BGP
BGP (Border Gateway Protocol): protocol, policy, operations
Within this page
BGP subjects:
- BGP communities12 RFCs
- BGP flowspec7 RFCs
- BMP6 RFCs
- route reflection4 RFCs
- route server3 RFCs
BGP RFCs (239)
RFC 10039: Interconnecting EVPN and IPVPN Domains
Proposed Standard- J. Rabadan
- A. Sajassi
- J. Drake
- W. Lin
- J. Uttaro
- A. Simpson
- September 2026
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) provides a unified BGP control plane for both intra- and inter-subnet forwarding within tenant networks. When a tenant network spans multiple domains, including any combination of EVPN and IPVPN domains, it becomes necessary to define the interworking mechanisms among these BGP domains (EVPN and IPVPN) to ensure seamless end-to-end tenant connectivity. This document defines these interworking procedures.
In addition, this document defines a new BGP Path Attribute, referred to as Domain Path (D-PATH), which provides loop prevention for gateway nodes by protecting against control plane loops. The introduction of D-PATH modifies the BGP best-path selection process for Multiprotocol BGP inter-subnet forwarding (ISF) routes of Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFIs) 128 (IPVPN) and 70 (EVPN).
Abstract
Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) provides a unified BGP control plane for both intra- and inter-subnet forwarding within tenant networks. When a tenant network spans multiple domains, including any combination of EVPN and IPVPN domains, it becomes necessary to define the interworking mechanisms among these BGP domains (EVPN and IPVPN) to ensure seamless end-to-end tenant connectivity. This document defines these interworking procedures.
In addition, this document defines a new BGP Path Attribute, referred to as Domain Path (D-PATH), which provides loop prevention for gateway nodes by protecting against control plane loops. The introduction of D-PATH modifies the BGP best-path selection process for Multiprotocol BGP inter-subnet forwarding (ISF) routes of Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFIs) 128 (IPVPN) and 70 (EVPN).
RFC 10005: BGP Link Bandwidth Extended Community
Proposed Standard- P. Mohapatra
- R. Das
- S. Mohanty
- S. Krier
- R.J. Szarecki
- A. Gattani
- June 2026
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a BGP extended community, the Link Bandwidth Extended Community, which carries bandwidth information to enable weighted load-balancing in multipath scenarios. It specifies the format and processing rules for this extended community type.
Abstract
This document defines a BGP extended community, the Link Bandwidth Extended Community, which carries bandwidth information to enable weighted load-balancing in multipath scenarios. It specifies the format and processing rules for this extended community type.
RFC 9871: BGP Color-Aware Routing (CAR)
Experimental- D. Rao
- S. Agrawal
- November 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a BGP-based routing solution to establish end-to-end intent-aware paths across a multi-domain transport network. The transport network can span multiple service provider and customer network domains. The BGP intent-aware paths can be used to steer traffic flows for service routes that need a specific intent. This solution is called BGP Color-Aware Routing (BGP CAR).
This document describes the routing framework and BGP extensions to enable intent-aware routing using the BGP CAR solution. The solution defines two new BGP SAFIs (BGP CAR SAFI and BGP VPN CAR SAFI) for IPv4 and IPv6. It also defines an extensible Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) model for both SAFIs that allows multiple NLRI types to be defined for different use cases. Each type of NLRI contains key and TLV-based non-key fields for efficient encoding of different per-prefix information. This specification defines two NLRI types: Color-Aware Route NLRI and IP Prefix NLRI. It defines non-key TLV types for the MPLS label stack, SR-MPLS label index, and Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Segment Identifiers (SIDs). This solution also defines a new Local Color Mapping (LCM) Extended Community.
Abstract
This document describes a BGP-based routing solution to establish end-to-end intent-aware paths across a multi-domain transport network. The transport network can span multiple service provider and customer network domains. The BGP intent-aware paths can be used to steer traffic flows for service routes that need a specific intent. This solution is called BGP Color-Aware Routing (BGP CAR).
This document describes the routing framework and BGP extensions to enable intent-aware routing using the BGP CAR solution. The solution defines two new BGP SAFIs (BGP CAR SAFI and BGP VPN CAR SAFI) for IPv4 and IPv6. It also defines an extensible Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) model for both SAFIs that allows multiple NLRI types to be defined for different use cases. Each type of NLRI contains key and TLV-based non-key fields for efficient encoding of different per-prefix information. This specification defines two NLRI types: Color-Aware Route NLRI and IP Prefix NLRI. It defines non-key TLV types for the MPLS label stack, SR-MPLS label index, and Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Segment Identifiers (SIDs). This solution also defines a new Local Color Mapping (LCM) Extended Community.
RFC 9857: Advertisement of Segment Routing Policies Using BGP - Link State
Proposed Standard- S. Previdi
- K. Talaulikar
- J. Dong
- H. Gredler
- J. Tantsura
- October 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism used to collect Segment Routing (SR) Policy information that is locally available in a node and advertise it into BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) updates. Such information can be used by external components for path computation, reoptimization, service placement, network visualization, etc.
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism used to collect Segment Routing (SR) Policy information that is locally available in a node and advertise it into BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) updates. Such information can be used by external components for path computation, reoptimization, service placement, network visualization, etc.
RFC 9830: Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP
Proposed Standard- S. Previdi
- C. Filsfils
- K. Talaulikar
- P. Mattes
- D. Jain
- September 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of segments (also referred to as "instructions") that define a source-routed policy. An SR Policy consists of one or more Candidate Paths (CPs), each comprising one or more segment lists. A headend can be provisioned with these CPs using various mechanisms such as Command-Line Interface (CLI), Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP), or BGP.
This document specifies how BGP can be used to distribute SR Policy CPs. It introduces a BGP SAFI for advertising a CP of an SR Policy and defines sub-TLVs for the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute to signal information related to these CPs.
Furthermore, this document updates RFC 9012 by extending the Color Extended Community to support additional steering modes over SR Policy.
Abstract
A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of segments (also referred to as "instructions") that define a source-routed policy. An SR Policy consists of one or more Candidate Paths (CPs), each comprising one or more segment lists. A headend can be provisioned with these CPs using various mechanisms such as Command-Line Interface (CLI), Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP), or BGP.
This document specifies how BGP can be used to distribute SR Policy CPs. It introduces a BGP SAFI for advertising a CP of an SR Policy and defines sub-TLVs for the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute to signal information related to these CPs.
Furthermore, this document updates RFC 9012 by extending the Color Extended Community to support additional steering modes over SR Policy.
RFC 9831: Segment Type Extensions for BGP Segment Routing (SR) Policy
Experimental- K. Talaulikar
- C. Filsfils
- S. Previdi
- P. Mattes
- D. Jain
- September 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the signaling of additional Segment Routing (SR) Segment Types for SR Policies in BGP using the SR Policy Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI).
Abstract
This document specifies the signaling of additional Segment Routing (SR) Segment Types for SR Policies in BGP using the SR Policy Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI).
RFC 9832: BGP Classful Transport Planes
Experimental- K. Vairavakkalai
- N. Venkataraman
- September 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies a mechanism referred to as "Intent-Driven Service Mapping". The mechanism uses BGP to express Intent-based association of overlay routes with underlay routes having specific Traffic Engineering (TE) characteristics satisfying a certain Service Level Agreement (SLA). This is achieved by defining new constructs to group underlay routes with sufficiently similar TE characteristics into identifiable classes (called "Transport Classes" or "TCs"), that overlay routes use as an ordered set to resolve reachability (Resolution Schemes) towards service endpoints. These constructs can be used, for example, to realize the "IETF Network Slice" defined in the TEAS Network Slices framework (RFC 9543).
Additionally, this document specifies protocol procedures for BGP that enable dissemination of service mapping information in a network that may span multiple cooperating administrative domains. These domains may be administered either by the same provider or by closely coordinating providers. A new BGP address family that leverages the procedures described in RFC 4364 ("BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)") and follows the NLRI encoding described in RFC 8277 ("Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes") is defined to enable each advertised underlay route to be identified by its class. This new address family is called "BGP Classful Transport" (or "BGP CT").
Abstract
This document specifies a mechanism referred to as "Intent-Driven Service Mapping". The mechanism uses BGP to express Intent-based association of overlay routes with underlay routes having specific Traffic Engineering (TE) characteristics satisfying a certain Service Level Agreement (SLA). This is achieved by defining new constructs to group underlay routes with sufficiently similar TE characteristics into identifiable classes (called "Transport Classes" or "TCs"), that overlay routes use as an ordered set to resolve reachability (Resolution Schemes) towards service endpoints. These constructs can be used, for example, to realize the "IETF Network Slice" defined in the TEAS Network Slices framework (RFC 9543).
Additionally, this document specifies protocol procedures for BGP that enable dissemination of service mapping information in a network that may span multiple cooperating administrative domains. These domains may be administered either by the same provider or by closely coordinating providers. A new BGP address family that leverages the procedures described in RFC 4364 ("BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)") and follows the NLRI encoding described in RFC 8277 ("Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes") is defined to enable each advertised underlay route to be identified by its class. This new address family is called "BGP Classful Transport" (or "BGP CT").
RFC 9815: BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing
Proposed Standard- K. Patel
- A. Lindem
- S. Zandi
- W. Henderickx
- July 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on simplified Layer 3 (L3) routing. Furthermore, requirements for operational simplicity have led many of these MSDCs to converge on BGP as their single routing protocol for both fabric routing and Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing. This document describes extensions to BGP for use with BGP Link State (BGP-LS) distribution and the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm. In doing this, it allows BGP to be efficiently used as both the underlay protocol and the overlay protocol in MSDCs.
Abstract
Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on simplified Layer 3 (L3) routing. Furthermore, requirements for operational simplicity have led many of these MSDCs to converge on BGP as their single routing protocol for both fabric routing and Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing. This document describes extensions to BGP for use with BGP Link State (BGP-LS) distribution and the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm. In doing this, it allows BGP to be efficiently used as both the underlay protocol and the overlay protocol in MSDCs.
RFC 9816: Usage and Applicability of BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing in Data Centers
Informational- K. Patel
- A. Lindem
- S. Zandi
- G. Dawra
- J. Dong
- July 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) extensions in data center networks utilizing Clos or Fat Tree topologies. The document is intended to provide simplified guidance for the deployment of BGP-LS SPF extensions.
Abstract
This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) extensions in data center networks utilizing Clos or Fat Tree topologies. The document is intended to provide simplified guidance for the deployment of BGP-LS SPF extensions.
RFC 9819: Argument Signaling for BGP Services in Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
Proposed Standard- K. Talaulikar
- K. Raza
- J. Rabadan
- W. Lin
- July 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFC 9252 defines procedures and messages for BGP overlay services for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6), including Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN), Ethernet VPN (EVPN), and global Internet routing. This document updates RFC 9252 and provides more detailed specifications for the signaling and processing of SRv6 Segment Identifier advertisements for BGP overlay service routes associated with SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors that support arguments.
Abstract
RFC 9252 defines procedures and messages for BGP overlay services for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6), including Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN), Ethernet VPN (EVPN), and global Internet routing. This document updates RFC 9252 and provides more detailed specifications for the signaling and processing of SRv6 Segment Identifier advertisements for BGP overlay service routes associated with SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors that support arguments.
RFC 9829: Handling of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Number Extensions
Proposed Standard- J. Snijders
- B. Maddison
- T. Buehler
- July 2025
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document revises how the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) handles Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Number extensions. This document updates RFC 6487.
Abstract
This document revises how the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) handles Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Number extensions. This document updates RFC 6487.
RFC 9793: BGP Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
Proposed Standard- X. Xu
- M. Chen
- K. Patel
- IJ. Wijnands
- T. Przygienda
- Z. Zhang
- June 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is a multicast forwarding architecture that doesn't require an explicit tree-building protocol and doesn't require intermediate routers to maintain per-tree multicast states. Some BIER-specific information and states, which are only in proportion to the number of BIER routers but not per-tree, do need to be advertised, calculated, and maintained. This document describes BGP extensions for advertising the BIER information and methods for calculating BIER states based on the advertisements.
Abstract
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is a multicast forwarding architecture that doesn't require an explicit tree-building protocol and doesn't require intermediate routers to maintain per-tree multicast states. Some BIER-specific information and states, which are only in proportion to the number of BIER routers but not per-tree, do need to be advertised, calculated, and maintained. This document describes BGP extensions for advertising the BIER information and methods for calculating BIER states based on the advertisements.
RFC 9723: BGP Colored Prefix Routing (CPR) for Services Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
Informational- H. Wang
- J. Dong
- K. Talaulikar
- T. Han
- R. Chen
- May 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to advertise IPv6 prefixes in BGP that are associated with Color Extended Communities to establish end-to-end intent-aware paths for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) services. Such IPv6 prefixes are called "Colored Prefixes", and this mechanism is called "Colored Prefix Routing" (CPR). In SRv6 networks, the Colored Prefixes are the SRv6 locators associated with different intents. SRv6 services (e.g., SRv6 VPN services) with a specific intent could be assigned with SRv6 Segment Identifiers (SIDs) under the corresponding SRv6 locators, which are advertised as Colored Prefixes.
This operational methodology allows the SRv6 service traffic to be steered into end-to-end intent-aware paths based on the longest prefix matching of SRv6 Service SIDs to the Colored Prefixes. The existing IPv6 Address Family and Color Extended Community are reused to advertise IPv6 Colored Prefixes without new BGP extensions; thus, this mechanism is easy to interoperate and can be deployed incrementally in multi-Autonomous System (AS) networks that belong to the same trusted domain.
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to advertise IPv6 prefixes in BGP that are associated with Color Extended Communities to establish end-to-end intent-aware paths for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) services. Such IPv6 prefixes are called "Colored Prefixes", and this mechanism is called "Colored Prefix Routing" (CPR). In SRv6 networks, the Colored Prefixes are the SRv6 locators associated with different intents. SRv6 services (e.g., SRv6 VPN services) with a specific intent could be assigned with SRv6 Segment Identifiers (SIDs) under the corresponding SRv6 locators, which are advertised as Colored Prefixes.
This operational methodology allows the SRv6 service traffic to be steered into end-to-end intent-aware paths based on the longest prefix matching of SRv6 Service SIDs to the Colored Prefixes. The existing IPv6 Address Family and Color Extended Community are reused to advertise IPv6 Colored Prefixes without new BGP extensions; thus, this mechanism is easy to interoperate and can be deployed incrementally in multi-Autonomous System (AS) networks that belong to the same trusted domain.
RFC 9774: Deprecation of AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP
Proposed Standard- W. Kumari
- K. Sriram
- L. Hannachi
- J. Haas
- May 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
BCP 172 (i.e., RFC 6472) recommends not using AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET AS_PATH segment types in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). This document advances that recommendation to a standards requirement in BGP; it prohibits the use of the AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET path segment types in the AS_PATH. This is done to simplify the design and implementation of BGP and to make the semantics of the originator of a BGP route clearer. This will also simplify the design, implementation, and deployment of various BGP security mechanisms. This document updates RFC 4271 by deprecating the origination of BGP routes with AS_SET (Type 1 AS_PATH segment) and updates RFC 5065 by deprecating the origination of BGP routes with AS_CONFED_SET (Type 4 AS_PATH segment). Finally, it obsoletes RFC 6472.
Abstract
BCP 172 (i.e., RFC 6472) recommends not using AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET AS_PATH segment types in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). This document advances that recommendation to a standards requirement in BGP; it prohibits the use of the AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET path segment types in the AS_PATH. This is done to simplify the design and implementation of BGP and to make the semantics of the originator of a BGP route clearer. This will also simplify the design, implementation, and deployment of various BGP security mechanisms. This document updates RFC 4271 by deprecating the origination of BGP routes with AS_SET (Type 1 AS_PATH segment) and updates RFC 5065 by deprecating the origination of BGP routes with AS_CONFED_SET (Type 4 AS_PATH segment). Finally, it obsoletes RFC 6472.
RFC 9746: BGP EVPN Multihoming Extensions for Split-Horizon Filtering
Proposed Standard- J. Rabadan
- K. Nagaraj
- W. Lin
- A. Sajassi
- March 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
An Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) is commonly used with Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) tunnels as well as with MPLS and Segment Routing (SR) tunnels. The multihoming procedures in EVPN may vary based on the type of tunnel used within the EVPN Broadcast Domain. Specifically, there are two multihoming split-horizon procedures designed to prevent looped frames on multihomed Customer Edge (CE) devices: the Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) Label-based procedure and the local-bias procedure. The ESI Label-based split-horizon procedure is applied to MPLS-based tunnels such as MPLS over UDP (MPLSoUDP), while the local-bias procedure is used for other tunnels such as Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) tunnels.
Current specifications do not allow operators to choose which split-horizon procedure to use for tunnel encapsulations that support both methods. Examples of tunnels that may support both procedures include MPLSoUDP, MPLS over GRE (MPLSoGRE), Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve), and Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) tunnels. This document updates the EVPN multihoming procedures described in RFCs 7432 and 8365, enabling operators to select the split-horizon procedure that meets their specific requirements.
Abstract
An Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) is commonly used with Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) tunnels as well as with MPLS and Segment Routing (SR) tunnels. The multihoming procedures in EVPN may vary based on the type of tunnel used within the EVPN Broadcast Domain. Specifically, there are two multihoming split-horizon procedures designed to prevent looped frames on multihomed Customer Edge (CE) devices: the Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) Label-based procedure and the local-bias procedure. The ESI Label-based split-horizon procedure is applied to MPLS-based tunnels such as MPLS over UDP (MPLSoUDP), while the local-bias procedure is used for other tunnels such as Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) tunnels.
Current specifications do not allow operators to choose which split-horizon procedure to use for tunnel encapsulations that support both methods. Examples of tunnels that may support both procedures include MPLSoUDP, MPLS over GRE (MPLSoGRE), Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve), and Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) tunnels. This document updates the EVPN multihoming procedures described in RFCs 7432 and 8365, enabling operators to select the split-horizon procedure that meets their specific requirements.
RFC 9716: Mechanisms for MPLS Ping and Traceroute Procedures in Inter-Domain Segment Routing Networks
Proposed Standard- S. Hegde
- K. Arora
- M. Srivastava
- S. Ninan
- N. Kumar
- February 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages source routing and can be directly applied to the use of an MPLS data plane. A Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) network may consist of multiple IGP domains or multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes) under the control of the same organization. It is useful to have the Label Switched Path (LSP) ping and traceroute procedures when an SR end-to-end path traverses multiple ASes or IGP domains. This document outlines mechanisms to enable efficient LSP ping and traceroute procedures in inter-AS and inter-domain SR-MPLS networks. This is achieved through a straightforward extension to the Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocol, relying solely on data plane forwarding for handling echo replies on transit nodes.
Abstract
The Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages source routing and can be directly applied to the use of an MPLS data plane. A Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) network may consist of multiple IGP domains or multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes) under the control of the same organization. It is useful to have the Label Switched Path (LSP) ping and traceroute procedures when an SR end-to-end path traverses multiple ASes or IGP domains. This document outlines mechanisms to enable efficient LSP ping and traceroute procedures in inter-AS and inter-domain SR-MPLS networks. This is achieved through a straightforward extension to the Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocol, relying solely on data plane forwarding for handling echo replies on transit nodes.
RFC 9703: Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Plane
Proposed Standard- S. Hegde
- M. Srivastava
- K. Arora
- S. Ninan
- X. Xu
- December 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) is an application of Segment Routing (SR) that solves the problem of egress peer selection. The SR-based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized controller, e.g., a Software-Defined Network (SDN) controller, to program any egress peer. The EPE solution requires the node or the SDN controller to program 1) the PeerNode Segment Identifier (SID) describing a session between two nodes, 2) the PeerAdj SID describing the link or links that are used by the sessions between peer nodes, and 3) the PeerSet SID describing any connected interface to any peer in the related group. This document provides new sub-TLVs for EPE-SIDs that are used in the Target FEC Stack TLV (Type 1) in MPLS Ping and Traceroute procedures.
Abstract
Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) is an application of Segment Routing (SR) that solves the problem of egress peer selection. The SR-based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized controller, e.g., a Software-Defined Network (SDN) controller, to program any egress peer. The EPE solution requires the node or the SDN controller to program 1) the PeerNode Segment Identifier (SID) describing a session between two nodes, 2) the PeerAdj SID describing the link or links that are used by the sessions between peer nodes, and 3) the PeerSet SID describing any connected interface to any peer in the related group. This document provides new sub-TLVs for EPE-SIDs that are used in the Target FEC Stack TLV (Type 1) in MPLS Ping and Traceroute procedures.
RFC 9687: Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) Send Hold Timer
Proposed Standard- J. Snijders
- B. Cartwright-Cox
- Y. Qu
- November 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines the SendHoldTimer, along with the SendHoldTimer_Expires event, for the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Finite State Machine (FSM). Implementation of the SendHoldTimer helps overcome situations where a BGP connection is not terminated after the local system detects that the remote system is not processing BGP messages. This document specifies that the local system should close the BGP connection and not solely rely on the remote system for connection closure when the SendHoldTimer expires. This document updates RFC 4271.
Abstract
This document defines the SendHoldTimer, along with the SendHoldTimer_Expires event, for the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Finite State Machine (FSM). Implementation of the SendHoldTimer helps overcome situations where a BGP connection is not terminated after the local system detects that the remote system is not processing BGP messages. This document specifies that the local system should close the BGP connection and not solely rely on the remote system for connection closure when the SendHoldTimer expires. This document updates RFC 4271.
RFC 9582: A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)
Proposed Standard- J. Snijders
- B. Maddison
- M. Lepinski
- D. Kong
- S. Kent
- May 2024
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document defines a standard profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs). A ROA is a digitally signed object that provides a means of verifying that an IP address block holder has authorized an Autonomous System (AS) to originate routes to one or more prefixes within the address block. This document obsoletes RFC 6482.
Abstract
This document defines a standard profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs). A ROA is a digitally signed object that provides a means of verifying that an IP address block holder has authorized an Autonomous System (AS) to originate routes to one or more prefixes within the address block. This document obsoletes RFC 6482.
RFC 9552: Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP
Proposed Standard- K. Talaulikar
- December 2023
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
In many environments, a component external to a network is called upon to perform computations based on the network topology and the current state of the connections within the network, including Traffic Engineering (TE) information. This is information typically distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network.
This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE information can be collected from networks and shared with external components using the BGP routing protocol. This is achieved using a BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding format. The mechanism applies to physical and virtual (e.g., tunnel) IGP links. The mechanism described is subject to policy control.
Applications of this technique include Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) servers and Path Computation Elements (PCEs).
This document obsoletes RFC 7752 by completely replacing that document. It makes some small changes and clarifications to the previous specification. This document also obsoletes RFC 9029 by incorporating the updates that it made to RFC 7752.
Abstract
In many environments, a component external to a network is called upon to perform computations based on the network topology and the current state of the connections within the network, including Traffic Engineering (TE) information. This is information typically distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network.
This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE information can be collected from networks and shared with external components using the BGP routing protocol. This is achieved using a BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding format. The mechanism applies to physical and virtual (e.g., tunnel) IGP links. The mechanism described is subject to policy control.
Applications of this technique include Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) servers and Path Computation Elements (PCEs).
This document obsoletes RFC 7752 by completely replacing that document. It makes some small changes and clarifications to the previous specification. This document also obsoletes RFC 9029 by incorporating the updates that it made to RFC 7752.
RFC 9514: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
Proposed Standard- G. Dawra
- C. Filsfils
- K. Talaulikar
- M. Chen
- D. Bernier
- B. Decraene
- December 2023
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths called "segments". These segments are advertised by various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS, and OSPFv3.
This document defines extensions to BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) to advertise SRv6 segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. The BGP-LS address-family solution for SRv6 described in this document is similar to BGP-LS for SR for the MPLS data plane, which is defined in RFC 9085.
Abstract
Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths called "segments". These segments are advertised by various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS, and OSPFv3.
This document defines extensions to BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) to advertise SRv6 segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. The BGP-LS address-family solution for SRv6 described in this document is similar to BGP-LS for SR for the MPLS data plane, which is defined in RFC 9085.
RFC 9494: Long-Lived Graceful Restart for BGP
Proposed Standard- J. Uttaro
- E. Chen
- B. Decraene
- J. Scudder
- November 2023
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document introduces a BGP capability called the "Long-Lived Graceful Restart Capability" (or "LLGR Capability"). The benefit of this capability is that stale routes can be retained for a longer time upon session failure than is provided for by BGP Graceful Restart (as described in RFC 4724). A well-known BGP community called "LLGR_STALE" is introduced for marking stale routes retained for a longer time. A second well-known BGP community called "NO_LLGR" is introduced for marking routes for which these procedures should not be applied. We also specify that such long-lived stale routes be treated as the least preferred and that their advertisements be limited to BGP speakers that have advertised the capability. Use of this extension is not advisable in all cases, and we provide guidelines to help determine if it is.
This memo updates RFC 6368 by specifying that the LLGR_STALE community must be propagated into, or out of, the path attributes exchanged between the Provider Edge (PE) and Customer Edge (CE) routers.
Abstract
This document introduces a BGP capability called the "Long-Lived Graceful Restart Capability" (or "LLGR Capability"). The benefit of this capability is that stale routes can be retained for a longer time upon session failure than is provided for by BGP Graceful Restart (as described in RFC 4724). A well-known BGP community called "LLGR_STALE" is introduced for marking stale routes retained for a longer time. A second well-known BGP community called "NO_LLGR" is introduced for marking routes for which these procedures should not be applied. We also specify that such long-lived stale routes be treated as the least preferred and that their advertisements be limited to BGP speakers that have advertised the capability. Use of this extension is not advisable in all cases, and we provide guidelines to help determine if it is.
This memo updates RFC 6368 by specifying that the LLGR_STALE community must be propagated into, or out of, the path attributes exchanged between the Provider Edge (PE) and Customer Edge (CE) routers.
RFC 9384: A BGP Cease NOTIFICATION Subcode for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
Proposed Standard- J. Haas
- March 2023
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol (RFC 5880) is used to detect loss of connectivity between two forwarding engines, typically with low latency. BFD is leveraged by routing protocols, including the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), to bring down routing protocol connections more quickly than the original protocol timers.
This document defines a subcode for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message (Section 6.7 of RFC 4271) for use when a BGP connection is being closed due to a BFD session going down.
Abstract
The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol (RFC 5880) is used to detect loss of connectivity between two forwarding engines, typically with low latency. BFD is leveraged by routing protocols, including the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), to bring down routing protocol connections more quickly than the original protocol timers.
This document defines a subcode for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message (Section 6.7 of RFC 4271) for use when a BGP connection is being closed due to a BFD session going down.
RFC 9351: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Flexible Algorithm Advertisement
Proposed Standard- K. Talaulikar
- P. Psenak
- S. Zandi
- G. Dawra
- February 2023
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Flexible Algorithm is a solution that allows some routing protocols (e.g., OSPF and IS-IS) to compute paths over a network based on user-defined (and hence, flexible) constraints and metrics. The computation is performed by routers participating in the specific network in a distributed manner using a Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD). This definition is provisioned on one or more routers and propagated through the network by OSPF and IS-IS flooding.
Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) enables the collection of various topology information from the network. This document defines extensions to the BGP-LS address family to advertise the FAD as a part of the topology information from the network.
Abstract
Flexible Algorithm is a solution that allows some routing protocols (e.g., OSPF and IS-IS) to compute paths over a network based on user-defined (and hence, flexible) constraints and metrics. The computation is performed by routers participating in the specific network in a distributed manner using a Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD). This definition is provisioned on one or more routers and propagated through the network by OSPF and IS-IS flooding.
Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) enables the collection of various topology information from the network. This document defines extensions to the BGP-LS address family to advertise the FAD as a part of the topology information from the network.
RFC 9324: Policy Based on the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) without Route Refresh
Proposed Standard- R. Bush
- K. Patel
- P. Smith
- M. Tinka
- December 2022
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
A BGP speaker performing policy based on the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) should not issue route refresh to its neighbors because it has received new RPKI data. This document updates RFC 8481 by describing how to avoid doing so by either keeping a full Adj-RIB-In or saving paths dropped due to ROV (Route Origin Validation) so they may be reevaluated with respect to new RPKI data.
Abstract
A BGP speaker performing policy based on the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) should not issue route refresh to its neighbors because it has received new RPKI data. This document updates RFC 8481 by describing how to avoid doing so by either keeping a full Adj-RIB-In or saving paths dropped due to ROV (Route Origin Validation) so they may be reevaluated with respect to new RPKI data.
RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
Proposed Standard- M. Jethanandani
- R. Rahman
- L. Zheng
- S. Pallagatti
- G. Mirsky
- September 2022
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).
The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) (RFC 8342). This document updates "YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)" (RFC 9127).
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).
The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) (RFC 8342). This document updates "YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)" (RFC 9127).
RFC 9294: Application-Specific Link Attributes Advertisement Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS)
Proposed Standard- K. Talaulikar
- P. Psenak
- J. Tantsura
- August 2022
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Extensions have been defined for link-state routing protocols that enable distribution of application-specific link attributes for existing as well as newer applications such as Segment Routing (SR). This document defines extensions to the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) to enable the advertisement of these application-specific attributes as a part of the topology information from the network.
Abstract
Extensions have been defined for link-state routing protocols that enable distribution of application-specific link attributes for existing as well as newer applications such as Segment Routing (SR). This document defines extensions to the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) to enable the advertisement of these application-specific attributes as a part of the topology information from the network.
RFC 9252: BGP Overlay Services Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
Proposed Standard- G. Dawra
- K. Talaulikar
- R. Raszuk
- B. Decraene
- S. Zhuang
- J. Rabadan
- July 2022
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines procedures and messages for SRv6-based BGP services, including Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN), Ethernet VPN (EVPN), and Internet services. It builds on "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" (RFC 4364) and "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN" (RFC 7432).
Abstract
This document defines procedures and messages for SRv6-based BGP services, including Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN), Ethernet VPN (EVPN), and Internet services. It builds on "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" (RFC 4364) and "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN" (RFC 7432).
RFC 9247: BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)
Proposed Standard- Z. Li
- S. Zhuang
- K. Talaulikar
- S. Aldrin
- J. Tantsura
- G. Mirsky
- June 2022
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) defines a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of negotiation aspects eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating the path monitoring. The link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF) have been extended to advertise the S-BFD Discriminators.
This document defines extensions to the BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) address family to carry the S-BFD Discriminators' information via BGP.
Abstract
Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) defines a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of negotiation aspects eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating the path monitoring. The link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF) have been extended to advertise the S-BFD Discriminators.
This document defines extensions to the BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) address family to carry the S-BFD Discriminators' information via BGP.
RFC 9234: Route Leak Prevention and Detection Using Roles in UPDATE and OPEN Messages
Proposed Standard- A. Azimov
- E. Bogomazov
- R. Bush
- K. Patel
- K. Sriram
- May 2022
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Route leaks are the propagation of BGP prefixes that violate assumptions of BGP topology relationships, e.g., announcing a route learned from one transit provider to another transit provider or a lateral (i.e., non-transit) peer or announcing a route learned from one lateral peer to another lateral peer or a transit provider. These are usually the result of misconfigured or absent BGP route filtering or lack of coordination between autonomous systems (ASes). Existing approaches to leak prevention rely on marking routes by operator configuration, with no check that the configuration corresponds to that of the External BGP (eBGP) neighbor, or enforcement of the two eBGP speakers agreeing on the peering relationship. This document enhances the BGP OPEN message to establish an agreement of the peering relationship on each eBGP session between autonomous systems in order to enforce appropriate configuration on both sides. Propagated routes are then marked according to the agreed relationship, allowing both prevention and detection of route leaks.
Abstract
Route leaks are the propagation of BGP prefixes that violate assumptions of BGP topology relationships, e.g., announcing a route learned from one transit provider to another transit provider or a lateral (i.e., non-transit) peer or announcing a route learned from one lateral peer to another lateral peer or a transit provider. These are usually the result of misconfigured or absent BGP route filtering or lack of coordination between autonomous systems (ASes). Existing approaches to leak prevention rely on marking routes by operator configuration, with no check that the configuration corresponds to that of the External BGP (eBGP) neighbor, or enforcement of the two eBGP speakers agreeing on the peering relationship. This document enhances the BGP OPEN message to establish an agreement of the peering relationship on each eBGP session between autonomous systems in order to enforce appropriate configuration on both sides. Propagated routes are then marked according to the agreed relationship, allowing both prevention and detection of route leaks.
RFC 9199: Considerations for Large Authoritative DNS Server Operators
Informational- G. Moura
- W. Hardaker
- J. Heidemann
- M. Davids
- March 2022
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
Recent research work has explored the deployment characteristics and configuration of the Domain Name System (DNS). This document summarizes the conclusions from these research efforts and offers specific, tangible considerations or advice to authoritative DNS server operators. Authoritative server operators may wish to follow these considerations to improve their DNS services.
It is possible that the results presented in this document could be applicable in a wider context than just the DNS protocol, as some of the results may generically apply to any stateless/short-duration anycasted service.
This document is not an IETF consensus document: it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
Recent research work has explored the deployment characteristics and configuration of the Domain Name System (DNS). This document summarizes the conclusions from these research efforts and offers specific, tangible considerations or advice to authoritative DNS server operators. Authoritative server operators may wish to follow these considerations to improve their DNS services.
It is possible that the results presented in this document could be applicable in a wider context than just the DNS protocol, as some of the results may generically apply to any stateless/short-duration anycasted service.
This document is not an IETF consensus document: it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 9160: Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Informational- T. Graf
- December 2021
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document introduces new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) code points to identify which traffic is being forwarded based on which MPLS control plane protocol is used within a Segment Routing domain. In particular, this document defines five code points for the IPFIX mplsTopLabelType Information Element for Path Computation Element (PCE), IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and BGP MPLS Segment Routing extensions.
Abstract
This document introduces new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) code points to identify which traffic is being forwarded based on which MPLS control plane protocol is used within a Segment Routing domain. In particular, this document defines five code points for the IPFIX mplsTopLabelType Information Element for Path Computation Element (PCE), IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and BGP MPLS Segment Routing extensions.
RFC 9127: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
Proposed Standard- R. Rahman
- L. Zheng
- M. Jethanandani
- S. Pallagatti
- G. Mirsky
- October 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).
The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) (RFC 8342).
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).
The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) (RFC 8342).
RFC 9125: Gateway Auto-Discovery and Route Advertisement for Site Interconnection Using Segment Routing
Proposed Standard- A. Farrel
- J. Drake
- E. Rosen
- K. Patel
- L. Jalil
- August 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Data centers are attached to the Internet or a backbone network by gateway routers. One data center typically has more than one gateway for commercial, load-balancing, and resiliency reasons. Other sites, such as access networks, also need to be connected across backbone networks through gateways.
This document defines a mechanism using the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation attribute to allow data center gateway routers to advertise routes to the prefixes reachable in the site, including advertising them on behalf of other gateways at the same site. This allows segment routing to be used to identify multiple paths across the Internet or backbone network between different gateways. The paths can be selected for load-balancing, resilience, and quality purposes.
Abstract
Data centers are attached to the Internet or a backbone network by gateway routers. One data center typically has more than one gateway for commercial, load-balancing, and resiliency reasons. Other sites, such as access networks, also need to be connected across backbone networks through gateways.
This document defines a mechanism using the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation attribute to allow data center gateway routers to advertise routes to the prefixes reachable in the site, including advertising them on behalf of other gateways at the same site. This allows segment routing to be used to identify multiple paths across the Internet or backbone network between different gateways. The paths can be selected for load-balancing, resilience, and quality purposes.
RFC 9086: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering
Proposed Standard- S. Previdi
- K. Talaulikar
- C. Filsfils
- K. Patel
- S. Ray
- J. Dong
- August 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with a list of segment identifiers (SIDs). A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service based. SR segments allow steering a flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain.
This document describes an extension to Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) for advertisement of BGP Peering Segments along with their BGP peering node information so that efficient BGP Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) policies and strategies can be computed based on Segment Routing.
Abstract
A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with a list of segment identifiers (SIDs). A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service based. SR segments allow steering a flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain.
This document describes an extension to Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) for advertisement of BGP Peering Segments along with their BGP peering node information so that efficient BGP Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) policies and strategies can be computed based on Segment Routing.
RFC 9087: Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer Engineering
Informational- C. Filsfils
- S. Previdi
- G. Dawra
- E. Aries
- D. Afanasiev
- August 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service based. SR allows for the enforcement of a flow through any topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain.
The Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to the MPLS data plane with no change on the forwarding plane. It requires a minor extension to the existing link-state routing protocols.
This document illustrates the application of Segment Routing to solve the BGP Egress Peer Engineering (BGP-EPE) requirement. The SR-based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized (Software-Defined Networking, or SDN) controller to program any egress peer policy at ingress border routers or at hosts within the domain.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service based. SR allows for the enforcement of a flow through any topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain.
The Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to the MPLS data plane with no change on the forwarding plane. It requires a minor extension to the existing link-state routing protocols.
This document illustrates the application of Segment Routing to solve the BGP Egress Peer Engineering (BGP-EPE) requirement. The SR-based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized (Software-Defined Networking, or SDN) controller to program any egress peer policy at ingress border routers or at hosts within the domain.
RFC 9085: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing
Proposed Standard- S. Previdi
- K. Talaulikar
- C. Filsfils
- H. Gredler
- M. Chen
- August 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological subpaths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by routing protocols, e.g., by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3) within IGP topologies.
This document defines extensions to the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) address family in order to carry SR information via BGP.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological subpaths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by routing protocols, e.g., by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3) within IGP topologies.
This document defines extensions to the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) address family in order to carry SR information via BGP.
RFC 9104: Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS)
Proposed Standard- J. Tantsura
- Z. Wang
- Q. Wu
- K. Talaulikar
- August 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Administrative groups are link attributes used for traffic engineering. This document defines an extension to the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) for advertisement of extended administrative groups (EAGs).
Abstract
Administrative groups are link attributes used for traffic engineering. This document defines an extension to the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) for advertisement of extended administrative groups (EAGs).
RFC 9072: Extended Optional Parameters Length for BGP OPEN Message
Proposed Standard- E. Chen
- J. Scudder
- July 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Optional Parameters in the BGP OPEN message as defined in the base BGP specification are limited to 255 octets due to a one-octet length field. BGP capabilities are carried in this field and may foreseeably exceed 255 octets in the future, leading to concerns about this limitation.
This document updates RFC 4271 by extending, in a backward-compatible manner, the length of the Optional Parameters in a BGP OPEN message. The Parameter Length field of individual Optional Parameters is also extended.
Abstract
The Optional Parameters in the BGP OPEN message as defined in the base BGP specification are limited to 255 octets due to a one-octet length field. BGP capabilities are carried in this field and may foreseeably exceed 255 octets in the future, leading to concerns about this limitation.
This document updates RFC 4271 by extending, in a backward-compatible manner, the length of the Optional Parameters in a BGP OPEN message. The Parameter Length field of individual Optional Parameters is also extended.
RFC 9015: BGP Control Plane for the Network Service Header in Service Function Chaining
Proposed Standard- A. Farrel
- J. Drake
- E. Rosen
- J. Uttaro
- L. Jalil
- June 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes the use of BGP as a control plane for networks that support service function chaining. The document introduces a new BGP address family called the "Service Function Chain (SFC) Address Family Identifier / Subsequent Address Family Identifier" (SFC AFI/SAFI) with two Route Types. One Route Type is originated by a node to advertise that it hosts a particular instance of a specified service function. This Route Type also provides "instructions" on how to send a packet to the hosting node in a way that indicates that the service function has to be applied to the packet. The other Route Type is used by a controller to advertise the paths of "chains" of service functions and give a unique designator to each such path so that they can be used in conjunction with the Network Service Header (NSH) defined in RFC 8300.
This document adopts the service function chaining architecture described in RFC 7665.
Abstract
This document describes the use of BGP as a control plane for networks that support service function chaining. The document introduces a new BGP address family called the "Service Function Chain (SFC) Address Family Identifier / Subsequent Address Family Identifier" (SFC AFI/SAFI) with two Route Types. One Route Type is originated by a node to advertise that it hosts a particular instance of a specified service function. This Route Type also provides "instructions" on how to send a packet to the hosting node in a way that indicates that the service function has to be applied to the packet. The other Route Type is used by a controller to advertise the paths of "chains" of service functions and give a unique designator to each such path so that they can be used in conjunction with the Network Service Header (NSH) defined in RFC 8300.
This document adopts the service function chaining architecture described in RFC 7665.
RFC 9029: Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries
Proposed Standard- A. Farrel
- June 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFC 7752 defines the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS). IANA created a registry consistent with that document called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a number of subregistries. The allocation policy applied by IANA for those registries is "Specification Required", as defined in RFC 8126.
This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for all of the registries to "Expert Review" and by updating the guidance to the designated experts.
Obsoleted by RFC 9552
Abstract
RFC 7752 defines the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS). IANA created a registry consistent with that document called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a number of subregistries. The allocation policy applied by IANA for those registries is "Specification Required", as defined in RFC 8126.
This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for all of the registries to "Expert Review" and by updating the guidance to the designated experts.
RFC 9012: The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
Proposed Standard- K. Patel
- G. Van de Velde
- S. Sangli
- J. Scudder
- April 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a BGP path attribute known as the "Tunnel Encapsulation attribute", which can be used with BGP UPDATEs of various Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFIs) to provide information needed to create tunnels and their corresponding encapsulation headers. It provides encodings for a number of tunnel types, along with procedures for choosing between alternate tunnels and routing packets into tunnels.
This document obsoletes RFC 5512, which provided an earlier definition of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute. RFC 5512 was never deployed in production. Since RFC 5566 relies on RFC 5512, it is likewise obsoleted. This document updates RFC 5640 by indicating that the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV may be included in any Tunnel Encapsulation attribute where load balancing is desired.
Abstract
This document defines a BGP path attribute known as the "Tunnel Encapsulation attribute", which can be used with BGP UPDATEs of various Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFIs) to provide information needed to create tunnels and their corresponding encapsulation headers. It provides encodings for a number of tunnel types, along with procedures for choosing between alternate tunnels and routing packets into tunnels.
This document obsoletes RFC 5512, which provided an earlier definition of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute. RFC 5512 was never deployed in production. Since RFC 5566 relies on RFC 5512, it is likewise obsoleted. This document updates RFC 5640 by indicating that the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV may be included in any Tunnel Encapsulation attribute where load balancing is desired.
RFC 9013: OSPF Advertisement of Tunnel Encapsulations
Proposed Standard- X. Xu
- B. Decraene
- R. Raszuk
- L. Contreras
- L. Jalil
- April 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety of tunnel types are defined, and the tunnel encapsulator router needs to select a type of tunnel that is supported by the tunnel decapsulator router. This document defines how to advertise, in OSPF Router Information Link State Advertisements (LSAs), the list of tunnel encapsulations supported by the tunnel decapsulator.
Abstract
Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety of tunnel types are defined, and the tunnel encapsulator router needs to select a type of tunnel that is supported by the tunnel decapsulator router. This document defines how to advertise, in OSPF Router Information Link State Advertisements (LSAs), the list of tunnel encapsulations supported by the tunnel decapsulator.
RFC 9003: Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication
Proposed Standard- J. Snijders
- J. Heitz
- J. Scudder
- A. Azimov
- January 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for operators to transmit a short free-form message to describe why a BGP session was shut down or reset. This document updates RFC 4486 and obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication of up to 255 octets to improve communication using multibyte character sets.
Abstract
This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for operators to transmit a short free-form message to describe why a BGP session was shut down or reset. This document updates RFC 4486 and obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication of up to 255 octets to improve communication using multibyte character sets.
RFC 8950: Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop
Proposed Standard- S. Litkowski
- S. Agrawal
- K. Ananthamurthy
- K. Patel
- November 2020
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) specifies that the set of usable next-hop address families is determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI). The AFI/SAFI definitions for the IPv4 address family only have provisions for advertising a next-hop address that belongs to the IPv4 protocol when advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) or VPN-IPv4 NLRI.
This document specifies the extensions necessary to allow the advertising of IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a next-hop address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. This comprises an extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the address of the next hop for IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6 protocol, the encoding of the next hop to determine which of the protocols the address actually belongs to, and a BGP Capability allowing MP-BGP peers to dynamically discover whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN-IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 next hop. This document obsoletes RFC 5549.
Abstract
Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) specifies that the set of usable next-hop address families is determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI). The AFI/SAFI definitions for the IPv4 address family only have provisions for advertising a next-hop address that belongs to the IPv4 protocol when advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) or VPN-IPv4 NLRI.
This document specifies the extensions necessary to allow the advertising of IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a next-hop address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. This comprises an extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the address of the next hop for IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6 protocol, the encoding of the next hop to determine which of the protocols the address actually belongs to, and a BGP Capability allowing MP-BGP peers to dynamically discover whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN-IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 next hop. This document obsoletes RFC 5549.
RFC 8893: Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Origin Validation for BGP Export
Proposed Standard- R. Bush
- R. Volk
- J. Heitz
- September 2020
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
A BGP speaker may perform Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) origin validation not only on routes received from BGP neighbors and routes that are redistributed from other routing protocols, but also on routes it sends to BGP neighbors. For egress policy, it is important that the classification use the 'effective origin AS' of the processed route, which may specifically be altered by the commonly available knobs, such as removing private ASes, confederation handling, and other modifications of the origin AS. This document updates RFC 6811.
Abstract
A BGP speaker may perform Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) origin validation not only on routes received from BGP neighbors and routes that are redistributed from other routing protocols, but also on routes it sends to BGP neighbors. For egress policy, it is important that the classification use the 'effective origin AS' of the processed route, which may specifically be altered by the commonly available knobs, such as removing private ASes, confederation handling, and other modifications of the origin AS. This document updates RFC 6811.
RFC 8810: Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures
Proposed Standard- J. Scudder
- August 2020
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration procedures for BGP Capability Codes. Specifically, the range formerly designated "Private Use" is divided into three new ranges: "First Come First Served", "Experimental Use", and "Reserved".
Abstract
This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration procedures for BGP Capability Codes. Specifically, the range formerly designated "Private Use" is divided into three new ranges: "First Come First Served", "Experimental Use", and "Reserved".
RFC 8814: Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
Proposed Standard- J. Tantsura
- U. Chunduri
- K. Talaulikar
- G. Mirsky
- N. Triantafillis
- August 2020
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a way for a Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) speaker to advertise multiple types of supported
Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity.
Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to
determine whether a particular Segment Identifier (SID) stack can be
supported in a given network.
Abstract
This document defines a way for a Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) speaker to advertise multiple types of supported
Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity.
Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to
determine whether a particular Segment Identifier (SID) stack can be
supported in a given network.
RFC 8704: BCP 84: Enhanced Feasible-Path Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding
Best Current Practice- K. Sriram
- D. Montgomery
- J. Haas
- February 2020
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document identifies a need for and proposes improvement of the unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF) techniques (see RFC 3704) for detection and mitigation of source address spoofing (see BCP 38). Strict uRPF is inflexible about directionality, the loose uRPF is oblivious to directionality, and the current feasible-path uRPF attempts to strike a balance between the two (see RFC 3704). However, as shown in this document, the existing feasible-path uRPF still has shortcomings. This document describes enhanced feasible-path uRPF (EFP-uRPF) techniques that are more flexible (in a meaningful way) about directionality than the feasible-path uRPF (RFC 3704). The proposed EFP-uRPF methods aim to significantly reduce false positives regarding invalid detection in source address validation (SAV). Hence, they can potentially alleviate ISPs' concerns about the possibility of disrupting service for their customers and encourage greater deployment of uRPF techniques. This document updates RFC 3704.
Abstract
This document identifies a need for and proposes improvement of the unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF) techniques (see RFC 3704) for detection and mitigation of source address spoofing (see BCP 38). Strict uRPF is inflexible about directionality, the loose uRPF is oblivious to directionality, and the current feasible-path uRPF attempts to strike a balance between the two (see RFC 3704). However, as shown in this document, the existing feasible-path uRPF still has shortcomings. This document describes enhanced feasible-path uRPF (EFP-uRPF) techniques that are more flexible (in a meaningful way) about directionality than the feasible-path uRPF (RFC 3704). The proposed EFP-uRPF methods aim to significantly reduce false positives regarding invalid detection in source address validation (SAV). Hence, they can potentially alleviate ISPs' concerns about the possibility of disrupting service for their customers and encourage greater deployment of uRPF techniques. This document updates RFC 3704.
RFC 8669: Segment Routing Prefix Segment Identifier Extensions for BGP
Proposed Standard- S. Previdi
- C. Filsfils
- A. Lindem
- A. Sreekantiah
- H. Gredler
- December 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions called "segments". A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service based. The ingress node prepends an SR header to a packet containing a set of segment identifiers (SIDs). Each SID represents a topological or service-based instruction. Per-flow state is maintained only on the ingress node of the SR domain. An "SR domain" is defined as a single administrative domain for global SID assignment.
This document defines an optional, transitive BGP attribute for announcing information about BGP Prefix Segment Identifiers (BGP Prefix-SIDs) and the specification for SR-MPLS SIDs.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions called "segments". A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service based. The ingress node prepends an SR header to a packet containing a set of segment identifiers (SIDs). Each SID represents a topological or service-based instruction. Per-flow state is maintained only on the ingress node of the SR domain. An "SR domain" is defined as a single administrative domain for global SID assignment.
This document defines an optional, transitive BGP attribute for announcing information about BGP Prefix Segment Identifiers (BGP Prefix-SIDs) and the specification for SR-MPLS SIDs.
RFC 8670: BGP Prefix Segment in Large-Scale Data Centers
Informational- C. Filsfils
- S. Previdi
- G. Dawra
- E. Aries
- P. Lapukhov
- December 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes the motivation for, and benefits of, applying Segment Routing (SR) in BGP-based large-scale data centers. It describes the design to deploy SR in those data centers for both the MPLS and IPv6 data planes.
Abstract
This document describes the motivation for, and benefits of, applying Segment Routing (SR) in BGP-based large-scale data centers. It describes the design to deploy SR in those data centers for both the MPLS and IPv6 data planes.
RFC 8654: Extended Message Support for BGP
Proposed Standard- R. Bush
- K. Patel
- D. Ward
- October 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The BGP specification (RFC 4271) mandates a maximum BGP message size of 4,096 octets. As BGP is extended to support new Address Family Identifiers (AFIs), Subsequent AFIs (SAFIs), and other features, there is a need to extend the maximum message size beyond 4,096 octets. This document updates the BGP specification by extending the maximum message size from 4,096 octets to 65,535 octets for all messages except for OPEN and KEEPALIVE messages.
Abstract
The BGP specification (RFC 4271) mandates a maximum BGP message size of 4,096 octets. As BGP is extended to support new Address Family Identifiers (AFIs), Subsequent AFIs (SAFIs), and other features, there is a need to extend the maximum message size beyond 4,096 octets. This document updates the BGP specification by extending the maximum message size from 4,096 octets to 65,535 octets for all messages except for OPEN and KEEPALIVE messages.
RFC 8614: Updated Processing of Control Flags for BGP Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
Proposed Standard- R. Singh
- K. Kompella
- S. Palislamovic
- June 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document updates the meaning of the Control Flags field in the "Layer2 Info Extended Community" used for BGP Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) as defined in RFC 4761. This document updates RFC 4761.
Abstract
This document updates the meaning of the Control Flags field in the "Layer2 Info Extended Community" used for BGP Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) as defined in RFC 4761. This document updates RFC 4761.
RFC 8571: BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions
Proposed Standard- L. Ginsberg
- S. Previdi
- Q. Wu
- J. Tantsura
- C. Filsfils
- March 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines new BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) TLVs in order to carry the IGP Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in the IS-IS and OSPF protocols.
Abstract
This document defines new BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) TLVs in order to carry the IGP Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in the IS-IS and OSPF protocols.
RFC 8538: Notification Message Support for BGP Graceful Restart
Proposed Standard- K. Patel
- R. Fernando
- J. Scudder
- J. Haas
- March 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The BGP Graceful Restart mechanism defined in RFC 4724 limits the usage of BGP Graceful Restart to BGP messages other than BGP NOTIFICATION messages. This document updates RFC 4724 by defining an extension that permits the Graceful Restart procedures to be performed when the BGP speaker receives a BGP NOTIFICATION message or the Hold Time expires. This document also defines a new subcode for BGP Cease NOTIFICATION messages; this new subcode requests a full session restart instead of a Graceful Restart.
Abstract
The BGP Graceful Restart mechanism defined in RFC 4724 limits the usage of BGP Graceful Restart to BGP messages other than BGP NOTIFICATION messages. This document updates RFC 4724 by defining an extension that permits the Graceful Restart procedures to be performed when the BGP speaker receives a BGP NOTIFICATION message or the Hold Time expires. This document also defines a new subcode for BGP Cease NOTIFICATION messages; this new subcode requests a full session restart instead of a Graceful Restart.
RFC 8522: Looking Glass Command Set
Informational- M. Stubbig
- February 2019
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document introduces a command set standard to the web-based "Network Looking Glass" software. Its purpose is to provide application programmers uniform access to the Looking Glass service and to analyze a standardized response.
The interface is supposed to provide the same level of information as web-based interfaces, but in a computer-readable format.
Abstract
This document introduces a command set standard to the web-based "Network Looking Glass" software. Its purpose is to provide application programmers uniform access to the Looking Glass service and to analyze a standardized response.
The interface is supposed to provide the same level of information as web-based interfaces, but in a computer-readable format.
RFC 8502: L2L3 VPN Multicast MIB
Proposed Standard- Z. Zhang
- H. Tsunoda
- December 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes two MIB modules that will be used by other MIB modules for monitoring and/or configuring Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks that support multicast.
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes two MIB modules that will be used by other MIB modules for monitoring and/or configuring Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks that support multicast.
RFC 8503: BGP/MPLS Layer 3 VPN Multicast Management Information Base
Proposed Standard- H. Tsunoda
- December 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor Multicast communication over IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) supported by the Multiprotocol Label Switching/Border Gateway Protocol (MPLS/BGP) on a Provider Edge (PE) router.
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor Multicast communication over IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) supported by the Multiprotocol Label Switching/Border Gateway Protocol (MPLS/BGP) on a Provider Edge (PE) router.
RFC 8476: Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF
Proposed Standard- J. Tantsura
- U. Chunduri
- S. Aldrin
- P. Psenak
- December 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a way for an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) router to advertise multiple types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity. Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to determine whether a particular Segment Identifier (SID) stack can be supported in a given network. This document only refers to the Signaling MSD as defined in RFC 8491, but it defines an encoding that can support other MSD types. Here, the term "OSPF" means both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
Abstract
This document defines a way for an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) router to advertise multiple types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity. Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to determine whether a particular Segment Identifier (SID) stack can be supported in a given network. This document only refers to the Signaling MSD as defined in RFC 8491, but it defines an encoding that can support other MSD types. Here, the term "OSPF" means both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
RFC 8491: Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS
Proposed Standard- J. Tantsura
- U. Chunduri
- S. Aldrin
- L. Ginsberg
- November 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a way for an Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) router to advertise multiple types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity. Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to determine whether a particular Segment ID (SID) stack can be supported in a given network. This document only defines one type of MSD: Base MPLS Imposition. However, it defines an encoding that can support other MSD types. This document focuses on MSD use in a network that is Segment Routing (SR) enabled, but MSD may also be useful when SR is not enabled.
Abstract
This document defines a way for an Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) router to advertise multiple types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity. Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to determine whether a particular Segment ID (SID) stack can be supported in a given network. This document only defines one type of MSD: Base MPLS Imposition. However, it defines an encoding that can support other MSD types. This document focuses on MSD use in a network that is Segment Routing (SR) enabled, but MSD may also be useful when SR is not enabled.
RFC 8481: Clarifications to BGP Origin Validation Based on Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
Proposed Standard- R. Bush
- September 2018
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
Deployment of BGP origin validation based on Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is hampered by, among other things, vendor misimplementations in two critical areas: which routes are validated and whether policy is applied when not specified by configuration. This document is meant to clarify possible misunderstandings causing those misimplementations; it thus updates RFC 6811 by clarifying that all prefixes should have their validation state set and that policy must not be applied without operator configuration.
Abstract
Deployment of BGP origin validation based on Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is hampered by, among other things, vendor misimplementations in two critical areas: which routes are validated and whether policy is applied when not specified by configuration. This document is meant to clarify possible misunderstandings causing those misimplementations; it thus updates RFC 6811 by clarifying that all prefixes should have their validation state set and that policy must not be applied without operator configuration.
RFC 8395: Extensions to BGP-Signaled Pseudowires to Support Flow-Aware Transport Labels
Proposed Standard- K. Patel
- S. Boutros
- J. Liste
- B. Wen
- J. Rabadan
- June 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines protocol extensions required to synchronize flow label states among Provider Edges (PEs) when using the BGP-based signaling procedures. These protocol extensions are equally applicable to point-to-point Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs). This document updates RFC 4761 by defining new flags in the Control Flags field of the Layer2 Info Extended Community.
Abstract
This document defines protocol extensions required to synchronize flow label states among Provider Edges (PEs) when using the BGP-based signaling procedures. These protocol extensions are equally applicable to point-to-point Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs). This document updates RFC 4761 by defining new flags in the Control Flags field of the Layer2 Info Extended Community.
RFC 8388: Usage and Applicability of BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN
Informational- J. Rabadan
- S. Palislamovic
- W. Henderickx
- A. Sajassi
- J. Uttaro
- May 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPN (EVPN) in a simple and fairly common deployment scenario. The different EVPN procedures are explained in the example scenario along with the benefits and trade-offs of each option. This document is intended to provide a simplified guide for the deployment of EVPN networks.
Abstract
This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPN (EVPN) in a simple and fairly common deployment scenario. The different EVPN procedures are explained in the example scenario along with the benefits and trade-offs of each option. This document is intended to provide a simplified guide for the deployment of EVPN networks.
RFC 8326: Graceful BGP Session Shutdown
Proposed Standard- P. Francois
- B. Decraene
- C. Pelsser
- K. Patel
- C. Filsfils
- March 2018
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document standardizes a new well-known BGP community, GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN, to signal the graceful shutdown of paths. This document also describes operational procedures that use this well-known community to reduce the amount of traffic lost when BGP peering sessions are about to be shut down deliberately, e.g., for planned maintenance.
Abstract
This document standardizes a new well-known BGP community, GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN, to signal the graceful shutdown of paths. This document also describes operational procedures that use this well-known community to reduce the amount of traffic lost when BGP peering sessions are about to be shut down deliberately, e.g., for planned maintenance.
RFC 8327: BCP 214: Mitigating the Negative Impact of Maintenance through BGP Session Culling
Best Current Practice- W. Hargrave
- M. Griswold
- J. Snijders
- N. Hilliard
- March 2018
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document outlines an approach to mitigate the negative impact on networks resulting from maintenance activities. It includes guidance for both IP networks and Internet Exchange Points (IXPs). The approach is to ensure BGP-4 sessions that will be affected by maintenance are forcefully torn down before the actual maintenance activities commence.
Abstract
This document outlines an approach to mitigate the negative impact on networks resulting from maintenance activities. It includes guidance for both IP networks and Internet Exchange Points (IXPs). The approach is to ensure BGP-4 sessions that will be affected by maintenance are forcefully torn down before the actual maintenance activities commence.
RFC 8313: BCP 213: Use of Multicast across Inter-domain Peering Points
Best Current Practice- P. Tarapore
- R. Sayko
- G. Shepherd
- T. Eckert
- R. Krishnan
- January 2018
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document examines the use of Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment scenarios. The objectives are to (1) describe the setup process for multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these scenarios and (2) document supporting functionality to enable this process.
Abstract
This document examines the use of Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment scenarios. The objectives are to (1) describe the setup process for multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these scenarios and (2) document supporting functionality to enable this process.
RFC 8277: Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- October 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies a set of procedures for using BGP to advertise that a specified router has bound a specified MPLS label (or a specified sequence of MPLS labels organized as a contiguous part of a label stack) to a specified address prefix. This can be done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer Reachability Information field contains both the prefix and the MPLS label(s) and whose Next Hop field identifies the node at which said prefix is bound to said label(s). This document obsoletes RFC 3107.
Abstract
This document specifies a set of procedures for using BGP to advertise that a specified router has bound a specified MPLS label (or a specified sequence of MPLS labels organized as a contiguous part of a label stack) to a specified address prefix. This can be done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer Reachability Information field contains both the prefix and the MPLS label(s) and whose Next Hop field identifies the node at which said prefix is bound to said label(s). This document obsoletes RFC 3107.
RFC 8205: BGPsec Protocol Specification
Proposed Standard- M. Lepinski
- K. Sriram
- September 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes BGPsec, an extension to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) that provides security for the path of Autonomous Systems (ASes) through which a BGP UPDATE message passes. BGPsec is implemented via an optional non-transitive BGP path attribute that carries digital signatures produced by each AS that propagates the UPDATE message. The digital signatures provide confidence that every AS on the path of ASes listed in the UPDATE message has explicitly authorized the advertisement of the route.
Abstract
This document describes BGPsec, an extension to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) that provides security for the path of Autonomous Systems (ASes) through which a BGP UPDATE message passes. BGPsec is implemented via an optional non-transitive BGP path attribute that carries digital signatures produced by each AS that propagates the UPDATE message. The digital signatures provide confidence that every AS on the path of ASes listed in the UPDATE message has explicitly authorized the advertisement of the route.
RFC 8207: BCP 211: BGPsec Operational Considerations
Best Current Practice- R. Bush
- September 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Deployment of the BGPsec architecture and protocols has many operational considerations. This document attempts to collect and present the most critical and universal. Operational practices are expected to evolve as BGPsec is formalized and initially deployed.
Abstract
Deployment of the BGPsec architecture and protocols has many operational considerations. This document attempts to collect and present the most critical and universal. Operational practices are expected to evolve as BGPsec is formalized and initially deployed.
RFC 8211: Adverse Actions by a Certification Authority (CA) or Repository Manager in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
Informational- S. Kent
- D. Ma
- September 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document analyzes actions by or against a Certification Authority (CA) or an independent repository manager in the RPKI that can adversely affect the Internet Number Resources (INRs) associated with that CA or its subordinate CAs. The analysis is done from the perspective of an affected INR holder. The analysis is based on examination of the data items in the RPKI repository, as controlled by a CA (or an independent repository manager) and fetched by Relying Parties (RPs). The analysis does not purport to be comprehensive; it does represent an orderly way to analyze a number of ways that errors by or attacks against a CA or repository manager can affect the RPKI and routing decisions based on RPKI data.
Abstract
This document analyzes actions by or against a Certification Authority (CA) or an independent repository manager in the RPKI that can adversely affect the Internet Number Resources (INRs) associated with that CA or its subordinate CAs. The analysis is done from the perspective of an affected INR holder. The analysis is based on examination of the data items in the RPKI repository, as controlled by a CA (or an independent repository manager) and fetched by Relying Parties (RPs). The analysis does not purport to be comprehensive; it does represent an orderly way to analyze a number of ways that errors by or attacks against a CA or repository manager can affect the RPKI and routing decisions based on RPKI data.
RFC 8203: BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication
Proposed Standard- J. Snijders
- J. Heitz
- J. Scudder
- July 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP session was shutdown or reset. This document updates RFC 4486.
Obsoleted by RFC 9003
Abstract
This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP session was shutdown or reset. This document updates RFC 4486.
RFC 8212: Default External BGP (EBGP) Route Propagation Behavior without Policies
Proposed Standard- J. Mauch
- J. Snijders
- G. Hankins
- July 2017
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document updates RFC 4271 by defining the default behavior of a BGP speaker when there is no Import or Export Policy associated with an External BGP session.
Abstract
This document updates RFC 4271 by defining the default behavior of a BGP speaker when there is no Import or Export Policy associated with an External BGP session.
RFC 8050: Multi-Threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Routing Information Export Format with BGP Additional Path Extensions
Proposed Standard- C. Petrie
- T. King
- May 2017
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document extends the Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) export format for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information by supporting the advertisement of multiple paths in BGP extensions.
Abstract
This document extends the Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) export format for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information by supporting the advertisement of multiple paths in BGP extensions.
RFC 8097: BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community
Proposed Standard- P. Mohapatra
- K. Patel
- J. Scudder
- D. Ward
- R. Bush
- March 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a new BGP opaque extended community to carry the origination Autonomous System (AS) validation state inside an autonomous system. Internal BGP (IBGP) speakers that receive this validation state can configure local policies that allow it to influence their decision process.
Abstract
This document defines a new BGP opaque extended community to carry the origination Autonomous System (AS) validation state inside an autonomous system. Internal BGP (IBGP) speakers that receive this validation state can configure local policies that allow it to influence their decision process.
RFC 8093: Deprecation of BGP Path Attribute Values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243
Proposed Standard- J. Snijders
- February 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document requests IANA to mark BGP path attribute values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 as "Deprecated".
Abstract
This document requests IANA to mark BGP path attribute values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 as "Deprecated".
RFC 7999: BLACKHOLE Community
Informational- T. King
- C. Dietzel
- J. Snijders
- G. Doering
- G. Hankins
- October 2016
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document describes the use of a well-known Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) community for destination-based blackholing in IP networks. This well-known advisory transitive BGP community named "BLACKHOLE" allows an origin Autonomous System (AS) to specify that a neighboring network should discard any traffic destined towards the tagged IP prefix.
Abstract
This document describes the use of a well-known Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) community for destination-based blackholing in IP networks. This well-known advisory transitive BGP community named "BLACKHOLE" allows an origin Autonomous System (AS) to specify that a neighboring network should discard any traffic destined towards the tagged IP prefix.
RFC 7964: Solutions for BGP Persistent Route Oscillation
Proposed Standard- D. Walton
- A. Retana
- E. Chen
- J. Scudder
- September 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Routing information reduction by BGP Route Reflection or Confederation can result in persistent internal BGP route oscillations with certain routing setups and network topologies. This document specifies two sets of additional paths that can be used to eliminate these route oscillations in a network.
Abstract
Routing information reduction by BGP Route Reflection or Confederation can result in persistent internal BGP route oscillations with certain routing setups and network topologies. This document specifies two sets of additional paths that can be used to eliminate these route oscillations in a network.
RFC 7938: Use of BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers
Informational- P. Lapukhov
- A. Premji
- J. Mitchell
- August 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Some network operators build and operate data centers that support over one hundred thousand servers. In this document, such data centers are referred to as "large-scale" to differentiate them from smaller infrastructures. Environments of this scale have a unique set of network requirements with an emphasis on operational simplicity and network stability. This document summarizes operational experience in designing and operating large-scale data centers using BGP as the only routing protocol. The intent is to report on a proven and stable routing design that could be leveraged by others in the industry.
Abstract
Some network operators build and operate data centers that support over one hundred thousand servers. In this document, such data centers are referred to as "large-scale" to differentiate them from smaller infrastructures. Environments of this scale have a unique set of network requirements with an emphasis on operational simplicity and network stability. This document summarizes operational experience in designing and operating large-scale data centers using BGP as the only routing protocol. The intent is to report on a proven and stable routing design that could be leveraged by others in the industry.
RFC 7911: Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP
Proposed Standard- D. Walton
- A. Retana
- E. Chen
- J. Scudder
- July 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a BGP extension that allows the advertisement of multiple paths for the same address prefix without the new paths implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of the extension is that each path is identified by a Path Identifier in addition to the address prefix.
Abstract
This document defines a BGP extension that allows the advertisement of multiple paths for the same address prefix without the new paths implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of the extension is that each path is identified by a Path Identifier in addition to the address prefix.
RFC 7899: Multicast VPN State Damping
Proposed Standard- T. Morin
- S. Litkowski
- K. Patel
- Z. Zhang
- R. Kebler
- J. Haas
- June 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes procedures to damp Multicast VPN (MVPN) routing state changes and control the effect of the churn due to the multicast dynamicity in customer sites. The procedures described in this document are applicable to BGP-based multicast VPN and help avoid uncontrolled control-plane load increase in the core routing infrastructure. The new procedures proposed were inspired by BGP unicast route damping principles that have been adapted to multicast.
Abstract
This document describes procedures to damp Multicast VPN (MVPN) routing state changes and control the effect of the churn due to the multicast dynamicity in customer sites. The procedures described in this document are applicable to BGP-based multicast VPN and help avoid uncontrolled control-plane load increase in the core routing infrastructure. The new procedures proposed were inspired by BGP unicast route damping principles that have been adapted to multicast.
RFC 7900: Extranet Multicast in BGP/IP MPLS VPNs
Proposed Standard- Y. Rekhter
- E. Rosen
- R. Aggarwal
- Y. Cai
- T. Morin
- June 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Previous RFCs specify the procedures necessary to allow IP multicast traffic to travel from one site to another within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual Private Network). However, it is sometimes desirable to allow multicast traffic whose source is in one VPN to be received by systems that are in another VPN. This is known as a "Multicast VPN (MVPN) extranet". This document updates RFCs 6513, 6514, and 6625 by specifying the procedures that are necessary in order to provide extranet MVPN service.
Abstract
Previous RFCs specify the procedures necessary to allow IP multicast traffic to travel from one site to another within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual Private Network). However, it is sometimes desirable to allow multicast traffic whose source is in one VPN to be received by systems that are in another VPN. This is known as a "Multicast VPN (MVPN) extranet". This document updates RFCs 6513, 6514, and 6625 by specifying the procedures that are necessary in order to provide extranet MVPN service.
RFC 7908: Problem Definition and Classification of BGP Route Leaks
Informational- K. Sriram
- D. Montgomery
- D. McPherson
- E. Osterweil
- B. Dickson
- June 2016
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
A systemic vulnerability of the Border Gateway Protocol routing system, known as "route leaks", has received significant attention in recent years. Frequent incidents that result in significant disruptions to Internet routing are labeled route leaks, but to date a common definition of the term has been lacking. This document provides a working definition of route leaks while keeping in mind the real occurrences that have received significant attention. Further, this document attempts to enumerate (though not exhaustively) different types of route leaks based on observed events on the Internet. The aim is to provide a taxonomy that covers several forms of route leaks that have been observed and are of concern to the Internet user community as well as the network operator community.
Abstract
A systemic vulnerability of the Border Gateway Protocol routing system, known as "route leaks", has received significant attention in recent years. Frequent incidents that result in significant disruptions to Internet routing are labeled route leaks, but to date a common definition of the term has been lacking. This document provides a working definition of route leaks while keeping in mind the real occurrences that have received significant attention. Further, this document attempts to enumerate (though not exhaustively) different types of route leaks based on observed events on the Internet. The aim is to provide a taxonomy that covers several forms of route leaks that have been observed and are of concern to the Internet user community as well as the network operator community.
RFC 7747: Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology for Data-Plane Convergence
Informational- R. Papneja
- B. Parise
- S. Hares
- D. Lee
- I. Varlashkin
- April 2016
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
BGP is widely deployed and used by several service providers as the default inter-AS (Autonomous System) routing protocol. It is of utmost importance to ensure that when a BGP peer or a downstream link of a BGP peer fails, the alternate paths are rapidly used and routes via these alternate paths are installed. This document provides the basic BGP benchmarking methodology using existing BGP convergence terminology as defined in RFC 4098.
Abstract
BGP is widely deployed and used by several service providers as the default inter-AS (Autonomous System) routing protocol. It is of utmost importance to ensure that when a BGP peer or a downstream link of a BGP peer fails, the alternate paths are rapidly used and routes via these alternate paths are installed. This document provides the basic BGP benchmarking methodology using existing BGP convergence terminology as defined in RFC 4098.
RFC 7789: Impact of BGP Filtering on Inter-Domain Routing Policies
Informational- C. Cardona
- P. Francois
- P. Lucente
- April 2016
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document describes how unexpected traffic flows can emerge across an autonomous system as the result of other autonomous systems filtering or restricting the propagation of more-specific prefixes. We provide a review of the techniques to detect the occurrence of this issue and defend against it.
Abstract
This document describes how unexpected traffic flows can emerge across an autonomous system as the result of other autonomous systems filtering or restricting the propagation of more-specific prefixes. We provide a review of the techniques to detect the occurrence of this issue and defend against it.
RFC 7814: Virtual Subnet: A BGP/MPLS IP VPN-Based Subnet Extension Solution
Informational- X. Xu
- C. Jacquenet
- R. Raszuk
- T. Boyes
- B. Fee
- March 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a BGP/MPLS IP VPN-based subnet extension solution referred to as "Virtual Subnet", which can be used for building Layer 3 network virtualization overlays within and/or between data centers.
Abstract
This document describes a BGP/MPLS IP VPN-based subnet extension solution referred to as "Virtual Subnet", which can be used for building Layer 3 network virtualization overlays within and/or between data centers.
RFC 7752: North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP
Proposed Standard- H. Gredler
- J. Medved
- S. Previdi
- A. Farrel
- S. Ray
- March 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
In a number of environments, a component external to a network is called upon to perform computations based on the network topology and current state of the connections within the network, including Traffic Engineering (TE) information. This is information typically distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network.
This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE information can be collected from networks and shared with external components using the BGP routing protocol. This is achieved using a new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding format. The mechanism is applicable to physical and virtual IGP links. The mechanism described is subject to policy control.
Applications of this technique include Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) servers and Path Computation Elements (PCEs).
Obsoleted by RFC 9552
Abstract
In a number of environments, a component external to a network is called upon to perform computations based on the network topology and current state of the connections within the network, including Traffic Engineering (TE) information. This is information typically distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network.
This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE information can be collected from networks and shared with external components using the BGP routing protocol. This is achieved using a new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding format. The mechanism is applicable to physical and virtual IGP links. The mechanism described is subject to policy control.
Applications of this technique include Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) servers and Path Computation Elements (PCEs).
RFC 7730: Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator
Proposed Standard- G. Huston
- S. Weiler
- G. Michaelson
- S. Kent
- January 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). This document obsoletes RFC 6490 by adding support for multiple URIs in a TAL.
Obsoleted by RFC 8630
Abstract
This document defines a Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). This document obsoletes RFC 6490 by adding support for multiple URIs in a TAL.
RFC 7682: Considerations for Internet Routing Registries (IRRs) and Routing Policy Configuration
Informational- D. McPherson
- S. Amante
- E. Osterweil
- L. Blunk
- D. Mitchell
- December 2015
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to catalog issues that influenced the efficacy of Internet Routing Registries (IRRs) for inter-domain routing policy specification and application in the global routing system over the past two decades. Additionally, it provides a discussion regarding which of these issues are still problematic in practice, and which are simply artifacts that are no longer applicable but continue to stifle inter-provider policy-based filtering adoption and IRR utility to this day.
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to catalog issues that influenced the efficacy of Internet Routing Registries (IRRs) for inter-domain routing policy specification and application in the global routing system over the past two decades. Additionally, it provides a discussion regarding which of these issues are still problematic in practice, and which are simply artifacts that are no longer applicable but continue to stifle inter-provider policy-based filtering adoption and IRR utility to this day.
RFC 7716: Global Table Multicast with BGP Multicast VPN (BGP-MVPN) Procedures
Proposed Standard- J. Zhang
- L. Giuliano
- E. Rosen
- K. Subramanian
- D. Pacella
- December 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFCs 6513, 6514, and others describe protocols and procedures that a Service Provider (SP) may deploy in order to offer Multicast Virtual Private Network (Multicast VPN or MVPN) service to its customers. Some of these procedures use BGP to distribute VPN-specific multicast routing information across a backbone network. With a small number of relatively minor modifications, the same BGP procedures can also be used to distribute multicast routing information that is not specific to any VPN. Multicast that is outside the context of a VPN is known as "Global Table Multicast", or sometimes simply as "Internet multicast". In this document, we describe the modifications that are needed to use the BGP-MVPN procedures for Global Table Multicast.
Abstract
RFCs 6513, 6514, and others describe protocols and procedures that a Service Provider (SP) may deploy in order to offer Multicast Virtual Private Network (Multicast VPN or MVPN) service to its customers. Some of these procedures use BGP to distribute VPN-specific multicast routing information across a backbone network. With a small number of relatively minor modifications, the same BGP procedures can also be used to distribute multicast routing information that is not specific to any VPN. Multicast that is outside the context of a VPN is known as "Global Table Multicast", or sometimes simply as "Internet multicast". In this document, we describe the modifications that are needed to use the BGP-MVPN procedures for Global Table Multicast.
RFC 7705: Autonomous System Migration Mechanisms and Their Effects on the BGP AS_PATH Attribute
Proposed Standard- W. George
- S. Amante
- November 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document discusses some existing commonly used BGP mechanisms for Autonomous System Number (ASN) migration that are not formally part of the BGP4 protocol specification. It is necessary to document these de facto standards to ensure that they are properly supported in future BGP protocol work.
Abstract
This document discusses some existing commonly used BGP mechanisms for Autonomous System Number (ASN) migration that are not formally part of the BGP4 protocol specification. It is necessary to document these de facto standards to ensure that they are properly supported in future BGP protocol work.
RFC 7611: BGP ACCEPT_OWN Community Attribute
Proposed Standard- J. Uttaro
- P. Mohapatra
- D. Smith
- R. Raszuk
- J. Scudder
- August 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Under certain conditions, it is desirable for a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) route reflector to be able to modify the Route Target (RT) list of a Virtual Private Network (VPN) route that the route reflector distributes, enabling the route reflector to control how a route originated within one VPN Routing and Forwarding table (VRF) is imported into other VRFs. This technique works effectively as long as the VRF that exports the route is not on the same Provider Edge (PE) router as the VRF(s) that imports the route. However, due to the constraints of BGP, it does not work if the two are on the same PE. This document describes a modification to BGP allowing this technique to work when the VRFs are on the same PE and to be used in a standard manner throughout an autonomous system.
Abstract
Under certain conditions, it is desirable for a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) route reflector to be able to modify the Route Target (RT) list of a Virtual Private Network (VPN) route that the route reflector distributes, enabling the route reflector to control how a route originated within one VPN Routing and Forwarding table (VRF) is imported into other VRFs. This technique works effectively as long as the VRF that exports the route is not on the same Provider Edge (PE) router as the VRF(s) that imports the route. However, due to the constraints of BGP, it does not work if the two are on the same PE. This document describes a modification to BGP allowing this technique to work when the VRFs are on the same PE and to be used in a standard manner throughout an autonomous system.
RFC 7606: Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages
Proposed Standard- E. Chen
- J. Scudder
- P. Mohapatra
- K. Patel
- August 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
According to the base BGP specification, a BGP speaker that receives an UPDATE message containing a malformed attribute is required to reset the session over which the offending attribute was received. This behavior is undesirable because a session reset would impact not only routes with the offending attribute but also other valid routes exchanged over the session. This document partially revises the error handling for UPDATE messages and provides guidelines for the authors of documents defining new attributes. Finally, it revises the error handling procedures for a number of existing attributes.
This document updates error handling for RFCs 1997, 4271, 4360, 4456, 4760, 5543, 5701, and 6368.
Abstract
According to the base BGP specification, a BGP speaker that receives an UPDATE message containing a malformed attribute is required to reset the session over which the offending attribute was received. This behavior is undesirable because a session reset would impact not only routes with the offending attribute but also other valid routes exchanged over the session. This document partially revises the error handling for UPDATE messages and provides guidelines for the authors of documents defining new attributes. Finally, it revises the error handling procedures for a number of existing attributes.
This document updates error handling for RFCs 1997, 4271, 4360, 4456, 4760, 5543, 5701, and 6368.
RFC 7607: Codification of AS 0 Processing
Proposed Standard- W. Kumari
- R. Bush
- H. Schiller
- K. Patel
- August 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
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.
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.
RFC 7543: Covering Prefixes Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4
Proposed Standard- H. Jeng
- L. Jalil
- R. Bonica
- K. Patel
- L. Yong
- May 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a new Outbound Route Filter (ORF) type, called the Covering Prefixes ORF (CP-ORF). CP-ORF is applicable in Virtual Hub-and-Spoke VPNs. It also is applicable in BGP/MPLS Ethernet VPN (EVPN) networks.
Abstract
This document defines a new Outbound Route Filter (ORF) type, called the Covering Prefixes ORF (CP-ORF). CP-ORF is applicable in Virtual Hub-and-Spoke VPNs. It also is applicable in BGP/MPLS Ethernet VPN (EVPN) networks.
RFC 7432: BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN
Proposed Standard- A. Sajassi
- R. Aggarwal
- N. Bitar
- A. Isaac
- J. Uttaro
- J. Drake
- W. Henderickx
- February 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes procedures for BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPNs (EVPN). The procedures described here meet the requirements specified in RFC 7209 -- "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)".
Abstract
This document describes procedures for BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPNs (EVPN). The procedures described here meet the requirements specified in RFC 7209 -- "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)".
RFC 7454: BCP 194: BGP Operations and Security
Best Current Practice- J. Durand
- I. Pepelnjak
- G. Doering
- February 2015
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the protocol almost exclusively used in the Internet to exchange routing information between network domains. Due to this central nature, it is important to understand the security measures that can and should be deployed to prevent accidental or intentional routing disturbances.
This document describes measures to protect the BGP sessions itself such as Time to Live (TTL), the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO), and control-plane filtering. It also describes measures to better control the flow of routing information, using prefix filtering and automation of prefix filters, max-prefix filtering, Autonomous System (AS) path filtering, route flap dampening, and BGP community scrubbing.
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the protocol almost exclusively used in the Internet to exchange routing information between network domains. Due to this central nature, it is important to understand the security measures that can and should be deployed to prevent accidental or intentional routing disturbances.
This document describes measures to protect the BGP sessions itself such as Time to Live (TTL), the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO), and control-plane filtering. It also describes measures to better control the flow of routing information, using prefix filtering and automation of prefix filters, max-prefix filtering, Autonomous System (AS) path filtering, route flap dampening, and BGP community scrubbing.
RFC 7447: Deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute
Proposed Standard- J. Scudder
- K. Kompella
- February 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute is defined in RFC 6790. Regrettably, it has a bug: although RFC 6790 mandates that routers incapable of processing Entropy Labels must remove the attribute, fulfillment of this requirement cannot be guaranteed in practice. This specification deprecates the attribute. A forthcoming document will propose a replacement.
Abstract
The BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute is defined in RFC 6790. Regrettably, it has a bug: although RFC 6790 mandates that routers incapable of processing Entropy Labels must remove the attribute, fulfillment of this requirement cannot be guaranteed in practice. This specification deprecates the attribute. A forthcoming document will propose a replacement.
RFC 7441: Encoding Multipoint LDP (mLDP) Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs) in the NLRI of BGP MCAST-VPN Routes
Proposed Standard- IJ. Wijnands
- E. Rosen
- U. Joorde
- January 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Many service providers offer "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" service to their customers. Existing IETF standards specify the procedures and protocols that a service provider uses in order to offer this service to customers who have IP unicast and IP multicast traffic in their VPNs. It is also desirable to be able to support customers who have MPLS multicast traffic in their VPNs. This document specifies the procedures and protocol extensions that are needed to support customers who use the Multipoint LDP (mLDP) as the control protocol for their MPLS multicast traffic. Existing standards do provide some support for customers who use mLDP, but only under a restrictive set of circumstances. This document generalizes the existing support to include all cases where the customer uses mLDP, without any restrictions. This document updates RFC 6514.
Abstract
Many service providers offer "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" service to their customers. Existing IETF standards specify the procedures and protocols that a service provider uses in order to offer this service to customers who have IP unicast and IP multicast traffic in their VPNs. It is also desirable to be able to support customers who have MPLS multicast traffic in their VPNs. This document specifies the procedures and protocol extensions that are needed to support customers who use the Multipoint LDP (mLDP) as the control protocol for their MPLS multicast traffic. Existing standards do provide some support for customers who use mLDP, but only under a restrictive set of circumstances. This document generalizes the existing support to include all cases where the customer uses mLDP, without any restrictions. This document updates RFC 6514.
RFC 7353: Security Requirements for BGP Path Validation
Informational- S. Bellovin
- R. Bush
- D. Ward
- August 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes requirements for a BGP security protocol design to provide cryptographic assurance that the origin Autonomous System (AS) has the right to announce the prefix and to provide assurance of the AS Path of the announcement.
Abstract
This document describes requirements for a BGP security protocol design to provide cryptographic assurance that the origin Autonomous System (AS) has the right to announce the prefix and to provide assurance of the AS Path of the announcement.
RFC 7311: The Accumulated IGP Metric Attribute for BGP
Proposed Standard- P. Mohapatra
- R. Fernando
- E. Rosen
- J. Uttaro
- August 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Routing protocols that have been designed to run within a single administrative domain (IGPs) generally do so by assigning a metric to each link and then choosing, as the installed path between two nodes, the path for which the total distance (sum of the metric of each link along the path) is minimized. BGP, designed to provide routing over a large number of independent administrative domains (autonomous systems), does not make its path-selection decisions through the use of a metric. It is generally recognized that any attempt to do so would incur significant scalability problems as well as inter-administration coordination problems. However, there are deployments in which a single administration runs several contiguous BGP networks. In such cases, it can be desirable, within that single administrative domain, for BGP to select paths based on a metric, just as an IGP would do. The purpose of this document is to provide a specification for doing so.
Abstract
Routing protocols that have been designed to run within a single administrative domain (IGPs) generally do so by assigning a metric to each link and then choosing, as the installed path between two nodes, the path for which the total distance (sum of the metric of each link along the path) is minimized. BGP, designed to provide routing over a large number of independent administrative domains (autonomous systems), does not make its path-selection decisions through the use of a metric. It is generally recognized that any attempt to do so would incur significant scalability problems as well as inter-administration coordination problems. However, there are deployments in which a single administration runs several contiguous BGP networks. In such cases, it can be desirable, within that single administrative domain, for BGP to select paths based on a metric, just as an IGP would do. The purpose of this document is to provide a specification for doing so.
RFC 7313: Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4
Proposed Standard- K. Patel
- E. Chen
- B. Venkatachalapathy
- July 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
In this document, we enhance the existing BGP route refresh mechanisms to provide for the demarcation of the beginning and the ending of a route refresh. The enhancement can be used to facilitate correction of BGP Routing Information Base (RIB) inconsistencies in a non-disruptive manner. This document updates RFC 2918.
Abstract
In this document, we enhance the existing BGP route refresh mechanisms to provide for the demarcation of the beginning and the ending of a route refresh. The enhancement can be used to facilitate correction of BGP Routing Information Base (RIB) inconsistencies in a non-disruptive manner. This document updates RFC 2918.
RFC 7300: BCP 6: Reservation of Last Autonomous System (AS) Numbers
Best Current Practice- J. Haas
- J. Mitchell
- July 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document reserves two Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) at the end of the 16-bit and 32-bit ranges, described in this document as "Last ASNs", and provides guidance to implementers and operators on their use. This document updates Section 10 of RFC 1930.
Abstract
This document reserves two Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) at the end of the 16-bit and 32-bit ranges, described in this document as "Last ASNs", and provides guidance to implementers and operators on their use. This document updates Section 10 of RFC 1930.
RFC 7289: Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs
Informational- V. Kuarsingh
- J. Cianfarani
- June 2014
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document specifies a framework to integrate a Network Address Translation (NAT) layer into an operator's network to function as a Carrier-Grade NAT (also known as CGN or Large-Scale NAT). The CGN infrastructure will often form a NAT444 environment as the subscriber home network will likely also maintain a subscriber-side NAT function. Exhaustion of the IPv4 address pool is a major driver compelling some operators to implement CGN. Although operators may wish to deploy IPv6 to strategically overcome IPv4 exhaustion, near- term needs may not be satisfied with an IPv6 deployment alone. This document provides a practical integration model that allows the CGN platform to be integrated into the network, meeting the connectivity needs of the subscriber while being mindful of not disrupting existing services and meeting the technical challenges that CGN brings. The model included in this document utilizes BGP/MPLS IP VPNs, which allow for virtual routing separation, helping ease the CGN's impact on the network. This document does not intend to defend the merits of CGN.
Abstract
This document specifies a framework to integrate a Network Address Translation (NAT) layer into an operator's network to function as a Carrier-Grade NAT (also known as CGN or Large-Scale NAT). The CGN infrastructure will often form a NAT444 environment as the subscriber home network will likely also maintain a subscriber-side NAT function. Exhaustion of the IPv4 address pool is a major driver compelling some operators to implement CGN. Although operators may wish to deploy IPv6 to strategically overcome IPv4 exhaustion, near- term needs may not be satisfied with an IPv6 deployment alone. This document provides a practical integration model that allows the CGN platform to be integrated into the network, meeting the connectivity needs of the subscriber while being mindful of not disrupting existing services and meeting the technical challenges that CGN brings. The model included in this document utilizes BGP/MPLS IP VPNs, which allow for virtual routing separation, helping ease the CGN's impact on the network. This document does not intend to defend the merits of CGN.
RFC 7196: Making Route Flap Damping Usable
Proposed Standard- C. Pelsser
- R. Bush
- K. Patel
- P. Mohapatra
- O. Maennel
- May 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Route Flap Damping (RFD) was first proposed to reduce BGP churn in routers. Unfortunately, RFD was found to severely penalize sites for being well connected because topological richness amplifies the number of update messages exchanged. Many operators have turned RFD off. Based on experimental measurement, this document recommends adjusting a few RFD algorithmic constants and limits in order to reduce the high risks with RFD. The result is damping a non-trivial amount of long-term churn without penalizing well-behaved prefixes' normal convergence process.
Abstract
Route Flap Damping (RFD) was first proposed to reduce BGP churn in routers. Unfortunately, RFD was found to severely penalize sites for being well connected because topological richness amplifies the number of update messages exchanged. Many operators have turned RFD off. Based on experimental measurement, this document recommends adjusting a few RFD algorithmic constants and limits in order to reduce the high risks with RFD. The result is damping a non-trivial amount of long-term churn without penalizing well-behaved prefixes' normal convergence process.
RFC 7132: Threat Model for BGP Path Security
Informational- S. Kent
- A. Chi
- February 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a threat model for the context in which External Border Gateway Protocol (EBGP) path security mechanisms will be developed. The threat model includes an analysis of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) and focuses on the ability of an Autonomous System (AS) to verify the authenticity of the AS path info received in a BGP update. We use the term "PATHSEC" to refer to any BGP path security technology that makes use of the RPKI. PATHSEC will secure BGP, consistent with the inter-AS security focus of the RPKI.
The document characterizes classes of potential adversaries that are considered to be threats and examines classes of attacks that might be launched against PATHSEC. It does not revisit attacks against unprotected BGP, as that topic has already been addressed in the BGP-4 standard. It concludes with a brief discussion of residual vulnerabilities.
Abstract
This document describes a threat model for the context in which External Border Gateway Protocol (EBGP) path security mechanisms will be developed. The threat model includes an analysis of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) and focuses on the ability of an Autonomous System (AS) to verify the authenticity of the AS path info received in a BGP update. We use the term "PATHSEC" to refer to any BGP path security technology that makes use of the RPKI. PATHSEC will secure BGP, consistent with the inter-AS security focus of the RPKI.
The document characterizes classes of potential adversaries that are considered to be threats and examines classes of attacks that might be launched against PATHSEC. It does not revisit attacks against unprotected BGP, as that topic has already been addressed in the BGP-4 standard. It concludes with a brief discussion of residual vulnerabilities.
RFC 7024: Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNs
Proposed Standard- H. Jeng
- J. Uttaro
- L. Jalil
- B. Decraene
- Y. Rekhter
- R. Aggarwal
- October 2013
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
With BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), providing any-to-any connectivity among sites of a given VPN would require each Provider Edge (PE) router connected to one or more of these sites to hold all the routes of that VPN. The approach described in this document allows the VPN service provider to reduce the number of PE routers that have to maintain all these routes by requiring only a subset of these routers to maintain all these routes.
Furthermore, when PE routers use ingress replication to carry the multicast traffic of VPN customers, the approach described in this document may, under certain circumstances, reduce bandwidth inefficiency associated with ingress replication and redistribute the replication load among PE routers.
Abstract
With BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), providing any-to-any connectivity among sites of a given VPN would require each Provider Edge (PE) router connected to one or more of these sites to hold all the routes of that VPN. The approach described in this document allows the VPN service provider to reduce the number of PE routers that have to maintain all these routes by requiring only a subset of these routers to maintain all these routes.
Furthermore, when PE routers use ingress replication to carry the multicast traffic of VPN customers, the approach described in this document may, under certain circumstances, reduce bandwidth inefficiency associated with ingress replication and redistribute the replication load among PE routers.
RFC 6996: BCP 6: Autonomous System (AS) Reservation for Private Use
Best Current Practice- J. Mitchell
- July 2013
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes the reservation of Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) that are for Private Use only, known as Private Use ASNs, and provides operational guidance on their use. This document enlarges the total space available for Private Use ASNs by documenting the reservation of a second, larger range and updates RFC 1930 by replacing Section 10 of that document.
Abstract
This document describes the reservation of Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) that are for Private Use only, known as Private Use ASNs, and provides operational guidance on their use. This document enlarges the total space available for Private Use ASNs by documenting the reservation of a second, larger range and updates RFC 1930 by replacing Section 10 of that document.
RFC 6952: Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide
Informational- M. Jethanandani
- K. Patel
- L. Zheng
- May 2013
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document analyzes TCP-based routing protocols, the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP), and the Multicast Source Distribution Protocol (MSDP), according to guidelines set forth in Section 4.2 of "Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols Design Guidelines", RFC 6518.
Abstract
This document analyzes TCP-based routing protocols, the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP), and the Multicast Source Distribution Protocol (MSDP), according to guidelines set forth in Section 4.2 of "Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols Design Guidelines", RFC 6518.
RFC 6938: Deprecation of BGP Path Attributes: DPA, ADVERTISER, and RCID_PATH / CLUSTER_ID
Proposed Standard- J. Scudder
- May 2013
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document requests IANA to deprecate the following BGP path attributes: DPA, ADVERTISER, and RCID_PATH / CLUSTER_ID, associated with an abandoned Internet-Draft and a Historic RFC.
Abstract
This document requests IANA to deprecate the following BGP path attributes: DPA, ADVERTISER, and RCID_PATH / CLUSTER_ID, associated with an abandoned Internet-Draft and a Historic RFC.
RFC 6916: BCP 182: Algorithm Agility Procedure for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
Best Current Practice- R. Gagliano
- S. Kent
- S. Turner
- April 2013
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the process that Certification Authorities (CAs) and Relying Parties (RPs) participating in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) will need to follow to transition to a new (and probably cryptographically stronger) algorithm set. The process is expected to be completed over a timescale of several years. Consequently, no emergency transition is specified. The transition procedure defined in this document supports only a top-down migration (parent migrates before children).
Abstract
This document specifies the process that Certification Authorities (CAs) and Relying Parties (RPs) participating in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) will need to follow to transition to a new (and probably cryptographically stronger) algorithm set. The process is expected to be completed over a timescale of several years. Consequently, no emergency transition is specified. The transition procedure defined in this document supports only a top-down migration (parent migrates before children).
RFC 6907: Use Cases and Interpretations of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects for Issuers and Relying Parties
Informational- T. Manderson
- K. Sriram
- R. White
- March 2013
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a number of use cases together with directions and interpretations for organizations and relying parties when creating or encountering Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) object scenarios in the public RPKI. All of these items are discussed here in relation to the Internet routing system.
Abstract
This document describes a number of use cases together with directions and interpretations for organizations and relying parties when creating or encountering Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) object scenarios in the public RPKI. All of these items are discussed here in relation to the Internet routing system.
RFC 6811: BGP Prefix Origin Validation
Proposed Standard- P. Mohapatra
- J. Scudder
- D. Ward
- R. Bush
- R. Austein
- January 2013
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
To help reduce well-known threats against BGP including prefix mis- announcing and monkey-in-the-middle attacks, one of the security requirements is the ability to validate the origination Autonomous System (AS) of BGP routes. More specifically, one needs to validate that the AS number claiming to originate an address prefix (as derived from the AS_PATH attribute of the BGP route) is in fact authorized by the prefix holder to do so. This document describes a simple validation mechanism to partially satisfy this requirement. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
To help reduce well-known threats against BGP including prefix mis- announcing and monkey-in-the-middle attacks, one of the security requirements is the ability to validate the origination Autonomous System (AS) of BGP routes. More specifically, one needs to validate that the AS number claiming to originate an address prefix (as derived from the AS_PATH attribute of the BGP route) is in fact authorized by the prefix holder to do so. This document describes a simple validation mechanism to partially satisfy this requirement. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6793: BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space
Proposed Standard- Q. Vohra
- E. Chen
- December 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Autonomous System number is encoded as a two-octet entity in the base BGP specification. This document describes extensions to BGP to carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities. This document obsoletes RFC 4893 and updates RFC 4271. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The Autonomous System number is encoded as a two-octet entity in the base BGP specification. This document describes extensions to BGP to carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities. This document obsoletes RFC 4893 and updates RFC 4271. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6774: Distribution of Diverse BGP Paths
Informational- R. Raszuk
- R. Fernando
- K. Patel
- D. McPherson
- K. Kumaki
- November 2012
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
The BGP4 protocol specifies the selection and propagation of a single best path for each prefix. As defined and widely deployed today, BGP has no mechanisms to distribute alternate paths that are not considered best path between its speakers. This behavior results in a number of disadvantages for new applications and services.
The main objective of this document is to observe that by simply adding a new session between a route reflector and its client, the Nth best path can be distributed. This document also compares existing solutions and proposed ideas that enable distribution of more paths than just the best path.
This proposal does not specify any changes to the BGP protocol definition. It does not require a software upgrade of provider edge (PE) routers acting as route reflector clients. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
The BGP4 protocol specifies the selection and propagation of a single best path for each prefix. As defined and widely deployed today, BGP has no mechanisms to distribute alternate paths that are not considered best path between its speakers. This behavior results in a number of disadvantages for new applications and services.
The main objective of this document is to observe that by simply adding a new session between a route reflector and its client, the Nth best path can be distributed. This document also compares existing solutions and proposed ideas that enable distribution of more paths than just the best path.
This proposal does not specify any changes to the BGP protocol definition. It does not require a software upgrade of provider edge (PE) routers acting as route reflector clients. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6769: Simple Virtual Aggregation (S-VA)
Informational- R. Raszuk
- J. Heitz
- A. Lo
- L. Zhang
- X. Xu
- October 2012
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
All BGP routers in the Default-Free Zone (DFZ) are required to carry all routes in the Default-Free Routing Table (DFRT). This document describes a technique, Simple Virtual Aggregation (S-VA), that allows some BGP routers not to install all of those routes into the Forwarding Information Base (FIB).
Some routers in an Autonomous System (AS) announce an aggregate (the VA prefix) in addition to the routes they already announce. This enables other routers not to install the routes covered by the VA prefix into the FIB as long as those routes have the same next-hop as the VA prefix.
The VA prefixes that are announced within an AS are not announced to any other AS. The described functionality is of very low operational complexity, as it proposes a confined BGP speaker solution without any dependency on network-wide configuration or requirement for any form of intra-domain tunneling. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
All BGP routers in the Default-Free Zone (DFZ) are required to carry all routes in the Default-Free Routing Table (DFRT). This document describes a technique, Simple Virtual Aggregation (S-VA), that allows some BGP routers not to install all of those routes into the Forwarding Information Base (FIB).
Some routers in an Autonomous System (AS) announce an aggregate (the VA prefix) in addition to the routes they already announce. This enables other routers not to install the routes covered by the VA prefix into the FIB as long as those routes have the same next-hop as the VA prefix.
The VA prefixes that are announced within an AS are not announced to any other AS. The described functionality is of very low operational complexity, as it proposes a confined BGP speaker solution without any dependency on network-wide configuration or requirement for any form of intra-domain tunneling. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6752: Issues with Private IP Addressing in the Internet
Informational- A. Kirkham
- September 2012
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to provide a discussion of the potential problems of using private, RFC 1918, or non-globally routable addressing within the core of a Service Provider (SP) network. The discussion focuses on link addresses and, to a small extent, loopback addresses. While many of the issues are well recognised within the ISP community, there appears to be no document that collectively describes the issues. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to provide a discussion of the potential problems of using private, RFC 1918, or non-globally routable addressing within the core of a Service Provider (SP) network. The discussion focuses on link addresses and, to a small extent, loopback addresses. While many of the issues are well recognised within the ISP community, there appears to be no document that collectively describes the issues. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6565: OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge (PE-CE) Routing Protocol
Proposed Standard- P. Pillay-Esnault
- P. Moyer
- J. Doyle
- E. Ertekin
- M. Lundberg
- June 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Many Service Providers (SPs) offer Virtual Private Network (VPN) services to their customers using a technique in which Customer Edge (CE) routers are routing peers of Provider Edge (PE) routers. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is used to distribute the customer's routes across the provider's IP backbone network, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is used to tunnel customer packets across the provider's backbone. Support currently exists for both IPv4 and IPv6 VPNs; however, only Open Shortest Path First version 2 (OSPFv2) as PE-CE protocol is specified. This document extends those specifications to support OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) as a PE-CE routing protocol. The OSPFv3 PE-CE functionality is identical to that of OSPFv2 except for the differences described in this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Many Service Providers (SPs) offer Virtual Private Network (VPN) services to their customers using a technique in which Customer Edge (CE) routers are routing peers of Provider Edge (PE) routers. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is used to distribute the customer's routes across the provider's IP backbone network, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is used to tunnel customer packets across the provider's backbone. Support currently exists for both IPv4 and IPv6 VPNs; however, only Open Shortest Path First version 2 (OSPFv2) as PE-CE protocol is specified. This document extends those specifications to support OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) as a PE-CE routing protocol. The OSPFv3 PE-CE functionality is identical to that of OSPFv2 except for the differences described in this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6624: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling
Informational- K. Kompella
- B. Kothari
- R. Cherukuri
- May 2012
- IETF publication
Abstract
Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs) based on Frame Relay or ATM circuits have been around a long time; more recently, Ethernet VPNs, including Virtual Private LAN Service, have become popular. Traditional L2VPNs often required a separate Service Provider infrastructure for each type and yet another for the Internet and IP VPNs. In addition, L2VPN provisioning was cumbersome. This document presents a new approach to the problem of offering L2VPN services where the L2VPN customer's experience is virtually identical to that offered by traditional L2VPNs, but such that a Service Provider can maintain a single network for L2VPNs, IP VPNs, and the Internet, as well as a common provisioning methodology for all services. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs) based on Frame Relay or ATM circuits have been around a long time; more recently, Ethernet VPNs, including Virtual Private LAN Service, have become popular. Traditional L2VPNs often required a separate Service Provider infrastructure for each type and yet another for the Internet and IP VPNs. In addition, L2VPN provisioning was cumbersome. This document presents a new approach to the problem of offering L2VPN services where the L2VPN customer's experience is virtually identical to that offered by traditional L2VPNs, but such that a Service Provider can maintain a single network for L2VPNs, IP VPNs, and the Internet, as well as a common provisioning methodology for all services. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6608: Subcodes for BGP Finite State Machine Error
Proposed Standard- J. Dong
- M. Chen
- A. Suryanarayana
- May 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Finite State Machine (FSM) Error that could provide more information to help network operators in diagnosing BGP FSM issues and correlating network events. This document updates RFC 4271. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Finite State Machine (FSM) Error that could provide more information to help network operators in diagnosing BGP FSM issues and correlating network events. This document updates RFC 4271. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6513: Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- R. Aggarwal
- February 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
In order for IP multicast traffic within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual Private Network) to travel from one VPN site to another, special protocols and procedures must be implemented by the VPN Service Provider. These protocols and procedures are specified in this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
In order for IP multicast traffic within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual Private Network) to travel from one VPN site to another, special protocols and procedures must be implemented by the VPN Service Provider. These protocols and procedures are specified in this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6514: BGP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs
Proposed Standard- R. Aggarwal
- E. Rosen
- T. Morin
- Y. Rekhter
- February 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes the BGP encodings and procedures for exchanging the information elements required by Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs, as specified in RFC 6513. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes the BGP encodings and procedures for exchanging the information elements required by Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs, as specified in RFC 6513. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6515: IPv4 and IPv6 Infrastructure Addresses in BGP Updates for Multicast VPN
Proposed Standard- R. Aggarwal
- E. Rosen
- February 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
To provide Multicast VPN (MVPN) service, Provider Edge routers originate BGP Update messages that carry Multicast-VPN ("MCAST-VPN") BGP routes; they also originate unicast VPN routes that carry MVPN-specific attributes. These routes encode addresses from the customer's address space, as well as addresses from the provider's address space. These two address spaces are independent, and the address family (IPv4 or IPv6) of the two spaces may or may not be the same. These routes always contain an "address family" field that specifies whether the customer addresses are IPv4 addresses or whether they are IPv6 addresses. However, there is no field that explicitly specifies the address family of the provider addresses. To ensure interoperability, this document specifies that provider IPv4 addresses are always encoded in these update messages as 4-octet addresses, and that the distinction between IPv4 and IPv6 is signaled solely by the length of the address field. Specific cases are explained in detail. This document updates RFC 6514. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
To provide Multicast VPN (MVPN) service, Provider Edge routers originate BGP Update messages that carry Multicast-VPN ("MCAST-VPN") BGP routes; they also originate unicast VPN routes that carry MVPN-specific attributes. These routes encode addresses from the customer's address space, as well as addresses from the provider's address space. These two address spaces are independent, and the address family (IPv4 or IPv6) of the two spaces may or may not be the same. These routes always contain an "address family" field that specifies whether the customer addresses are IPv4 addresses or whether they are IPv6 addresses. However, there is no field that explicitly specifies the address family of the provider addresses. To ensure interoperability, this document specifies that provider IPv4 addresses are always encoded in these update messages as 4-octet addresses, and that the distinction between IPv4 and IPv6 is signaled solely by the length of the address field. Specific cases are explained in detail. This document updates RFC 6514. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6517: Mandatory Features in a Layer 3 Multicast BGP/MPLS VPN Solution
Informational- T. Morin
- B. Niven-Jenkins
- Y. Kamite
- R. Zhang
- N. Leymann
- N. Bitar
- February 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
More that one set of mechanisms to support multicast in a layer 3 BGP/MPLS VPN has been defined. These are presented in the documents that define them as optional building blocks.
To enable interoperability between implementations, this document defines a subset of features that is considered mandatory for a multicast BGP/MPLS VPN implementation. This will help implementers and deployers understand which L3VPN multicast requirements are best satisfied by each option. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
More that one set of mechanisms to support multicast in a layer 3 BGP/MPLS VPN has been defined. These are presented in the documents that define them as optional building blocks.
To enable interoperability between implementations, this document defines a subset of features that is considered mandatory for a multicast BGP/MPLS VPN implementation. This will help implementers and deployers understand which L3VPN multicast requirements are best satisfied by each option. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6480: An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing
Informational- M. Lepinski
- S. Kent
- February 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes an architecture for an infrastructure to support improved security of Internet routing. The foundation of this architecture is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) that represents the allocation hierarchy of IP address space and Autonomous System (AS) numbers; and a distributed repository system for storing and disseminating the data objects that comprise the RPKI, as well as other signed objects necessary for improved routing security. As an initial application of this architecture, the document describes how a legitimate holder of IP address space can explicitly and verifiably authorize one or more ASes to originate routes to that address space. Such verifiable authorizations could be used, for example, to more securely construct BGP route filters. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document describes an architecture for an infrastructure to support improved security of Internet routing. The foundation of this architecture is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) that represents the allocation hierarchy of IP address space and Autonomous System (AS) numbers; and a distributed repository system for storing and disseminating the data objects that comprise the RPKI, as well as other signed objects necessary for improved routing security. As an initial application of this architecture, the document describes how a legitimate holder of IP address space can explicitly and verifiably authorize one or more ASes to originate routes to that address space. Such verifiable authorizations could be used, for example, to more securely construct BGP route filters. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6482: A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)
Proposed Standard- M. Lepinski
- S. Kent
- D. Kong
- February 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a standard profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs). A ROA is a digitally signed object that provides a means of verifying that an IP address block holder has authorized an Autonomous System (AS) to originate routes to one or more prefixes within the address block. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 9582
Abstract
This document defines a standard profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs). A ROA is a digitally signed object that provides a means of verifying that an IP address block holder has authorized an Autonomous System (AS) to originate routes to one or more prefixes within the address block. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6483: Validation of Route Origination Using the Resource Certificate Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)
Informational- G. Huston
- G. Michaelson
- February 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines the semantics of a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) in terms of the context of an application of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure to validate the origination of routes advertised in the Border Gateway Protocol. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document defines the semantics of a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) in terms of the context of an application of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure to validate the origination of routes advertised in the Border Gateway Protocol. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6472: BCP 172: Recommendation for Not Using AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP
Best Current Practice- W. Kumari
- K. Sriram
- December 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document recommends against the use of the AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET types of the AS_PATH in BGPv4. This is done to simplify the design and implementation of BGP and to make the semantics of the originator of a route more clear. This will also simplify the design, implementation, and deployment of ongoing work in the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
Obsoleted by RFC 9774
Abstract
This document recommends against the use of the AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET types of the AS_PATH in BGPv4. This is done to simplify the design and implementation of BGP and to make the semantics of the originator of a route more clear. This will also simplify the design, implementation, and deployment of ongoing work in the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
RFC 6441: BCP 171: Time to Remove Filters for Previously Unallocated IPv4 /8s
Best Current Practice- L. Vegoda
- November 2011
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
It has been common for network administrators to filter IP traffic from and BGP prefixes of unallocated IPv4 address space. Now that there are no longer any unallocated IPv4 /8s, this practise is more complicated, fragile, and expensive. Network administrators are advised to remove filters based on the registration status of the address space.
This document explains why any remaining packet and BGP prefix filters for unallocated IPv4 /8s should now be removed on border routers and documents those IPv4 unicast prefixes that should not be routed across the public Internet. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
Abstract
It has been common for network administrators to filter IP traffic from and BGP prefixes of unallocated IPv4 address space. Now that there are no longer any unallocated IPv4 /8s, this practise is more complicated, fragile, and expensive. Network administrators are advised to remove filters based on the registration status of the address space.
This document explains why any remaining packet and BGP prefix filters for unallocated IPv4 /8s should now be removed on border routers and documents those IPv4 unicast prefixes that should not be routed across the public Internet. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
RFC 6396: Multi-Threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Routing Information Export Format
Proposed Standard- L. Blunk
- M. Karir
- C. Labovitz
- October 2011
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document describes the MRT format for routing information export. This format was developed in concert with the Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) from whence the format takes it name. The format can be used to export routing protocol messages, state changes, and routing information base contents. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes the MRT format for routing information export. This format was developed in concert with the Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) from whence the format takes it name. The format can be used to export routing protocol messages, state changes, and routing information base contents. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6397: Multi-Threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Routing Information Export Format with Geo-Location Extensions
Proposed Standard- T. Manderson
- October 2011
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document updates the Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) export format for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information by extending it to include optional terrestrial coordinates of a BGP collector and its BGP peers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document updates the Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) export format for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information by extending it to include optional terrestrial coordinates of a BGP collector and its BGP peers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6382: BCP 169: Unique Origin Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) per Node for Globally Anycasted Services
Best Current Practice- D. McPherson
- R. Donnelly
- F. Scalzo
- October 2011
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document makes recommendations regarding the use of unique origin autonomous system numbers (ASNs) per node for globally anycasted critical infrastructure services in order to provide routing system discriminators for a given anycasted prefix. Network management and monitoring techniques, or other operational mechanisms, may employ this new discriminator in whatever manner best accommodates their operating environment. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
Abstract
This document makes recommendations regarding the use of unique origin autonomous system numbers (ASNs) per node for globally anycasted critical infrastructure services in order to provide routing system discriminators for a given anycasted prefix. Network management and monitoring techniques, or other operational mechanisms, may employ this new discriminator in whatever manner best accommodates their operating environment. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
RFC 6368: Internal BGP as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Proposed Standard- P. Marques
- R. Raszuk
- K. Patel
- K. Kumaki
- T. Yamagata
- September 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines protocol extensions and procedures for BGP Provider/Customer Edge router iteration in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs. These extensions and procedures have the objective of making the usage of the BGP/MPLS IP VPN transparent to the customer network, as far as routing information is concerned. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines protocol extensions and procedures for BGP Provider/Customer Edge router iteration in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs. These extensions and procedures have the objective of making the usage of the BGP/MPLS IP VPN transparent to the customer network, as far as routing information is concerned. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6286: Autonomous-System-Wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4
Proposed Standard- E. Chen
- J. Yuan
- June 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
To accommodate situations where the current requirements for the BGP Identifier are not met, this document relaxes the definition of the BGP Identifier to be a 4-octet, unsigned, non-zero integer and relaxes the "uniqueness" requirement so that only Autonomous-System-wide (AS-wide) uniqueness of the BGP Identifiers is required. These revisions to the base BGP specification do not introduce any backward compatibility issues. This document updates RFC 4271. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
To accommodate situations where the current requirements for the BGP Identifier are not met, this document relaxes the definition of the BGP Identifier to be a 4-octet, unsigned, non-zero integer and relaxes the "uniqueness" requirement so that only Autonomous-System-wide (AS-wide) uniqueness of the BGP Identifiers is required. These revisions to the base BGP specification do not introduce any backward compatibility issues. This document updates RFC 4271. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6198: Requirements for the Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions
Informational- B. Decraene
- P. Francois
- C. Pelsser
- Z. Ahmad
- A.J. Elizondo Armengol
- T. Takeda
- April 2011
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is heavily used in Service Provider networks for both Internet and BGP/MPLS VPN services. For resiliency purposes, redundant routers and BGP sessions can be deployed to reduce the consequences of an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) or BGP session breakdown on customers' or peers' traffic. However, simply taking down or even bringing up a BGP session for maintenance purposes may still induce connectivity losses during the BGP convergence. This is no longer satisfactory for new applications (e.g., voice over IP, online gaming, VPN). Therefore, a solution is required for the graceful shutdown of a (set of) BGP session(s) in order to limit the amount of traffic loss during a planned shutdown. This document expresses requirements for such a solution. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is heavily used in Service Provider networks for both Internet and BGP/MPLS VPN services. For resiliency purposes, redundant routers and BGP sessions can be deployed to reduce the consequences of an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) or BGP session breakdown on customers' or peers' traffic. However, simply taking down or even bringing up a BGP session for maintenance purposes may still induce connectivity losses during the BGP convergence. This is no longer satisfactory for new applications (e.g., voice over IP, online gaming, VPN). Therefore, a solution is required for the graceful shutdown of a (set of) BGP session(s) in order to limit the amount of traffic loss during a planned shutdown. This document expresses requirements for such a solution. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6037: Cisco Systems' Solution for Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs
Historic- E. Rosen
- Y. Cai
- IJ. Wijnands
- October 2010
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document describes the MVPN (Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs) solution designed and deployed by Cisco Systems. The procedures specified in this document are largely a subset of the generalized MVPN framework recently standardized by the IETF. However, as the deployment of the procedures specified herein predates the publication of IETF standards (in some cases by over five years), an implementation based on these procedures differs in some respects from a fully standards-compliant implementation. These differences are pointed out in the document. This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes the MVPN (Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs) solution designed and deployed by Cisco Systems. The procedures specified in this document are largely a subset of the generalized MVPN framework recently standardized by the IETF. However, as the deployment of the procedures specified herein predates the publication of IETF standards (in some cases by over five years), an implementation based on these procedures differs in some respects from a fully standards-compliant implementation. These differences are pointed out in the document. This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
RFC 5961: Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks
Proposed Standard- A. Ramaiah
- R. Stewart
- M. Dalal
- August 2010
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
TCP has historically been considered to be protected against spoofed off-path packet injection attacks by relying on the fact that it is difficult to guess the 4-tuple (the source and destination IP addresses and the source and destination ports) in combination with the 32-bit sequence number(s). A combination of increasing window sizes and applications using longer-term connections (e.g., H-323 or Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
TCP has historically been considered to be protected against spoofed off-path packet injection attacks by relying on the fact that it is difficult to guess the 4-tuple (the source and destination IP addresses and the source and destination ports) in combination with the 32-bit sequence number(s). A combination of increasing window sizes and applications using longer-term connections (e.g., H-323 or Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5824: Requirements for Supporting Customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) and RSVP Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN
Informational- K. Kumaki
- R. Zhang
- Y. Kamite
- April 2010
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Today, customers expect to run triple-play services through BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs. Some service providers will deploy services that request Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees from a local Customer Edge (CE) to a remote CE across the network. As a result, the application (e.g., voice, video, bandwidth-guaranteed data pipe, etc.) requirements for an end-to-end QoS and reserving an adequate bandwidth continue to increase.
Service providers can use both an MPLS and an MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) to meet their service objectives. This document describes service-provider requirements for supporting a customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
Today, customers expect to run triple-play services through BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs. Some service providers will deploy services that request Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees from a local Customer Edge (CE) to a remote CE across the network. As a result, the application (e.g., voice, video, bandwidth-guaranteed data pipe, etc.) requirements for an end-to-end QoS and reserving an adequate bandwidth continue to increase.
Service providers can use both an MPLS and an MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) to meet their service objectives. This document describes service-provider requirements for supporting a customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 5747: 4over6 Transit Solution Using IP Encapsulation and MP-BGP Extensions
Experimental- J. Wu
- Y. Cui
- X. Li
- M. Xu
- C. Metz
- March 2010
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
The emerging and growing deployment of IPv6 networks will introduce cases where connectivity with IPv4 networks crossing IPv6 transit backbones is desired. This document describes a mechanism for automatic discovery and creation of IPv4-over-IPv6 tunnels via extensions to multiprotocol BGP. It is targeted at connecting islands of IPv4 networks across an IPv6-only backbone without the need for a manually configured overlay of tunnels. The mechanisms described in this document have been implemented, tested, and deployed on the large research IPv6 network in China. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
The emerging and growing deployment of IPv6 networks will introduce cases where connectivity with IPv4 networks crossing IPv6 transit backbones is desired. This document describes a mechanism for automatic discovery and creation of IPv4-over-IPv6 tunnels via extensions to multiprotocol BGP. It is targeted at connecting islands of IPv4 networks across an IPv6-only backbone without the need for a manually configured overlay of tunnels. The mechanisms described in this document have been implemented, tested, and deployed on the large research IPv6 network in China. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 5640: Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires
Proposed Standard- C. Filsfils
- P. Mohapatra
- C. Pignataro
- August 2009
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
Payloads transported over a Softwire mesh service (as defined by BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) information exchange) often carry a number of identifiable, distinct flows. It can, in some circumstances, be desirable to distribute these flows over the equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network. Currently, the payload of a packet entering the Softwire can only be interpreted by the ingress and egress routers. Thus, the load-balancing decision of a core router is only based on the encapsulating header, presenting much less entropy than available in the payload or the encapsulated header since the Softwire encapsulation acts in a tunneling fashion. This document describes a method for achieving comparable load-balancing efficiency in a network carrying Softwire mesh service over Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3) over IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) encapsulation to what would be achieved without such encapsulation. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Payloads transported over a Softwire mesh service (as defined by BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) information exchange) often carry a number of identifiable, distinct flows. It can, in some circumstances, be desirable to distribute these flows over the equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network. Currently, the payload of a packet entering the Softwire can only be interpreted by the ingress and egress routers. Thus, the load-balancing decision of a core router is only based on the encapsulating header, presenting much less entropy than available in the payload or the encapsulated header since the Softwire encapsulation acts in a tunneling fashion. This document describes a method for achieving comparable load-balancing efficiency in a network carrying Softwire mesh service over Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3) over IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) encapsulation to what would be achieved without such encapsulation. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5566: BGP IPsec Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
Proposed Standard- L. Berger
- R. White
- E. Rosen
- June 2009
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
The BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) provides a method for the dynamic exchange of encapsulation information and for the indication of encapsulation protocol types to be used for different next hops. Currently, support for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE), Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TPv3), and IP in IP tunnel types are defined. This document defines support for IPsec tunnel types. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 9012
Abstract
The BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) provides a method for the dynamic exchange of encapsulation information and for the indication of encapsulation protocol types to be used for different next hops. Currently, support for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE), Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TPv3), and IP in IP tunnel types are defined. This document defines support for IPsec tunnel types. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5543: BGP Traffic Engineering Attribute
Proposed Standard- H. Ould-Brahim
- D. Fedyk
- Y. Rekhter
- May 2009
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
This document defines a new BGP attribute, the Traffic Engineering attribute, that enables BGP to carry Traffic Engineering information.
The scope and applicability of this attribute currently excludes its use for non-VPN reachability information. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines a new BGP attribute, the Traffic Engineering attribute, that enables BGP to carry Traffic Engineering information.
The scope and applicability of this attribute currently excludes its use for non-VPN reachability information. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5549: Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop
Proposed Standard- F. Le Faucheur
- E. Rosen
- May 2009
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) specifies that the set of network-layer protocols to which the address carried in the Next Hop field may belong is determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI). The current AFI/SAFI definitions for the IPv4 address family only have provisions for advertising a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv4 protocol when advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) or VPN-IPv4 NLRI. This document specifies the extensions necessary to allow advertising IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. This comprises an extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the address of the Next Hop for IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6 protocol, the encoding of the Next Hop in order to determine which of the protocols the address actually belongs to, and a new BGP Capability allowing MP-BGP Peers to dynamically discover whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN-IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 8950
Abstract
Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) specifies that the set of network-layer protocols to which the address carried in the Next Hop field may belong is determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI). The current AFI/SAFI definitions for the IPv4 address family only have provisions for advertising a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv4 protocol when advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) or VPN-IPv4 NLRI. This document specifies the extensions necessary to allow advertising IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. This comprises an extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the address of the Next Hop for IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6 protocol, the encoding of the Next Hop in order to determine which of the protocols the address actually belongs to, and a new BGP Capability allowing MP-BGP Peers to dynamically discover whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN-IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5512: The BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
Proposed Standard- P. Mohapatra
- E. Rosen
- April 2009
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
In certain situations, transporting a packet from one Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) speaker to another (the BGP next hop) requires that the packet be encapsulated by the first BGP speaker and decapsulated by the second. To support these situations, there needs to be some agreement between the two BGP speakers with regard to the "encapsulation information", i.e., the format of the encapsulation header as well as the contents of various fields of the header.
The encapsulation information need not be signaled for all encapsulation types. In cases where signaling is required (such as Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3) or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) with key), this document specifies a method by which BGP speakers can signal encapsulation information to each other. The signaling is done by sending BGP updates using the Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the IPv4 or IPv6 Address Family Identifier (AFI). In cases where no encapsulation information needs to be signaled (such as GRE without key), this document specifies a BGP extended community that can be attached to BGP UPDATE messages that carry payload prefixes in order to indicate the encapsulation protocol type to be used. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 9012
Abstract
In certain situations, transporting a packet from one Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) speaker to another (the BGP next hop) requires that the packet be encapsulated by the first BGP speaker and decapsulated by the second. To support these situations, there needs to be some agreement between the two BGP speakers with regard to the "encapsulation information", i.e., the format of the encapsulation header as well as the contents of various fields of the header.
The encapsulation information need not be signaled for all encapsulation types. In cases where signaling is required (such as Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3) or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) with key), this document specifies a method by which BGP speakers can signal encapsulation information to each other. The signaling is done by sending BGP updates using the Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the IPv4 or IPv6 Address Family Identifier (AFI). In cases where no encapsulation information needs to be signaled (such as GRE without key), this document specifies a BGP extended community that can be attached to BGP UPDATE messages that carry payload prefixes in order to indicate the encapsulation protocol type to be used. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5492: Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4
Draft Standard- J. Scudder
- R. Chandra
- February 2009
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5398: Autonomous System (AS) Number Reservation for Documentation Use
Informational- G. Huston
- December 2008
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion when relating documented examples to deployed systems, two blocks of Autonomous System numbers (ASNs) are reserved for use in examples in RFCs, books, documentation, and the like. This document describes the reservation of two blocks of ASNs as reserved numbers for use in documentation. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion when relating documented examples to deployed systems, two blocks of Autonomous System numbers (ASNs) are reserved for use in examples in RFCs, books, documentation, and the like. This document describes the reservation of two blocks of ASNs as reserved numbers for use in documentation. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5396: Textual Representation of Autonomous System (AS) Numbers
Proposed Standard- G. Huston
- G. Michaelson
- December 2008
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A textual representation for Autonomous System (AS) numbers is defined as the decimal value of the AS number. This textual representation is to be used by all documents, systems, and user interfaces referring to AS numbers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
A textual representation for Autonomous System (AS) numbers is defined as the decimal value of the AS number. This textual representation is to be used by all documents, systems, and user interfaces referring to AS numbers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5291: Outbound Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4
Proposed Standard- E. Chen
- Y. Rekhter
- August 2008
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a BGP-based mechanism that allows a BGP speaker to send to its BGP peer a set of Outbound Route Filters (ORFs) that the peer would use to constrain/filter its outbound routing updates to the speaker. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines a BGP-based mechanism that allows a BGP speaker to send to its BGP peer a set of Outbound Route Filters (ORFs) that the peer would use to constrain/filter its outbound routing updates to the speaker. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5292: Address-Prefix-Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4
Proposed Standard- E. Chen
- S. Sangli
- August 2008
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a new Outbound Router Filter (ORF) type for BGP, termed "Address Prefix Outbound Route Filter", that can be used to perform address-prefix-based route filtering. This ORF-type supports prefix-length- or range-based matching, wild-card-based address prefix matching, as well as the exact address prefix matching for address families. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines a new Outbound Router Filter (ORF) type for BGP, termed "Address Prefix Outbound Route Filter", that can be used to perform address-prefix-based route filtering. This ORF-type supports prefix-length- or range-based matching, wild-card-based address prefix matching, as well as the exact address prefix matching for address families. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5195: BGP-Based Auto-Discovery for Layer-1 VPNs
Proposed Standard- H. Ould-Brahim
- D. Fedyk
- Y. Rekhter
- June 2008
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to define a BGP-based auto-discovery mechanism for Layer-1 VPNs (L1VPNs). The auto-discovery mechanism for L1VPNs allows the provider network devices to dynamically discover the set of Provider Edges (PEs) having ports attached to Customer Edge (CE) members of the same VPN. That information is necessary for completing the signaling phase of L1VPN connections. One main objective of a L1VPN auto-discovery mechanism is to support the "single-end provisioning" model, where addition of a new port to a given L1VPN would involve configuration changes only on the PE that has this port and on the CE that is connected to the PE via this port. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to define a BGP-based auto-discovery mechanism for Layer-1 VPNs (L1VPNs). The auto-discovery mechanism for L1VPNs allows the provider network devices to dynamically discover the set of Provider Edges (PEs) having ports attached to Customer Edge (CE) members of the same VPN. That information is necessary for completing the signaling phase of L1VPN connections. One main objective of a L1VPN auto-discovery mechanism is to support the "single-end provisioning" model, where addition of a new port to a given L1VPN would involve configuration changes only on the PE that has this port and on the CE that is connected to the PE via this port. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5160: Considerations of Provider-to-Provider Agreements for Internet-Scale Quality of Service (QoS)
Informational- P. Levis
- M. Boucadair
- March 2008
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This memo analyzes provider-to-provider Quality of Service (QoS) agreements suitable for a global QoS-enabled Internet. It defines terminology relevant to inter-domain QoS models. It proposes a new concept denoted by Meta-QoS-Class (MQC). This concept could potentially drive and federate the way QoS inter-domain relationships are built between providers. It opens up new perspectives for a QoS- enabled Internet that retains, as much as possible, the openness of the existing best-effort Internet. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This memo analyzes provider-to-provider Quality of Service (QoS) agreements suitable for a global QoS-enabled Internet. It defines terminology relevant to inter-domain QoS models. It proposes a new concept denoted by Meta-QoS-Class (MQC). This concept could potentially drive and federate the way QoS inter-domain relationships are built between providers. It opens up new perspectives for a QoS- enabled Internet that retains, as much as possible, the openness of the existing best-effort Internet. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5123: Considerations in Validating the Path in BGP
Informational- R. White
- B. Akyol
- February 2008
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document examines the implications of hop-by-hop forwarding, route aggregation, and route filtering on the concept of validation within a BGP Autonomous System (AS) Path. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document examines the implications of hop-by-hop forwarding, route aggregation, and route filtering on the concept of validation within a BGP Autonomous System (AS) Path. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5004: Avoid BGP Best Path Transitions from One External to Another
Proposed Standard- E. Chen
- S. Sangli
- September 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
In this document, we propose an extension to the BGP route selection rules that would avoid unnecessary best path transitions between external paths under certain conditions. The proposed extension would help the overall network stability, and more importantly, would eliminate certain BGP route oscillations in which more than one external path from one BGP speaker contributes to the churn. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
In this document, we propose an extension to the BGP route selection rules that would avoid unnecessary best path transitions between external paths under certain conditions. The proposed extension would help the overall network stability, and more importantly, would eliminate certain BGP route oscillations in which more than one external path from one BGP speaker contributes to the churn. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5065: Autonomous System Confederations for BGP
Draft Standard- P. Traina
- D. McPherson
- J. Scudder
- August 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is an inter-autonomous system routing protocol designed for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) networks. BGP requires that all BGP speakers within a single autonomous system (AS) must be fully meshed. This represents a serious scaling problem that has been well documented in a number of proposals.
This document describes an extension to BGP that may be used to create a confederation of autonomous systems that is represented as a single autonomous system to BGP peers external to the confederation, thereby removing the "full mesh" requirement. The intention of this extension is to aid in policy administration and reduce the management complexity of maintaining a large autonomous system.
This document obsoletes RFC 3065. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is an inter-autonomous system routing protocol designed for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) networks. BGP requires that all BGP speakers within a single autonomous system (AS) must be fully meshed. This represents a serious scaling problem that has been well documented in a number of proposals.
This document describes an extension to BGP that may be used to create a confederation of autonomous systems that is represented as a single autonomous system to BGP peers external to the confederation, thereby removing the "full mesh" requirement. The intention of this extension is to aid in policy administration and reduce the management complexity of maintaining a large autonomous system.
This document obsoletes RFC 3065. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4893: BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space
Proposed Standard- Q. Vohra
- E. Chen
- May 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Currently the Autonomous System (AS) number is encoded as a two-octet entity in BGP. This document describes extensions to BGP to carry the Autonomous System number as a four-octet entity. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 6793
Abstract
Currently the Autonomous System (AS) number is encoded as a two-octet entity in BGP. This document describes extensions to BGP to carry the Autonomous System number as a four-octet entity. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4808: Key Change Strategies for TCP-MD5
Informational- S. Bellovin
- March 2007
- IETF publication
Abstract
The TCP-MD5 option is most commonly used to secure BGP sessions between routers. However, changing the long-term key is difficult, since the change needs to be synchronized between different organizations. We describe single-ended strategies that will permit (mostly) unsynchronized key changes. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
The TCP-MD5 option is most commonly used to secure BGP sessions between routers. However, changing the long-term key is difficult, since the change needs to be synchronized between different organizations. We describe single-ended strategies that will permit (mostly) unsynchronized key changes. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4798: Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)
Proposed Standard- J. De Clercq
- D. Ooms
- S. Prevost
- F. Le Faucheur
- February 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document explains how to interconnect IPv6 islands over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)-enabled IPv4 cloud. This approach relies on IPv6 Provider Edge routers (6PE), which are Dual Stack in order to connect to IPv6 islands and to the MPLS core, which is only required to run IPv4 MPLS. The 6PE routers exchange the IPv6 reachability information transparently over the core using the Multiprotocol Border Gateway Protocol (MP-BGP) over IPv4. In doing so, the BGP Next Hop field is used to convey the IPv4 address of the 6PE router so that dynamically established IPv4-signaled MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) can be used without explicit tunnel configuration. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document explains how to interconnect IPv6 islands over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)-enabled IPv4 cloud. This approach relies on IPv6 Provider Edge routers (6PE), which are Dual Stack in order to connect to IPv6 islands and to the MPLS core, which is only required to run IPv4 MPLS. The 6PE routers exchange the IPv6 reachability information transparently over the core using the Multiprotocol Border Gateway Protocol (MP-BGP) over IPv4. In doing so, the BGP Next Hop field is used to convey the IPv4 address of the 6PE router so that dynamically established IPv4-signaled MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) can be used without explicit tunnel configuration. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4797: Use of Provider Edge to Provider Edge (PE-PE) Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) or IP in BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
Informational- Y. Rekhter
- R. Bonica
- E. Rosen
- January 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes an implementation strategy for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in which the outermost MPLS label (i.e., the tunnel label) is replaced with either an IP header or an IP header with Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE).
The implementation strategy described herein enables the deployment of BGP/MPLS IP VPN technology in networks whose edge devices are MPLS and VPN aware, but whose interior devices are not. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes an implementation strategy for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in which the outermost MPLS label (i.e., the tunnel label) is replaced with either an IP header or an IP header with Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE).
The implementation strategy described herein enables the deployment of BGP/MPLS IP VPN technology in networks whose edge devices are MPLS and VPN aware, but whose interior devices are not. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4781: Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP with MPLS
Proposed Standard- Y. Rekhter
- R. Aggarwal
- January 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A mechanism for BGP that helps minimize the negative effects on routing caused by BGP restart has already been developed and is described in a separate document ("Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP"). This document extends this mechanism to minimize the negative effects on MPLS forwarding caused by the Label Switching Router's (LSR's) control plane restart, and specifically by the restart of its BGP component when BGP is used to carry MPLS labels and the LSR is capable of preserving the MPLS forwarding state across the restart.
The mechanism described in this document is agnostic with respect to the types of the addresses carried in the BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field. As such, it works in conjunction with any of the address families that could be carried in BGP (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, etc.). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
A mechanism for BGP that helps minimize the negative effects on routing caused by BGP restart has already been developed and is described in a separate document ("Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP"). This document extends this mechanism to minimize the negative effects on MPLS forwarding caused by the Label Switching Router's (LSR's) control plane restart, and specifically by the restart of its BGP component when BGP is used to carry MPLS labels and the LSR is capable of preserving the MPLS forwarding state across the restart.
The mechanism described in this document is agnostic with respect to the types of the addresses carried in the BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field. As such, it works in conjunction with any of the address families that could be carried in BGP (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, etc.). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4724: Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP
Proposed Standard- S. Sangli
- E. Chen
- R. Fernando
- J. Scudder
- Y. Rekhter
- January 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for BGP that would help minimize the negative effects on routing caused by BGP restart. An End-of-RIB marker is specified and can be used to convey routing convergence information. A new BGP capability, termed "Graceful Restart Capability", is defined that would allow a BGP speaker to express its ability to preserve forwarding state during BGP restart. Finally, procedures are outlined for temporarily retaining routing information across a TCP session termination/re-establishment.
The mechanisms described in this document are applicable to all routers, both those with the ability to preserve forwarding state during BGP restart and those without (although the latter need to implement only a subset of the mechanisms described in this document). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for BGP that would help minimize the negative effects on routing caused by BGP restart. An End-of-RIB marker is specified and can be used to convey routing convergence information. A new BGP capability, termed "Graceful Restart Capability", is defined that would allow a BGP speaker to express its ability to preserve forwarding state during BGP restart. Finally, procedures are outlined for temporarily retaining routing information across a TCP session termination/re-establishment.
The mechanisms described in this document are applicable to all routers, both those with the ability to preserve forwarding state during BGP restart and those without (although the latter need to implement only a subset of the mechanisms described in this document). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4760: Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4
Draft Standard- T. Bates
- R. Chandra
- D. Katz
- Y. Rekhter
- January 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, L3VPN, etc.). The extensions are backward compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate with a router that doesn't support the extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, L3VPN, etc.). The extensions are backward compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate with a router that doesn't support the extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4761: Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling
Proposed Standard- K. Kompella
- Y. Rekhter
- January 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), also known as Transparent LAN Service and Virtual Private Switched Network service, is a useful Service Provider offering. The service offers a Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (VPN); however, in the case of VPLS, the customers in the VPN are connected by a multipoint Ethernet LAN, in contrast to the usual Layer 2 VPNs, which are point-to-point in nature.
This document describes the functions required to offer VPLS, a mechanism for signaling a VPLS, and rules for forwarding VPLS frames across a packet switched network. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), also known as Transparent LAN Service and Virtual Private Switched Network service, is a useful Service Provider offering. The service offers a Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (VPN); however, in the case of VPLS, the customers in the VPN are connected by a multipoint Ethernet LAN, in contrast to the usual Layer 2 VPNs, which are point-to-point in nature.
This document describes the functions required to offer VPLS, a mechanism for signaling a VPLS, and rules for forwarding VPLS frames across a packet switched network. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4786: BCP 126: Operation of Anycast Services
Best Current Practice- J. Abley
- K. Lindqvist
- December 2006
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
As the Internet has grown, and as systems and networked services within enterprises have become more pervasive, many services with high availability requirements have emerged. These requirements have increased the demands on the reliability of the infrastructure on which those services rely.
Various techniques have been employed to increase the availability of services deployed on the Internet. This document presents commentary and recommendations for distribution of services using anycast. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Abstract
As the Internet has grown, and as systems and networked services within enterprises have become more pervasive, many services with high availability requirements have emerged. These requirements have increased the demands on the reliability of the infrastructure on which those services rely.
Various techniques have been employed to increase the availability of services deployed on the Internet. This document presents commentary and recommendations for distribution of services using anycast. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC 4684: Constrained Route Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Proposed Standard- P. Marques
- R. Bonica
- L. Fang
- L. Martini
- R. Raszuk
- K. Patel
- J. Guichard
- November 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines Multi-Protocol BGP (MP-BGP) procedures that allow BGP speakers to exchange Route Target reachability information. This information can be used to build a route distribution graph in order to limit the propagation of Virtual Private Network (VPN) Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) between different autonomous systems or distinct clusters of the same autonomous system. This document updates RFC 4364. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines Multi-Protocol BGP (MP-BGP) procedures that allow BGP speakers to exchange Route Target reachability information. This information can be used to build a route distribution graph in order to limit the propagation of Virtual Private Network (VPN) Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) between different autonomous systems or distinct clusters of the same autonomous system. This document updates RFC 4364. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4659: BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN
Proposed Standard- J. De Clercq
- D. Ooms
- M. Carugi
- F. Le Faucheur
- September 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use its packet-switched backbone to provide Virtual Private Network (VPN) services for its IPv6 customers. This method reuses, and extends where necessary, the "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" method for support of IPv6. In BGP/MPLS IP VPN, "Multiprotocol BGP" is used for distributing IPv4 VPN routes over the service provider backbone, and MPLS is used to forward IPv4 VPN packets over the backbone. This document defines an IPv6 VPN address family and describes the corresponding IPv6 VPN route distribution in "Multiprotocol BGP".
This document defines support of the IPv6 VPN service over both an IPv4 and an IPv6 backbone, and for using various tunneling techniques over the core, including MPLS, IP-in-IP, Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) and IPsec protected tunnels. The inter-working between an IPv4 site and an IPv6 site is outside the scope of this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use its packet-switched backbone to provide Virtual Private Network (VPN) services for its IPv6 customers. This method reuses, and extends where necessary, the "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" method for support of IPv6. In BGP/MPLS IP VPN, "Multiprotocol BGP" is used for distributing IPv4 VPN routes over the service provider backbone, and MPLS is used to forward IPv4 VPN packets over the backbone. This document defines an IPv6 VPN address family and describes the corresponding IPv6 VPN route distribution in "Multiprotocol BGP".
This document defines support of the IPv6 VPN service over both an IPv4 and an IPv6 backbone, and for using various tunneling techniques over the core, including MPLS, IP-in-IP, Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) and IPsec protected tunnels. The inter-working between an IPv4 site and an IPv6 site is outside the scope of this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4632: BCP 122: Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan
Best Current Practice- V. Fuller
- T. Li
- August 2006
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This memo discusses the strategy for address assignment of the existing 32-bit IPv4 address space with a view toward conserving the address space and limiting the growth rate of global routing state. This document obsoletes the original Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) spec in RFC 1519, with changes made both to clarify the concepts it introduced and, after more than twelve years, to update the Internet community on the results of deploying the technology described. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Abstract
This memo discusses the strategy for address assignment of the existing 32-bit IPv4 address space with a view toward conserving the address space and limiting the growth rate of global routing state. This document obsoletes the original Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) spec in RFC 1519, with changes made both to clarify the concepts it introduced and, after more than twelve years, to update the Internet community on the results of deploying the technology described. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC 4576: Using a Link State Advertisement (LSA) Options Bit to Prevent Looping in BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- P. Psenak
- P. Pillay-Esnault
- June 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies a procedure that deals with a particular issue that may arise when a Service Provider (SP) provides "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" service to a customer and the customer uses OSPFv2 to advertise its routes to the SP. In this situation, a Customer Edge (CE) Router and a Provider Edge (PE) Router are OSPF peers, and customer routes are sent via OSPFv2 from the CE to the PE. The customer routes are converted into BGP routes, and BGP carries them across the backbone to other PE routers. The routes are then converted back to OSPF routes sent via OSPF to other CE routers. As a result of this conversion, some of the information needed to prevent loops may be lost. A procedure is needed to ensure that once a route is sent from a PE to a CE, the route will be ignored by any PE that receives it back from a CE. This document specifies the necessary procedure, using one of the options bits in the LSA (Link State Advertisements) to indicate that an LSA has already been forwarded by a PE and should be ignored by any other PEs that see it. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies a procedure that deals with a particular issue that may arise when a Service Provider (SP) provides "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" service to a customer and the customer uses OSPFv2 to advertise its routes to the SP. In this situation, a Customer Edge (CE) Router and a Provider Edge (PE) Router are OSPF peers, and customer routes are sent via OSPFv2 from the CE to the PE. The customer routes are converted into BGP routes, and BGP carries them across the backbone to other PE routers. The routes are then converted back to OSPF routes sent via OSPF to other CE routers. As a result of this conversion, some of the information needed to prevent loops may be lost. A procedure is needed to ensure that once a route is sent from a PE to a CE, the route will be ignored by any PE that receives it back from a CE. This document specifies the necessary procedure, using one of the options bits in the LSA (Link State Advertisements) to indicate that an LSA has already been forwarded by a PE and should be ignored by any other PEs that see it. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4577: OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- P. Psenak
- P. Pillay-Esnault
- June 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Many Service Providers offer Virtual Private Network (VPN) services to their customers, using a technique in which customer edge routers (CE routers) are routing peers of provider edge routers (PE routers). The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is used to distribute the customer's routes across the provider's IP backbone network, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is used to tunnel customer packets across the provider's backbone. This is known as a "BGP/MPLS IP VPN". The base specification for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs presumes that the routing protocol on the interface between a PE router and a CE router is BGP. This document extends that specification by allowing the routing protocol on the PE/CE interface to be the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol.
This document updates RFC 4364. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Many Service Providers offer Virtual Private Network (VPN) services to their customers, using a technique in which customer edge routers (CE routers) are routing peers of provider edge routers (PE routers). The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is used to distribute the customer's routes across the provider's IP backbone network, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is used to tunnel customer packets across the provider's backbone. This is known as a "BGP/MPLS IP VPN". The base specification for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs presumes that the routing protocol on the interface between a PE router and a CE router is BGP. This document extends that specification by allowing the routing protocol on the PE/CE interface to be the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol.
This document updates RFC 4364. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4486: Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message
Proposed Standard- E. Chen
- V. Gillet
- April 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message that would provide more information to aid network operators in correlating network events and diagnosing BGP peering issues. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message that would provide more information to aid network operators in correlating network events and diagnosing BGP peering issues. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4451: BGP MULTI_EXIT_DISC (MED) Considerations
Informational- D. McPherson
- V. Gill
- March 2006
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
The BGP MULTI_EXIT_DISC (MED) attribute provides a mechanism for BGP speakers to convey to an adjacent AS the optimal entry point into the local AS. While BGP MEDs function correctly in many scenarios, a number of issues may arise when utilizing MEDs in dynamic or complex topologies.
This document discusses implementation and deployment considerations regarding BGP MEDs and provides information with which implementers and network operators should be familiar. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
The BGP MULTI_EXIT_DISC (MED) attribute provides a mechanism for BGP speakers to convey to an adjacent AS the optimal entry point into the local AS. While BGP MEDs function correctly in many scenarios, a number of issues may arise when utilizing MEDs in dynamic or complex topologies.
This document discusses implementation and deployment considerations regarding BGP MEDs and provides information with which implementers and network operators should be familiar. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4382: MPLS/BGP Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (VPN) Management Information Base
Proposed Standard- T. Nadeau
- H. van der Linde
- February 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor Multiprotocol Label Switching Layer-3 Virtual Private Networks on a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) supporting this feature. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor Multiprotocol Label Switching Layer-3 Virtual Private Networks on a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) supporting this feature. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- Y. Rekhter
- February 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use an IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for its customers. This method uses a "peer model", in which the customers' edge routers (CE routers) send their routes to the Service Provider's edge routers (PE routers); there is no "overlay" visible to the customer's routing algorithm, and CE routers at different sites do not peer with each other. Data packets are tunneled through the backbone, so that the core routers do not need to know the VPN routes. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use an IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for its customers. This method uses a "peer model", in which the customers' edge routers (CE routers) send their routes to the Service Provider's edge routers (PE routers); there is no "overlay" visible to the customer's routing algorithm, and CE routers at different sites do not peer with each other. Data packets are tunneled through the backbone, so that the core routers do not need to know the VPN routes. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4365: Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Informational- E. Rosen
- February 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document provides an Applicability Statement for the Virtual Private Network (VPN) solution described in RFC 4364 and other documents listed in the References section. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document provides an Applicability Statement for the Virtual Private Network (VPN) solution described in RFC 4364 and other documents listed in the References section. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4381: Analysis of the Security of BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Informational- M. Behringer
- February 2006
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document analyses the security of the BGP/MPLS IP virtual private network (VPN) architecture that is described in RFC 4364, for the benefit of service providers and VPN users.
The analysis shows that BGP/MPLS IP VPN networks can be as secure as traditional layer-2 VPN services using Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) or Frame Relay. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document analyses the security of the BGP/MPLS IP virtual private network (VPN) architecture that is described in RFC 4364, for the benefit of service providers and VPN users.
The analysis shows that BGP/MPLS IP VPN networks can be as secure as traditional layer-2 VPN services using Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) or Frame Relay. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4271: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)
Draft Standard- Y. Rekhter
- T. Li
- S. Hares
- January 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document discusses the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol.
The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This network reachability information includes information on the list of Autonomous Systems (ASes) that reachability information traverses. This information is sufficient for constructing a graph of AS connectivity for this reachability from which routing loops may be pruned, and, at the AS level, some policy decisions may be enforced.
BGP-4 provides a set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). These mechanisms include support for advertising a set of destinations as an IP prefix, and eliminating the concept of network "class" within BGP. BGP-4 also introduces mechanisms that allow aggregation of routes, including aggregation of AS paths.
This document obsoletes RFC 1771. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document discusses the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol.
The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This network reachability information includes information on the list of Autonomous Systems (ASes) that reachability information traverses. This information is sufficient for constructing a graph of AS connectivity for this reachability from which routing loops may be pruned, and, at the AS level, some policy decisions may be enforced.
BGP-4 provides a set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). These mechanisms include support for advertising a set of destinations as an IP prefix, and eliminating the concept of network "class" within BGP. BGP-4 also introduces mechanisms that allow aggregation of routes, including aggregation of AS paths.
This document obsoletes RFC 1771. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4272: BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis
Informational- S. Murphy
- January 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), along with a host of other infrastructure protocols designed before the Internet environment became perilous, was originally designed with little consideration for protection of the information it carries. There are no mechanisms internal to BGP that protect against attacks that modify, delete, forge, or replay data, any of which has the potential to disrupt overall network routing behavior.
This document discusses some of the security issues with BGP routing data dissemination. This document does not discuss security issues with forwarding of packets. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), along with a host of other infrastructure protocols designed before the Internet environment became perilous, was originally designed with little consideration for protection of the information it carries. There are no mechanisms internal to BGP that protect against attacks that modify, delete, forge, or replay data, any of which has the potential to disrupt overall network routing behavior.
This document discusses some of the security issues with BGP routing data dissemination. This document does not discuss security issues with forwarding of packets. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4273: Definitions of Managed Objects for BGP-4
Proposed Standard- J. Haas
- S. Hares
- January 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community In particular, it describes managed objects used for managing the Border Gateway Protocol Version 4 or lower.
The origin of this memo is from RFC 1269 "Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway Protocol (Version 3)", which was updated to support BGP-4 in RFC 1657. This memo fixes errors introduced when the MIB module was converted to use the SMIv2 language. This memo also updates references to the current SNMP framework documents.
This memo is intended to document deployed implementations of this MIB module in a historical context, to provide clarifications of some items, and to note errors where the MIB module fails to fully represent the BGP protocol. Work is currently in progress to replace this MIB module with a new one representing the current state of the BGP protocol and its extensions.
This document obsoletes RFC 1269 and RFC 1657. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community In particular, it describes managed objects used for managing the Border Gateway Protocol Version 4 or lower.
The origin of this memo is from RFC 1269 "Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway Protocol (Version 3)", which was updated to support BGP-4 in RFC 1657. This memo fixes errors introduced when the MIB module was converted to use the SMIv2 language. This memo also updates references to the current SNMP framework documents.
This memo is intended to document deployed implementations of this MIB module in a historical context, to provide clarifications of some items, and to note errors where the MIB module fails to fully represent the BGP protocol. Work is currently in progress to replace this MIB module with a new one representing the current state of the BGP protocol and its extensions.
This document obsoletes RFC 1269 and RFC 1657. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4274: BGP-4 Protocol Analysis
Informational- D. Meyer
- K. Patel
- January 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to document how the requirements for publication of a routing protocol as an Internet Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4).
This report satisfies the requirement for "the second report", as described in Section 6.0 of RFC 1264. In order to fulfill the requirement, this report augments RFC 1774 and summarizes the key features of BGP-4, as well as analyzes the protocol with respect to scaling and performance. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to document how the requirements for publication of a routing protocol as an Internet Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4).
This report satisfies the requirement for "the second report", as described in Section 6.0 of RFC 1264. In order to fulfill the requirement, this report augments RFC 1774 and summarizes the key features of BGP-4, as well as analyzes the protocol with respect to scaling and performance. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4275: BGP-4 MIB Implementation Survey
Informational- S. Hares
- D. Hares
- January 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document provides a survey of implementations of BGP-4 that support RFC 1657 MIB agents according to the BGP-4 v1 MIB specification. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document provides a survey of implementations of BGP-4 that support RFC 1657 MIB agents according to the BGP-4 v1 MIB specification. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4276: BGP-4 Implementation Report
Informational- S. Hares
- A. Retana
- January 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document reports the results of the BGP-4 implementation survey. The survey had 259 questions about implementations' support of BGP-4 as specified in RFC 4271. After a brief summary of the results, each response is listed. This document contains responses from the four implementers that completed the survey (Alcatel, Cisco, Laurel, and NextHop) and brief information from three that did not (Avici, Data Connection Ltd., and Nokia).
The editors did not use exterior means to verify the accuracy of the information submitted by the respondents. The respondents are experts with the products they reported on. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document reports the results of the BGP-4 implementation survey. The survey had 259 questions about implementations' support of BGP-4 as specified in RFC 4271. After a brief summary of the results, each response is listed. This document contains responses from the four implementers that completed the survey (Alcatel, Cisco, Laurel, and NextHop) and brief information from three that did not (Avici, Data Connection Ltd., and Nokia).
The editors did not use exterior means to verify the accuracy of the information submitted by the respondents. The respondents are experts with the products they reported on. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4277: Experience with the BGP-4 Protocol
Informational- D. McPherson
- K. Patel
- January 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The purpose of this memo is to document how the requirements for publication of a routing protocol as an Internet Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4).
This report satisfies the requirement for "the second report", as described in Section 6.0 of RFC 1264. In order to fulfill the requirement, this report augments RFC 1773 and describes additional knowledge and understanding gained in the time between when the protocol was made a Draft Standard and when it was submitted for Standard. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
The purpose of this memo is to document how the requirements for publication of a routing protocol as an Internet Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4).
This report satisfies the requirement for "the second report", as described in Section 6.0 of RFC 1264. In order to fulfill the requirement, this report augments RFC 1773 and describes additional knowledge and understanding gained in the time between when the protocol was made a Draft Standard and when it was submitted for Standard. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4278: Standards Maturity Variance Regarding the TCP MD5 Signature Option (RFC 2385) and the BGP-4 Specification
Informational- S. Bellovin
- A. Zinin
- January 2006
- IETF publication
Abstract
The IETF Standards Process requires that all normative references for a document be at the same or higher level of standardization. RFC 2026 section 9.1 allows the IESG to grant a variance to the standard practices of the IETF. This document explains why the IESG is considering doing so for the revised version of the BGP-4 specification, which refers normatively to RFC 2385, "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option". RFC 2385 will remain at the Proposed Standard level. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
The IETF Standards Process requires that all normative references for a document be at the same or higher level of standardization. RFC 2026 section 9.1 allows the IESG to grant a variance to the standard practices of the IETF. This document explains why the IESG is considering doing so for the revised version of the BGP-4 specification, which refers normatively to RFC 2385, "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option". RFC 2385 will remain at the Proposed Standard level. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4264: BGP Wedgies
Informational- T. Griffin
- G. Huston
- November 2005
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
It has commonly been assumed that the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is a tool for distributing reachability information in a manner that creates forwarding paths in a deterministic manner. In this memo we will describe a class of BGP configurations for which there is more than one potential outcome, and where forwarding states other than the intended state are equally stable. Also, the stable state where BGP converges may be selected by BGP in a non-deterministic manner. These stable, but unintended, BGP states are termed here "BGP Wedgies". This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
It has commonly been assumed that the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is a tool for distributing reachability information in a manner that creates forwarding paths in a deterministic manner. In this memo we will describe a class of BGP configurations for which there is more than one potential outcome, and where forwarding states other than the intended state are equally stable. Also, the stable state where BGP converges may be selected by BGP in a non-deterministic manner. These stable, but unintended, BGP states are termed here "BGP Wedgies". This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4223: Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic
Informational- P. Savola
- October 2005
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo reclassifies RFC 1863, A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing, to Historic status. This memo also obsoletes RFC 1863. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This memo reclassifies RFC 1863, A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing, to Historic status. This memo also obsoletes RFC 1863. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4085: BCP 105: Embedding Globally-Routable Internet Addresses Considered Harmful
Best Current Practice- D. Plonka
- June 2005
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document discourages the practice of embedding references to unique, globally-routable IP addresses in Internet hosts, describes some of the resulting problems, and considers selected alternatives. This document is intended to clarify best current practices in this regard. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Abstract
This document discourages the practice of embedding references to unique, globally-routable IP addresses in Internet hosts, describes some of the resulting problems, and considers selected alternatives. This document is intended to clarify best current practices in this regard. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC 4098: Terminology for Benchmarking BGP Device Convergence in the Control Plane
Informational- H. Berkowitz
- E. Davies
- S. Hares
- P. Krishnaswamy
- M. Lepp
- June 2005
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document establishes terminology to standardize the description of benchmarking methodology for measuring eBGP convergence in the control plane of a single BGP device. Future documents will address iBGP convergence, the initiation of forwarding based on converged control plane information and multiple interacting BGP devices.This terminology is applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6. Illustrative examples of each version are included where relevant. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document establishes terminology to standardize the description of benchmarking methodology for measuring eBGP convergence in the control plane of a single BGP device. Future documents will address iBGP convergence, the initiation of forwarding based on converged control plane information and multiple interacting BGP devices.This terminology is applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6. Illustrative examples of each version are included where relevant. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3882: Configuring BGP to Block Denial-of-Service Attacks
Informational- D. Turk
- October 2004
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document describes an operational technique that uses BGP communities to remotely trigger black-holing of a particular destination network to block denial-of-service attacks. Black-holing can be applied on a selection of routers rather than all BGP-speaking routers in the network. The document also describes a sinkhole tunnel technique using BGP communities and tunnels to pull traffic into a sinkhole router for analysis. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes an operational technique that uses BGP communities to remotely trigger black-holing of a particular destination network to block denial-of-service attacks. Black-holing can be applied on a selection of routers rather than all BGP-speaking routers in the network. The document also describes a sinkhole tunnel technique using BGP communities and tunnels to pull traffic into a sinkhole router for analysis. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3913: Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP): Protocol Specification
Historic- D. Thaler
- September 2004
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes the Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP), a protocol for inter-domain multicast routing. BGMP builds shared trees for active multicast groups, and optionally allows receiver domains to build source-specific, inter-domain, distribution branches where needed. BGMP natively supports "source-specific multicast" (SSM). To also support "any-source multicast" (ASM), BGMP requires that each multicast group be associated with a single root (in BGMP it is referred to as the root domain). It requires that different ranges of the multicast address space are associated (e.g., with Unicast-Prefix-Based Multicast addressing) with different domains. Each of these domains then becomes the root of the shared domain-trees for all groups in its range. Multicast participants will generally receive better multicast service if the session initiator's address allocator selects addresses from its own domain's part of the space, thereby causing the root domain to be local to at least one of the session participants. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes the Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP), a protocol for inter-domain multicast routing. BGMP builds shared trees for active multicast groups, and optionally allows receiver domains to build source-specific, inter-domain, distribution branches where needed. BGMP natively supports "source-specific multicast" (SSM). To also support "any-source multicast" (ASM), BGMP requires that each multicast group be associated with a single root (in BGMP it is referred to as the root domain). It requires that different ranges of the multicast address space are associated (e.g., with Unicast-Prefix-Based Multicast addressing) with different domains. Each of these domains then becomes the root of the shared domain-trees for all groups in its range. Multicast participants will generally receive better multicast service if the session initiator's address allocator selects addresses from its own domain's part of the space, thereby causing the root domain to be local to at least one of the session participants. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3765: NOPEER Community for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Route Scope Control
Informational- G. Huston
- April 2004
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document describes the use of a scope control Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) community. This well-known advisory transitive community allows an origin AS to specify the extent to which a specific route should be externally propagated. In particular this community, NOPEER, allows an origin AS to specify that a route with this attribute need not be advertised across bilateral peer connections. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes the use of a scope control Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) community. This well-known advisory transitive community allows an origin AS to specify the extent to which a specific route should be externally propagated. In particular this community, NOPEER, allows an origin AS to specify that a route with this attribute need not be advertised across bilateral peer connections. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3562: Key Management Considerations for the TCP MD5 Signature Option
Informational- M. Leech
- July 2003
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The TCP MD5 Signature Option (RFC 2385), used predominantly by BGP, has seen significant deployment in critical areas of Internet infrastructure. The security of this option relies heavily on the quality of the keying material used to compute the MD5 signature. This document addresses the security requirements of that keying material. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
The TCP MD5 Signature Option (RFC 2385), used predominantly by BGP, has seen significant deployment in critical areas of Internet infrastructure. The security of this option relies heavily on the quality of the keying material used to compute the MD5 signature. This document addresses the security requirements of that keying material. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3392: Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4
Draft Standard- R. Chandra
- J. Scudder
- November 2002
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Currently BGP-4 requires that when a BGP speaker receives an OPEN
message with one or more unrecognized Optional Parameters, the
speaker must terminate BGP peering. This complicates introduction of
new capabilities in BGP.
This document defines new Optional Parameter, called Capabilities,
that is expected to facilitate introduction of new capabilities in
BGP by providing graceful capability advertisement without requiring
that BGP peering be terminated.
This document obsoletes RFC2842.
Obsoleted by RFC 5492
Abstract
Currently BGP-4 requires that when a BGP speaker receives an OPEN
message with one or more unrecognized Optional Parameters, the
speaker must terminate BGP peering. This complicates introduction of
new capabilities in BGP.
This document defines new Optional Parameter, called Capabilities,
that is expected to facilitate introduction of new capabilities in
BGP by providing graceful capability advertisement without requiring
that BGP peering be terminated.
This document obsoletes RFC2842.
RFC 3345: Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Persistent Route Oscillation Condition
Informational- D. McPherson
- V. Gill
- D. Walton
- A. Retana
- August 2002
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [1] is an inter-Autonomous System
routing protocol. The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to
exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems.
Abstract
The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [1] is an inter-Autonomous System
routing protocol. The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to
exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems.
RFC 3219: Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP)
Proposed Standard- J. Rosenberg
- H. Salama
- M. Squire
- January 2002
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document presents the Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP). TRIP is a policy driven inter-administrative domain protocol for advertising the reachability of telephony destinations between location servers, and for advertising attributes of the routes to those destinations. TRIP's operation is independent of any signaling protocol, hence TRIP can serve as the telephony routing protocol for any signaling protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document presents the Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP). TRIP is a policy driven inter-administrative domain protocol for advertising the reachability of telephony destinations between location servers, and for advertising attributes of the routes to those destinations. TRIP's operation is independent of any signaling protocol, hence TRIP can serve as the telephony routing protocol for any signaling protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3221: Commentary on Inter-Domain Routing in the Internet
Informational- G. Huston
- December 2001
- IAB publication
Abstract
This document examines the various longer term trends visible within the characteristics of the Internet's BGP table and identifies a number of operational practices and protocol factors that contribute to these trends. The potential impacts of these practices and protocol properties on the scaling properties of the inter-domain routing space are examined. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document examines the various longer term trends visible within the characteristics of the Internet's BGP table and identifies a number of operational practices and protocol factors that contribute to these trends. The potential impacts of these practices and protocol properties on the scaling properties of the inter-domain routing space are examined. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3166: Request to Move RFC 1403 to Historic Status
Informational- D. Meyer
- J. Scudder
- August 2001
- Legacy publication
Abstract
RFC 1403, "BGP OSPF Interaction", describes technology which is no longer used. This document requests that RFC 1403 be moved to Historic status. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
RFC 1403, "BGP OSPF Interaction", describes technology which is no longer used. This document requests that RFC 1403 be moved to Historic status. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3167: Request to Move RFC 1745 to Historic Status
Informational- D. Meyer
- J. Scudder
- August 2001
- Legacy publication
Abstract
RFC 1745, "BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction", describes technology which was never deployed in the public internet. This document requests that RFC 1745 be moved to Historic status. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
RFC 1745, "BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction", describes technology which was never deployed in the public internet. This document requests that RFC 1745 be moved to Historic status. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3107: Carrying Label Information in BGP-4
Proposed Standard- Y. Rekhter
- E. Rosen
- May 2001
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the way in which the label mapping information for a particular route is piggybacked in the same Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Update message that is used to distribute the route itself. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 8277
Abstract
This document specifies the way in which the label mapping information for a particular route is piggybacked in the same Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Update message that is used to distribute the route itself. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3065: Autonomous System Confederations for BGP
Proposed Standard- P. Traina
- D. McPherson
- J. Scudder
- February 2001
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes an extension to BGP which may be used to create a confederation of autonomous systems that is represented as a single autonomous system to BGP peers external to the confederation, thereby removing the "full mesh" requirement. The intention of this extension is to aid in policy administration and reduce the management complexity of maintaining a large autonomous system. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 5065
Abstract
This document describes an extension to BGP which may be used to create a confederation of autonomous systems that is represented as a single autonomous system to BGP peers external to the confederation, thereby removing the "full mesh" requirement. The intention of this extension is to aid in policy administration and reduce the management complexity of maintaining a large autonomous system. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2918: Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4
Proposed Standard- E. Chen
- September 2000
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a new Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) capability termed 'Route Refresh Capability', which would allow the dynamic exchange of route refresh request between BGP speakers and subsequent re-advertisement of the respective Adj-RIB-Out. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines a new Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) capability termed 'Route Refresh Capability', which would allow the dynamic exchange of route refresh request between BGP speakers and subsequent re-advertisement of the respective Adj-RIB-Out. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2858: Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4
Proposed Standard- T. Bates
- Y. Rekhter
- R. Chandra
- D. Katz
- June 2000
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 4760
Abstract
This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2842: Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4
Proposed Standard- R. Chandra
- J. Scudder
- May 2000
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines new Optional Parameter, called Capabilities, that is expected to facilitate introduction of new capabilities in BGP by providing graceful capability advertisement without requiring that BGP peering be terminated. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 3392
Abstract
This document defines new Optional Parameter, called Capabilities, that is expected to facilitate introduction of new capabilities in BGP by providing graceful capability advertisement without requiring that BGP peering be terminated. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2769: Routing Policy System Replication
Proposed Standard- C. Villamizar
- C. Alaettinoglu
- R. Govindan
- D. Meyer
- February 2000
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document addresses the need to distribute data over multiple repositories and delegate authority for data subsets to other repositories without compromising the authorization model established in Routing Policy System Security RFC. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document addresses the need to distribute data over multiple repositories and delegate authority for data subsets to other repositories without compromising the authorization model established in Routing Policy System Security RFC. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2754: RPS IANA Issues
Historic- C. Alaettinoglu
- C. Villamizar
- R. Govindan
- January 2000
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
RPS Security requires certain RPSL objects in the IRR to be hierarchically delegated. The set of objects that are at the root of this hierarchy needs to be created and digitally signed by IANA. This paper presents these seed objects and lists operations required from IANA. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 6254
Abstract
RPS Security requires certain RPSL objects in the IRR to be hierarchically delegated. The set of objects that are at the root of this hierarchy needs to be created and digitally signed by IANA. This paper presents these seed objects and lists operations required from IANA. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 2725: Routing Policy System Security
Proposed Standard- C. Villamizar
- C. Alaettinoglu
- D. Meyer
- S. Murphy
- December 1999
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
The implementation and deployment of a routing policy system must maintain some degree of integrity to be of any operational use. This document addresses the need to assure integrity of the data by providing an authentication and authorization model. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The implementation and deployment of a routing policy system must maintain some degree of integrity to be of any operational use. This document addresses the need to assure integrity of the data by providing an authentication and authorization model. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2726: PGP Authentication for RIPE Database Updates
Proposed Standard- J. Zsako
- December 1999
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document presents the proposal for a stronger authentication method of the updates of the RIPE database based on digital signatures. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document presents the proposal for a stronger authentication method of the updates of the RIPE database based on digital signatures. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2650: Using RPSL in Practice
Informational- D. Meyer
- J. Schmitz
- C. Orange
- M. Prior
- C. Alaettinoglu
- August 1999
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document is a tutorial on using the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) to describe routing policies in the Internet Routing Registry (IRR). This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document is a tutorial on using the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) to describe routing policies in the Internet Routing Registry (IRR). This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 2622: Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)
Proposed Standard- C. Alaettinoglu
- C. Villamizar
- E. Gerich
- D. Kessens
- D. Meyer
- T. Bates
- D. Karrenberg
- M. Terpstra
- June 1999
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
RPSL allows a network operator to be able to specify routing policies at various levels in the Internet hierarchy; for example at the Autonomous System (AS) level. At the same time, policies can be specified with sufficient detail in RPSL so that low level router configurations can be generated from them. RPSL is extensible; new routing protocols and new protocol features can be introduced at any time. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
RPSL allows a network operator to be able to specify routing policies at various levels in the Internet hierarchy; for example at the Autonomous System (AS) level. At the same time, policies can be specified with sufficient detail in RPSL so that low level router configurations can be generated from them. RPSL is extensible; new routing protocols and new protocol features can be introduced at any time. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2545: Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing
Proposed Standard- P. Marques
- F. Dupont
- March 1999
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions (BGP-MP) defines the format of two BGP attributes (MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI) that can be used to announce and withdraw the announcement of reachability information. This document defines how compliant systems should make use of those attributes for the purpose of conveying IPv6 routing information. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions (BGP-MP) defines the format of two BGP attributes (MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI) that can be used to announce and withdraw the announcement of reachability information. This document defines how compliant systems should make use of those attributes for the purpose of conveying IPv6 routing information. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2547: BGP/MPLS VPNs
Informational- E. Rosen
- Y. Rekhter
- March 1999
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider with an IP backbone may provide VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) for its customers. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 4364
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider with an IP backbone may provide VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) for its customers. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 2519: A Framework for Inter-Domain Route Aggregation
Informational- E. Chen
- J. Stewart
- February 1999
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document presents a framework for inter-domain route aggregation and shows an example router configuration which 'implements' this framework. This memo provides information for the Internet community
Abstract
This document presents a framework for inter-domain route aggregation and shows an example router configuration which 'implements' this framework. This memo provides information for the Internet community
RFC 2439: BGP Route Flap Damping
Proposed Standard- C. Villamizar
- R. Chandra
- R. Govindan
- November 1998
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A usage of the BGP routing protocol is described which is capable of reducing the routing traffic passed on to routing peers and therefore the load on these peers without adversely affecting route convergence time for relatively stable routes. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
A usage of the BGP routing protocol is described which is capable of reducing the routing traffic passed on to routing peers and therefore the load on these peers without adversely affecting route convergence time for relatively stable routes. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2385: Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option
Proposed Standard- A. Heffernan
- August 1998
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo describes a TCP extension to enhance security for BGP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 5925
Abstract
This memo describes a TCP extension to enhance security for BGP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2283: Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4
Proposed Standard- T. Bates
- R. Chandra
- D. Katz
- Y. Rekhter
- February 1998
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate with a router that doesn't support the extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 2858
Abstract
This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate with a router that doesn't support the extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2270: Using a Dedicated AS for Sites Homed to a Single Provider
Informational- J. Stewart
- T. Bates
- R. Chandra
- E. Chen
- January 1998
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
With the increased growth of the Internet, the number of customers using BGP4 has grown significantly. RFC1930 outlines a set of guidelines for when one needs and should use an AS. However, the customer and service provider (ISP) are left with a problem as a result of this in that while there is no need for an allocated AS under the guidelines, certain conditions make the use of BGP4 a very pragmatic and perhaps only way to connect a customer homed to a single ISP. This paper proposes a solution to this problem in line with recommendations set forth in RFC1930. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Abstract
With the increased growth of the Internet, the number of customers using BGP4 has grown significantly. RFC1930 outlines a set of guidelines for when one needs and should use an AS. However, the customer and service provider (ISP) are left with a problem as a result of this in that while there is no need for an allocated AS under the guidelines, certain conditions make the use of BGP4 a very pragmatic and perhaps only way to connect a customer homed to a single ISP. This paper proposes a solution to this problem in line with recommendations set forth in RFC1930. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
RFC 2280: Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)
Proposed Standard- C. Alaettinoglu
- T. Bates
- E. Gerich
- D. Karrenberg
- D. Meyer
- M. Terpstra
- C. Villamizar
- January 1998
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This memo is the reference document for the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL). RPSL allows a network operator to be able to specify routing policies at various levels in the Internet hierarchy; for example at the Autonomous System (AS) level. At the same time, policies can be specified with sufficient detail in RPSL so that low level router configurations can be generated from them. RPSL is extensible; new routing protocols and new protocol features can be introduced at any time. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 2622
Abstract
This memo is the reference document for the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL). RPSL allows a network operator to be able to specify routing policies at various levels in the Internet hierarchy; for example at the Autonomous System (AS) level. At the same time, policies can be specified with sufficient detail in RPSL so that low level router configurations can be generated from them. RPSL is extensible; new routing protocols and new protocol features can be introduced at any time. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2042: Registering New BGP Attribute Types
Informational- B. Manning
- January 1997
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document describes the process for creating new BGP attribute type codes. Basic attribute type codes are described in RFC 1771, pages 12 through 15. These, and new attribute type codes that are used in the Internet are registered with the IANA. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Abstract
This document describes the process for creating new BGP attribute type codes. Basic attribute type codes are described in RFC 1771, pages 12 through 15. These, and new attribute type codes that are used in the Internet are registered with the IANA. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
RFC 1965: Autonomous System Confederations for BGP
Experimental- P. Traina
- June 1996
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
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. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 3065
Abstract
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. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 1930: BCP 6: Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)
Best Current Practice- J. Hawkinson
- T. Bates
- March 1996
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo discusses when it is appropriate to register and utilize an Autonomous System (AS), and lists criteria for such. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Abstract
This memo discusses when it is appropriate to register and utilize an Autonomous System (AS), and lists criteria for such. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC 1771: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)
Draft Standard- Y. Rekhter
- T. Li
- March 1995
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document, together with its companion document, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet", define an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 4271
Abstract
This document, together with its companion document, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet", define an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1772: Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
Draft Standard- Y. Rekhter
- P. Gross
- March 1995
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document, together with its companion document, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", define an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. This document describes the usage of the BGP in the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document, together with its companion document, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", define an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. This document describes the usage of the BGP in the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1773: Experience with the BGP-4 protocol
Informational- P. Traina
- March 1995
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The purpose of this memo is to document how the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4). This report documents experience with BGP. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Abstract
The purpose of this memo is to document how the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4). This report documents experience with BGP. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
RFC 1774: BGP-4 Protocol Analysis
Informational- P. Traina
- March 1995
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to document how the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft Standard have been satisfied by the Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4). This report summarizes the key features of BGP, and analyzes the protocol with respect to scaling and performance. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to document how the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft Standard have been satisfied by the Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4). This report summarizes the key features of BGP, and analyzes the protocol with respect to scaling and performance. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
RFC 1745: BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction
Historic- K. Varadhan
- S. Hares
- Y. Rekhter
- December 1994
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines the various criteria to be used when designing an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) that will run either BGP4 or IDRP for IP with other ASBRs external to the AS and OSPF as its IGP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines the various criteria to be used when designing an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) that will run either BGP4 or IDRP for IP with other ASBRs external to the AS and OSPF as its IGP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1654: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)
Proposed Standard- Y. Rekhter
- T. Li
- July 1994
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 1771
Abstract
This document defines an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1655: Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
Proposed Standard- Y. Rekhter
- P. Gross
- July 1994
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document, together with its companion document, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", define an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 1772
Abstract
This document, together with its companion document, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", define an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1656: BGP-4 Protocol Document Roadmap and Implementation Experience
Informational- P. Traina
- July 1994
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Border Gateway Protocol v4 (BGP-4) [1] is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol. It is built on experience gained with BGP as defined in RFC-1267 [2] and BGP usage in the connected Internet as described in RFC-1268 [3]. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Obsoleted by RFC 1773
Abstract
Border Gateway Protocol v4 (BGP-4) [1] is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol. It is built on experience gained with BGP as defined in RFC-1267 [2] and BGP usage in the connected Internet as described in RFC-1268 [3]. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
RFC 1657: Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2
Draft Standard- S. Willis
- J. Burruss
- J. Chu
- July 1994
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used for managing the Border Gateway Protocol Version 4 or lower [1, 2]. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 4273
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used for managing the Border Gateway Protocol Version 4 or lower [1, 2]. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1482: Aggregation Support in the NSFNET Policy-Based Routing Database
Historic- M. Knopper
- S. Richardson
- June 1993
- IETF publication
- Operational Requirements Area
Abstract
This document describes plans for support of route aggregation, as specified in the descriptions of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [1] and the BGP-4 protocol [2], by the NSFNET Backbone Network Service. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
Abstract
This document describes plans for support of route aggregation, as specified in the descriptions of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [1] and the BGP-4 protocol [2], by the NSFNET Backbone Network Service. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
RFC 1397: Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of The Border Gateway Protocol
Historic- D. Haskin
- January 1993
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document speficies the recommendation of the BGP Working Group on default route advertisement support in BGP2 [1] and BGP3 [2] versions of the Border Gateway Protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document speficies the recommendation of the BGP Working Group on default route advertisement support in BGP2 [1] and BGP3 [2] versions of the Border Gateway Protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1403: BGP OSPF Interaction
Historic- K. Varadhan
- January 1993
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This memo defines the various criteria to be used when designing an Autonomous System Border Routers (ASBR) that will run BGP with other ASBRs external to the AS and OSPF as its IGP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines the various criteria to be used when designing an Autonomous System Border Routers (ASBR) that will run BGP with other ASBRs external to the AS and OSPF as its IGP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1364: BGP OSPF Interaction
Proposed Standard- K. Varadhan
- September 1992
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines the various criteria to be used when designing Autonomous System Border Routers (ASBR) that will be run BGP with other ASBRs external to the AS, and OSPF as its IGP.
Obsoleted by RFC 1403
Abstract
This memo defines the various criteria to be used when designing Autonomous System Border Routers (ASBR) that will be run BGP with other ASBRs external to the AS, and OSPF as its IGP.
RFC 1322: A Unified Approach to Inter-Domain Routing
Informational- D. Estrin
- Y. Rekhter
- S. Hotz
- May 1992
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo is an informational RFC which outlines one potential approach for inter-domain routing in future global internets. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
Abstract
This memo is an informational RFC which outlines one potential approach for inter-domain routing in future global internets. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
RFC 1265: BGP Protocol Analysis
Informational- Y. Rekhter
- October 1991
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This report summarizes the key feature of BGP, and analyzes the protocol with respect to scaling and performance. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
Abstract
This report summarizes the key feature of BGP, and analyzes the protocol with respect to scaling and performance. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
RFC 1266: Experience with the BGP Protocol
Informational- Y. Rekhter
- October 1991
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The purpose of this memo is to document how the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
Abstract
The purpose of this memo is to document how the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft Standard have been satisfied by Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
RFC 1267: Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)
Historic- K. Lougheed
- Y. Rekhter
- October 1991
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo, together with its companion document, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet", define an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo, together with its companion document, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet", define an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1268: Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
Historic- Y. Rekhter
- P. Gross
- October 1991
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes the usage of the BGP in the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 1655
Abstract
This document describes the usage of the BGP in the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1269: Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway Protocol: Version 3
Proposed Standard- S. Willis
- J.W. Burruss
- October 1991
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets. In particular, it defines objects for managing the Border Gateway Protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 4273
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets. In particular, it defines objects for managing the Border Gateway Protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1163: Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Historic- K. Lougheed
- Y. Rekhter
- June 1990
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This RFC, together with its companion RFC-1164, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet", specify an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 1267
Abstract
This RFC, together with its companion RFC-1164, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet", specify an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1164: Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
Historic- J.C. Honig
- D. Katz
- M. Mathis
- Y. Rekhter
- J.Y. Yu
- June 1990
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This RFC, together with its companion RFC-1163, "A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)", specify an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 1268
Abstract
This RFC, together with its companion RFC-1163, "A Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)", specify an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1105: Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Experimental- K. Lougheed
- Y. Rekhter
- June 1989
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This RFC outlines a specific approach for the exchange of network reachability information between Autonomous Systems. Updated by RFCs 1163 and 1164. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 1163
Abstract
This RFC outlines a specific approach for the exchange of network reachability information between Autonomous Systems. Updated by RFCs 1163 and 1164. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Subscribe to BGP
Get notified when:
- RFC changes to status, obsoleted by, updates, updated by, or subseries.
- New RFC added to this subject or below
- The subject was merged into another.