
+
+ It shall be legal for a BGP speaker to advertise an unchanged
+ NEXT_HOP and MULTI_EXIT_DISCRIMINATOR attribute to peers in a
+ neighboring AS within the same confederation. In addition, the
+ restriction against sending the LOCAL_PREFERENCE attribute to peers
+ in a neighboring AS within the same confederation is removed. Path
+ selection criteria for information received from members inside a
+ confederation may follow the same rules used for information received
+ from members inside the same autonomous system.
+
+
+
+Traina Experimental [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1965 AS Confederations for BGP June 1996
+
+
+Compatibility
+
+ All BGP speakers participating in a confederation must recognize the
+ AS_CONFED_SET and AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE segment type extensions to the
+ AS_PATH attribute.
+
+ Any BGP speaker not supporting these extensions will generate a
+ notification message specifying an "UPDATE Message Error" and a sub-
+ code of "Malformed AS_PATH".
+
+ This compatibility issue implies that all BGP speakers participating
+ in a confederation must support BGP confederations, however BGP
+ speakers outside the confederation need not support these extensions.
+
+Compatibility Discussion
+
+ We considered the use of a distinct, optional, transitive attribute
+ to carry AS confederation information as opposed to specifying new
+ types in the existing AS path attribute. This would relax the
+ requirement that all BGP speakers participating in a confederation to
+ allow the use of legacy units provided they have no external (i.e.
+ neither inter-AS nor intra-confederation) connectivity.
+
+ At the time of this writing, an implementation of this extension as
+ documented is widely deployed throughout the Internet, therefore the
+ value of any change that is incompatible with this document must be
+ weighed against the benefit gained from a relaxation of this
+ restriction.
+
+References
+
+ [1] Rekhter, Y., and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
+ RFC 1771, March 1995.
+
+ [2] Kunzinger, C. Editor, "Inter-Domain Routing Protocol", ISO/IEC
+ 10747, October 1993.
+
+Security Considerations
+
+ Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+Acknowledgments
+
+ Ravi Chandra and Yakov Rekhter reviewed this document and provided
+ constructive and valuable comments.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Traina Experimental [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1965 AS Confederations for BGP June 1996
+
+
+Author's Address
+
+ Paul Traina
+ cisco Systems, Inc.
+ 170 W. Tasman Dr.
+ San Jose, CA 95134
+
+ EMail: pst@cisco.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Traina Experimental [Page 7]
+