February Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

Similar documents
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems D. Tappan Consultant October 2009

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks August 2008

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: July 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track December 2012 ISSN:

Intended status: Standards Track. May 21, Assigned BGP extended communities draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: J. Haas Juniper Networks March 2019

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems. D. Katz Juniper Networks Y. Rekhter. Cisco Systems. February 1998

Intended status: Standards Track March 9, 2015 Expires: September 10, 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. Juniper July 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Google K. Patel Cisco Systems August 2015

Request for Comments: 5498 Category: Standards Track March IANA Allocations for Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Protocols

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. Cisco Systems, Inc. J. Scudder Juniper Networks September 2016

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems May 2007

Network Working Group Request for Comments: August Address-Prefix-Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 5451 March 2012 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: November 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force

Category: Standards Track Inria March Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational ISSN: February 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. Cisco B. Wen Comcast J. Rabadan Nokia June 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. February 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational. May IEEE Information Element for the IETF

Internet Engineering Task Force

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: October 2011

Network Working Group. J. Scudder Cisco Systems, Inc. February 2001

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7189 Category: Standards Track March 2014 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 6811 September 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Opaque Information Distribution

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7213 Category: Standards Track. M. Bocci Alcatel-Lucent June 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Obsoletes: 3107 October 2017 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. R. Asati Cisco January 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. Nokia July 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6522 STD: 73 January 2012 Obsoletes: 3462 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track July 4, 2014 Expires: January 5, 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6368 Category: Standards Track

Updates: 6126 May 2015 Category: Experimental ISSN: Extension Mechanism for the Babel Routing Protocol

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6961 June 2013 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. Enterprise Architects February 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: August 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6441 BCP: 171 November 2011 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 4326 June 2014 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8035 Updates: 5761 November 2016 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Intended status: Standards Track. K. Patel Cisco J. Haas Juniper Networks June 30, 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) June Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server Option for DHCPv6

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: January 2010

Expires: April 19, 2019 October 16, 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Deutsche Telekom January 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) ISSN: April 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: April 2011

Network Working Group. Obsoletes: 3452, 3695 March 2009 Category: Standards Track

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7319 BCP: 191 July 2014 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: March 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7330 Category: Standards Track. Cisco Systems August 2014

Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. Intended status: Informational July 16, 2012 Expires: January 17, 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8191 Category: Standards Track. X. Lee CNNIC. August 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track ISSN: January 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track April 2011 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7537 Updates: 4379, L. Andersson S. Aldrin Huawei Technologies May 2015

Request for Comments: January 2007

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track ISSN: S. Previdi. Cisco Systems

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. G. Zorn, Ed. Network Zen D. Miles Google B. Lourdelet Juniper Networks April 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. S. Aldrin Google, Inc. L. Ginsberg Cisco Systems November 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: March 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7078 Category: Standards Track. University of Southampton January 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track ISSN: Huawei J. Tantsura Apstra, Inc. C. Filsfils. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) October This document establishes an IETF URN Sub-namespace for use with OAuth-related specifications.

C. Martin ipath Services February A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7999 Category: Informational. NTT G. Doering SpaceNet AG G. Hankins Nokia October 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 5904 Category: Informational June 2010 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: July 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6034 Category: Standards Track October 2010 ISSN:

Network Working Group. Category: Experimental April 2009

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. Cisco May 2012

Network Working Group. Intended status: Standards Track. S. Zandi LinkedIn J. Haas Juniper Networks, Inc X. Xu Huawei June 30, 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7125 Category: Informational. February 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5679 Category: Standards Track December Locating IEEE Mobility Services Using DNS

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

Network Working Group. Category: Informational June Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)

Category: Standards Track December 2007

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track May 2011 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Nokia P. Pillay-Esnault Huawei USA January 2019

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 5725 Category: Standards Track ISSN: February 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. July 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8050 Category: Standards Track ISSN: May 2017

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track February 2009

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7660 Category: Standards Track. October 2015

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 2519 Category: Informational Juniper February A Framework for Inter-Domain Route Aggregation

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6028 Category: Experimental ISSN: October 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6309

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6440 Category: Standards Track. Huawei December 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: March 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 6376 January 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Experimental February 2014 ISSN:

Prefer Header for HTTP

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track ISSN: February 2016

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5509 Category: Standards Track April 2009

Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Request for Comments: 6255 Category: Informational May 2011 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track ISSN: September 2015

Transcription:

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5492 Obsoletes: 3392 Category: Standards Track J. Scudder Juniper Networks R. Chandra Sonoa Systems February 2009 Status of This Memo Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 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. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Abstract This document defines an Optional Parameter, called Capabilities, that is expected to facilitate the introduction of new capabilities in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) by providing graceful capability advertisement without requiring that BGP peering be terminated. This document obsoletes RFC 3392. Scudder & Chandra Standards Track [Page 1]

1. Introduction The base BGP-4 specification [RFC4271] requires that when a BGP speaker receives an OPEN message with one or more unrecognized Optional Parameters, the speaker must terminate the BGP peering. This complicates the introduction of new capabilities in BGP. This specification defines an Optional Parameter and processing rules that allow BGP speakers to communicate capabilities in an OPEN message. A pair of BGP speakers that supports this specification can establish the peering even when presented with unrecognized capabilities, so long as all capabilities required to support the peering are supported. 2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 3. Overview of Operations When a BGP speaker [RFC4271] that supports capabilities advertisement sends an OPEN message to its BGP peer, the message MAY include an Optional Parameter, called Capabilities. The parameter lists the capabilities supported by the speaker. A BGP speaker determines the capabilities supported by its peer by examining the list of capabilities present in the Capabilities Optional Parameter carried by the OPEN message that the speaker receives from the peer. A BGP speaker that supports a particular capability may use this capability with its peer after the speaker determines (as described above) that the peer supports this capability. Simply put, a given capability can be used on a peering if that capability has been advertised by both peers. If either peer has not advertised it, the capability cannot be used. A BGP speaker determines that its peer doesn t support capabilities advertisement if, in response to an OPEN message that carries the Capabilities Optional Parameter, the speaker receives a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Subcode set to Unsupported Optional Parameter. (This is a consequence of the base BGP-4 specification [RFC4271] and not a new requirement.) In this case, the speaker SHOULD attempt to re-establish a BGP connection with the peer without sending to the peer the Capabilities Optional Parameter. Scudder & Chandra Standards Track [Page 2]

If a BGP speaker that supports a certain capability determines that its peer doesn t support this capability, the speaker MAY send a NOTIFICATION message to the peer and terminate peering (see Section "Extensions to Error Handling" for more details). For example, a BGP speaker may need to terminate peering if it established peering to exchange IPv6 routes and determines that its peer does not support Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 [RFC4760]. The Error Subcode in the NOTIFICATION message is then set to Unsupported Capability. The message MUST contain the capability or capabilities that cause the speaker to send the message. The decision to send the message and terminate the peering is local to the speaker. If terminated, such peering SHOULD NOT be re-established automatically. If a BGP speaker receives from its peer a capability that it does not itself support or recognize, it MUST ignore that capability. In particular, the Unsupported Capability NOTIFICATION message MUST NOT be generated and the BGP session MUST NOT be terminated in response to reception of a capability that is not supported by the local speaker. 4. Capabilities Optional Parameter (Parameter Type 2): This is an Optional Parameter that is used by a BGP speaker to convey to its BGP peer the list of capabilities supported by the speaker. The encoding of BGP Optional Parameters is specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC4271]. The parameter type of the Capabilities Optional Parameter is 2. The parameter contains one or more triples <Capability Code, Capability Length, Capability Value>, where each triple is encoded as shown below: Capability Code (1 octet) Capability Length (1 octet) Capability Value (variable) The use and meaning of these fields are as follows: Capability Code: Capability Code is a one-octet unsigned binary integer that unambiguously identifies individual capabilities. Scudder & Chandra Standards Track [Page 3]

Capability Length: Capability Length is a one-octet unsigned binary integer that contains the length of the Capability Value field in octets. Capability Value: Capability Value is a variable-length field that is interpreted according to the value of the Capability Code field. BGP speakers SHOULD NOT include more than one instance of a capability with the same Capability Code, Capability Length, and Capability Value. Note, however, that processing of multiple instances of such capability does not require special handling, as additional instances do not change the meaning of the announced capability; thus, a BGP speaker MUST be prepared to accept such multiple instances. BGP speakers MAY include more than one instance of a capability (as identified by the Capability Code) with non-zero Capability Length field, but with different Capability Value and either the same or different Capability Length. Processing of these capability instances is specific to the Capability Code and MUST be described in the document introducing the new capability. The Capabilities Optional Parameter (OPEN Optional Parameter Type 2) SHOULD only be included in the OPEN message once. If the BGP speaker wishes to include multiple capabilities in the OPEN message, it SHOULD do so as discussed above -- by listing all those capabilities as TLVs within a single Capabilities Optional Parameter. However, for backward compatibility, a BGP speaker MUST be prepared to receive an OPEN message that contains multiple Capabilities Optional Parameters, each of which contains one or more capabilities TLVs. The set of capabilities should be processed in the same way in either case, whether it is enumerated within a single Capabilities Optional Parameter of the OPEN message or split across multiple Capabilities Optional Parameters. 5. Extensions to Error Handling This document defines a new Error Subcode, Unsupported Capability. The value of this Subcode is 7. The Data field in the NOTIFICATION message MUST list the set of capabilities that causes the speaker to send the message. Each such capability is encoded in the same way as it would be encoded in the OPEN message. Scudder & Chandra Standards Track [Page 4]

As explained in the "Overview of Operations" section, the Unsupported Capability NOTIFICATION is a way for a BGP speaker to complain that its peer does not support a required capability without which the peering cannot proceed. It MUST NOT be used when a BGP speaker receives a capability that it does not understand; such capabilities MUST be ignored. 6. IANA Considerations This document defines a Capability Optional Parameter along with a Capability Code field. IANA maintains the registry for Capability Code values. Capability Code value 0 is reserved. Capability Code values 1 through 63 are to be assigned by IANA using the "IETF Review" policy defined in [RFC5226]. Capability Code values 64 through 127 are to be assigned by IANA using the "First Come First Served" policy defined in [RFC5226]. Capability Code values 128 through 255 are for "Private Use" as defined in [RFC5226]. IANA created and maintains a registry for OPEN message Optional Parameters called "BGP OPEN Optional Parameter Types". Optional Parameters are identified by the Parameter Type, which is a one-octet unsigned integer. Values (0 reserved, 1-255) are to be allocated according to the "IETF Review" policy as defined in [RFC5226]. The registry has been populated with the two Parameter Type codes that are currently defined: o Parameter Type 1: Authentication (deprecated) [RFC4271] [RFC5492] o Parameter Type 2: Capabilities [RFC5492] 7. Security Considerations This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues inherent in the existing BGP [RFC4272]. 8. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank members of the IDR Working Group and the IESG and its Directorates for their review and comments. Scudder & Chandra Standards Track [Page 5]

9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. 9.2. Informative References [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC 4272, January 2006. [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January 2007. Scudder & Chandra Standards Track [Page 6]

Appendix A. Comparison between RFC 2842 and RFC 3392 In addition to several minor editorial changes, RFC 3392 also clarified how to handle multiple instances of the same capability. Appendix B. Comparison between RFC 3392 and This Document This document makes minor editorial changes and updated references, clarifies the use of the Unsupported Optional Parameter NOTIFICATION message, clarifies behavior when the Capabilities Parameter is included in the OPEN message multiple times, and clarifies requirements by changing a number of SHOULDs to MUSTs. Authors Addresses John G. Scudder Juniper Networks EMail: jgs@juniper.net Ravi Chandra Sonoa Systems EMail: rchandra@sonoasystems.com Scudder & Chandra Standards Track [Page 7]