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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6769 Category: Informational. A. Lo Arista L. Zhang UCLA X. Xu Huawei October 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: Informational. D. Ward Cisco Systems August 2014

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) BCP: 185 January 2014 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational March 2016 ISSN:

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. K. Patel Cisco Systems M. Baer SPARTA May 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Deutsche Telekom January 2015

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

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

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

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7725 Category: Standards Track February 2016 ISSN:

Internet Exchange BGP Route Server. Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. March 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8142 Category: Standards Track April 2017 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: T. Bruijnzeels NLnet Labs August 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Best Current Practice. Cisco Systems July IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding

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

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

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: Category: Standards Track ISSN: July 2014

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

DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes

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

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Best Current Practice. NTT N. Hilliard INEX March 2018

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Cisco C. Perkins Futurewei Inc. October Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6

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

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

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: March 2018

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Cisco Systems, Inc. April 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8069 Category: Informational February 2017 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7973 Category: Informational ISSN: November 2016

Clarifications for When to Use the name-addr Production in SIP Messages

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

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

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

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

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) May 2011

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

Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to Historic Status.

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

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

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

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. S. Hegde Juniper Networks, Inc. S. Litkowski B. Decraene Orange July 2016

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Alcatel-Lucent January 2016

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

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Obsoletes: 6485 Category: Standards Track August 2016 ISSN:

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: T. Chown University of Southampton M. Eubanks Iformata Communications August 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: AT&T N. Leymann Deutsche Telekom February 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8186 Category: Standards Track. June 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Informational. R. White. D. McPherson Verisign, Inc.

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

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6379 Obsoletes: 4869 Category: Informational October 2011 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8441 Updates: 6455 September 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 5736 Category: Informational. ICANN January 2010

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. J. Halpern Ericsson E. Levy-Abegnoli, Ed. Cisco February 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7809 Updates: 4791 March 2016 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 5280 May 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

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

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

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

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Best Current Practice May 2015 ISSN:

TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade Attacks

Transcription:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7607 Updates: 4271 Category: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721 W. Kumari R. Bush Internet Initiative Japan H. Schiller K. Patel Cisco Systems August 2015 Codification of AS 0 Processing Abstract This document updates RFC 4271 and proscribes the use of Autonomous System (AS) 0 in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) OPEN, AS_PATH, AS4_PATH, AGGREGATOR, and AS4_AGGREGATOR attributes in the BGP UPDATE message. 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 5741. 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/rfc7607. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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. Kumari, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]

Table of Contents 1. Introduction........................ 2 1.1. Requirements Notation.................. 2 2. Behavior.......................... 3 3. IANA Considerations..................... 3 4. Security Considerations................... 3 5. References......................... 4 5.1. Normative References.................. 4 5.2. Informative References................. 4 Acknowledgements........................ 4 Authors Addresses....................... 5 1. Introduction Autonomous System 0 was listed in the IANA Autonomous System Number Registry as "Reserved - May be use [sic] to identify non-routed networks" ([IANA.AS_Numbers]). [RFC6491] specifies that AS 0 in a Route Origin Attestation (ROA) is used to mark a prefix and all its more specific prefixes as not to be used in a routing context. This allows a resource holder to signal that a prefix (and the more specifics) should not be routed by publishing a ROA listing AS 0 as the only origin. To respond to this signal requires that BGP implementations not accept or propagate routes containing AS 0. No clear statement that AS 0 was proscribed could be found in any BGP specification. This document corrects this omission, most importantly in the case of the AS_PATH. This represents an update to the error handling procedures given in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of [RFC4271] by specifying the behavior in the presence of AS 0. At least two implementations discard routes containing AS 0, and this document codifies this behavior. 1.1. Requirements Notation 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 [RFC2119]. Kumari, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]

2. Behavior A BGP speaker MUST NOT originate or propagate a route with an AS number of zero in the AS_PATH, AS4_PATH, AGGREGATOR, or AS4_AGGREGATOR attributes. An UPDATE message that contains the AS number of zero in the AS_PATH or AGGREGATOR attribute MUST be considered as malformed and be handled by the procedures specified in [RFC7606]. An UPDATE message that contains the AS number of zero in the AS4_PATH or AS4_AGGREGATOR attribute MUST be considered as malformed and be handled by the procedures specified in [RFC6793]. If a BGP speaker receives zero as the peer AS in an OPEN message, it MUST abort the connection and send a NOTIFICATION with Error Code "OPEN Message Error" and subcode "Bad Peer AS" (see Section 6 of [RFC4271]). A router MUST NOT initiate a connection claiming to be AS 0. Authors of future protocol extensions that carry the Autonomous System number are encouraged to keep in mind that AS 0 is reserved and to provide clear direction on how to handle AS 0. 3. IANA Considerations The IANA has updated the registry for "16-bit Autonomous System Numbers" so that the entry for AS 0 is simply "Reserved". 4. Security Considerations By allowing a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) resource holder to issue a ROA saying that AS 0 is the only valid origin for a route, we allow them to state that a particular address resource is not in use. By ensuring that all implementations that see AS 0 in a route ignore that route, we prevent a malicious party from announcing routes containing AS 0 in an attempt to hijack those resources. In addition, by standardizing the behavior upon reception of an AS_PATH (or AS4_PATH) containing AS 0, this document makes the behavior better defined. Kumari, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]

5. References 5.1. Normative References [IANA.AS_Numbers] IANA, "Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [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>. [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>. [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, July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>. 5.2. Informative References [RFC6491] Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA", RFC 6491, DOI 10.17487/RFC6491, February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6491>. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Elwyn Davies, Enke Chen, Brian Dickson, Bruno Decraene, Robert Raszuk, Jakob Heitz, Danny McPherson, Chris Morrow, ilya, John Scudder, Jeff Tantsura, Daniel Ginsburg, and Susan Hares. Apologies to those we may have missed; it was not intentional. Kumari, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]

Authors Addresses Warren Kumari 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 Email: warren@kumari.net Randy Bush Internet Initiative Japan 5147 Crystal Springs Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Email: randy@psg.com Heather Schiller 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 Email: has@google.com Keyur Patel Cisco Systems 170 W. Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 Email: keyupate@cisco.com Kumari, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]