diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8093.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc8093.txt | 171 |
1 files changed, 171 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8093.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8093.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2e50b24 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8093.txt @@ -0,0 +1,171 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Snijders +Request for Comments: 8093 NTT +Category: Standards Track February 2017 +ISSN: 2070-1721 + + + Deprecation of BGP Path Attribute + Values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 + +Abstract + + This document requests IANA to mark BGP path attribute values 30, 31, + 129, 241, 242, and 243 as "Deprecated". + +Status of This Memo + + This is an Internet Standards Track document. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on + Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8093. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents + (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must + include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of + the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as + described in the Simplified BSD License. + + + + + + + + + +Snijders Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 8093 Deprecation of Squatted BGP Path Attributes February 2017 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 4. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + +1. Introduction + + It has been discovered that certain BGP Path Attribute values have + been used in BGP implementations that have been deployed in the wild + while not being assigned by IANA for such usage. Unregistered usage + of BGP Path Attribute values can lead to deployment problems for new + technologies. + + The use of these unregistered values was noticed when the BGP Large + Communities attribute [RFC8092] was initially assigned value 30 by + IANA. It was subsequently discovered that a widely deployed BGP-4 + [RFC4271] implementation had released code that used path attribute + 30 and that applied a "Treat-as-withdraw" [RFC7606] strategy to + routes containing a valid Large Community attribute, since it was + expecting a different data structure. Because these routes were + dropped, early adopters of Large Communities were unreachable from + parts of the Internet. As a workaround, a new Early IANA Allocation + was requested. + + The squatting of values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 has been + confirmed by the involved vendors or through source code review. + +2. IANA Considerations + + IANA has marked values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 as "Deprecated" + in the "BGP Path Attributes" subregistry under the "Border Gateway + Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry. The marking "Deprecated" means + "use is not recommended" ([IANA-GUIDELINES]). + +3. Security Considerations + + There are no meaningful security consequences arising from this + registry update. + + + + + + + + + +Snijders Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 8093 Deprecation of Squatted BGP Path Attributes February 2017 + + +4. Informative References + + [IANA-GUIDELINES] + Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for + Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", Work in + Progress, draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-18, September + 2016. + + [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A + Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. + + [RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. + Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", + RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>. + + [RFC8092] Heitz, J., Ed., Snijders, J., Ed., Patel, K., Bagdonas, + I., and N. Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities Attribute", + RFC 8092, DOI 10.17487/RFC8092, February 2017, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8092>. + +Acknowledgements + + The author would like to gratefully acknowledge Marlien Vijfhuizen + who helped discover the squatting of value 30, and Nick Hilliard for + editorial feedback. + +Author's Address + + Job Snijders + NTT Communications + Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 + Amsterdam 1065 SZ + The Netherlands + + Email: job@ntt.net + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Snijders Standards Track [Page 3] + |