diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1965.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc1965.txt | 395 |
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] + |