[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-snijders-grow-large-communities-usage) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 8195

Global Routing Operations                                    J. Snijders
Internet-Draft                                                J. Heasley
Intended status: Informational                                       NTT
Expires: August 20, 2017                                      M. Schmidt
                                                                 i3D.net
                                                       February 16, 2017


                     Usage of BGP Large Communities
               draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-02

Abstract

   Examples and inspiration for operators for the use of BGP Large
   Communities.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents



Snijders, et al.         Expires August 20, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Usage of BGP Large Communities        February 2017


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The Generic Design Pattern  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Informational Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Action Communities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Examples of Informational Communities . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Location  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  An ISO 3166-1 numeric function  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.2.  An UNSD region function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Relation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Combining Informational Communities . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Examples of Action Communities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Selective NO_EXPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.1.  Peer ASN Based Selective NO_EXPORT  . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.2.  Location Based Selective NO_EXPORT  . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Selective AS_PATH Prepending  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  Peer ASN Based Selective AS_PATH Prepending . . . . .   7
       4.2.2.  Location Based Selective AS_PATH Prepending . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Location based manipulation of LOCAL_PREF . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   BGP Large Communities [RFC8092] provide a mechanism to signal opaque
   information between Autonomous Systems.  This document presents a set
   of examples of how Large BGP Communities could be employed by an
   operator to achieve various goals.  This document draws from
   experience in Operational Communities such as NANOG [1] and NLNOG
   [2].

   The opaque nature of BGP Large Communities allows for rapid
   deployment of new features or changes to the product.  Operators are
   encouraged to publicly publish and maintain documentation of the
   purpose of each Large BGP Community, both informational and action,
   that they support or are visible in looking glasses.



Snijders, et al.         Expires August 20, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Usage of BGP Large Communities        February 2017


2.  The Generic Design Pattern

   BGP Large Communities are composed of a 4-octet Global Administrator
   field followed by two 4-octet Local Data fields.  Large BGP
   Communities are compose three 4-octet fields.  The first is the
   Global Administrator field, whose value is the ASN of AS that has
   defined the meaning of the remaining two 4-octet fields, the Local
   Data fields.  This document describes an approach defining these
   fields as "ASN:Function:Parameter"-approach to fill the three fields.

   In deployments of both BGP Communities [RFC1997] and BGP Large
   Communities, two categories of Communities exist:

   o  Informational Communities

   o  Action Communities

   For each, ideas are provided regarding the contents of each of the
   three fields in BGP Large Communities.

   Throughout the document a topology of four Autonomous Systems is used
   to illustrate the usage of Communities in the following
   configuration:

           AS 65551
               |
               ^
               |
           AS 64497
             /  \
            ^    \
           /      ^
      AS 64498     \
          |        |
          `<->- AS 64499

   AS 64497 obtains transit services from AS 65551, a 32-bit ASN.  AS
   64497 provides transit services to both AS 64498 and AS 64499.  AS
   64498 and AS 64499 maintain a peering relationship in which they only
   exchange their customer routes.

2.1.  Informational Communities

   Informational Communites are labels for attributes such as origin of
   the route announcement, the relation with the EBGP neighbor or for
   instance the intended propagation audience.  Informational
   Communities also assist in network operations such as debugging.




Snijders, et al.         Expires August 20, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Usage of BGP Large Communities        February 2017


   The Global Administrator field is set to the ASN which is marking the
   routes with the Informational Communities.  For example, AS 64497
   might add a community with the GA 64497 to a route learned from an
   iBGP or eBGP peer that means that the route was learned from or
   originated by a device in the Netherlands.

   In general the intended audience of Informational Communities are
   downstream networks and the Global Administrator itself, but any
   Autonomous System could benefit from receiving these communities.

2.2.  Action Communities

   Action Communities are attached to routes to request non-default
   behaviour in this, a conferation or an external AS.  Action
   Communities could be used to change the route's propagation
   characteristics, the LOCAL_PREFENCE or the number of AS_PATH prepends
   to add when exporting or importing a route.

   The Global Administrator field is set to the ASN which is expected to
   perform the action.  For instance, AS 64499 might add a Large
   Community with the GA 64497 to signal AS 64497 to perform an action
   upon that route.

   In general the intended audience of Action Communities is an upstream
   provider, but realistically could be any AS willing to act upon it.

3.  Examples of Informational Communities

3.1.  Location

   AS 64497 can inform its downstream networks about the geographical
   entity where AS 64497 learned a route by marking the route with BGP
   Large Communities following one or a combination of the following
   schemes.

3.1.1.  An ISO 3166-1 numeric function

   AS 64497 could assign a value of 1 to the first Local Data field to
   designate the function of the second Local Data field as ISO-3166-1
   numeric country identifiers.











Snijders, et al.         Expires August 20, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Usage of BGP Large Communities        February 2017


    +---------------------+-------------------------------------------+
    | BGP Large Community | Description                               |
    +---------------------+-------------------------------------------+
    |     64497:1:528     | Route learned in Netherlands              |
    |     64497:1:392     | Route learned in Japan                    |
    |     64497:1:840     | Route learned in United States of America |
    +---------------------+-------------------------------------------+

    Example documentation for AS 64497 using Informational Communities
   describing the origin of routes using ISO 3166-1 numeric identifiers.

                     Table 1: Information: ISO 3166-1

3.1.2.  An UNSD region function

   AS 64497 could assign a value of 2 to the first Local Data field to
   designate the function of the parameter in the second Local Data
   field as an identifier for the macro geographical (continental)
   regions, geographical sub-regions, or selected economic and other
   groupings following a set of published identifiers by the United
   Nations Statistics Division [3].

          +---------------------+-------------------------------+
          | BGP Large Community | Description                   |
          +---------------------+-------------------------------+
          |      64497:2:2      | Route learned in Africa       |
          |      64497:2:9      | Route learned in Oceania      |
          |     64497:2:145     | Route learned in Western Asia |
          |     64497:2:150     | Route learned in Europe       |
          +---------------------+-------------------------------+

    Example documentation for AS 64497 using Informational Communities
   describing the origin of routes using numeric identifiers provided by
                        the UN Statistics Division.

                       Table 2: Information: Regions

3.2.  Relation

   AS 64497 could assign a value of 3 to the first Local Data field to
   designate that the second Local Data field contains an identifier
   showing the relation with the EBGP neighbor from whom the route was
   received.








Snijders, et al.         Expires August 20, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Usage of BGP Large Communities        February 2017


     +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
     | BGP Large Community | Description                             |
     +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
     |      64497:3:1      | Route learned from a customer           |
     |      64497:3:2      | Route learned from a peering partner    |
     |      64497:3:3      | Route learned from an upstream provider |
     +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+

    Example documentation for AS 64497 using Informational Communities
       describing the relation with the ASN from which the route was
                                 received.

                      Table 3: Information: Relation

3.3.  Combining Informational Communities

   Multiple Informational Communities can be tagged on a route, for
   example: a route learned in the Netherlands from a customer can
   contain both 64497:1:528 and 64497:2:150 and 64497:3:1.

4.  Examples of Action Communities

4.1.  Selective NO_EXPORT

   As part of the commercial agreement between AS 64497 and AS 64498, AS
   64497 might offer AS 64498 certain BGP Traffic Engineering features
   such as selectively not export routes learned from 64498 to certain
   EBGP neighbors of AS 64497.

4.1.1.  Peer ASN Based Selective NO_EXPORT

   AS 64497 might assign function identifier 4 to allow preventing
   propagation of routes to the ASN listed in the second Local Data
   field.

         +---------------------+---------------------------------+
         | BGP Large Community | Description                     |
         +---------------------+---------------------------------+
         |     64497:4:2914    | Do not export route to AS 2914  |
         |     64497:4:7018    | Do not export route to AS 7018  |
         |    64497:4:65551    | Do not export route to AS 65551 |
         +---------------------+---------------------------------+

     Example documentation for AS 64497 offering Action Communities to
    limit propagation of routes based on the Peer ASN described in the
                               third field.

                    Table 4: Action: Peer ASN NO_EXPORT



Snijders, et al.         Expires August 20, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Usage of BGP Large Communities        February 2017


4.1.2.  Location Based Selective NO_EXPORT

   AS 64497 might assign function identifier 5 to allow its customers to
   request selectively not exporting routes on EBGP sessions within a
   certain geographical area.  This example follows the ISO 3166-1
   numeric encoding.

   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   |    BGP Large     | Description                                    |
   |    Community     |                                                |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   |   64497:5:528    | Do not export to EBGP neighbors in the         |
   |                  | Netherlands                                    |
   |   64497:5:392    | Do not export to EBGP neighbors in Japan       |
   |   64497:5:840    | Do not export to EBGP neighbors in United      |
   |                  | States of America                              |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+

     Example documentation for AS 64497 offering Action Communities to
     trigger NO_EXPORT on routes only when propagating the route to a
                       certain geographical region.

                   Table 5: Action: NO_EXPORT in Region

4.2.  Selective AS_PATH Prepending

   As part of the commercial agreement between AS 64497 and AS 64498, AS
   64497 might offer AS 64498 certain BGP Traffic Engineering features
   such as selectively prepending the AS_PATH with 64497's ASN to
   certain EBGP neighbors of AS 64497.

4.2.1.  Peer ASN Based Selective AS_PATH Prepending

   AS 64497 might assign function identifier 6 to allow prepending the
   AS_PATH on propagation of routes to the ASN listed in the second
   Local Data field.















Snijders, et al.         Expires August 20, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Usage of BGP Large Communities        February 2017


    +---------------------+------------------------------------------+
    | BGP Large Community | Description                              |
    +---------------------+------------------------------------------+
    |     64497:6:2914    | Prepend 64497 once on export to AS 2914  |
    |     64497:6:7018    | Prepend 64497 once on export to AS 7018  |
    |    64497:6:65551    | Prepend 64497 once on export to AS 65551 |
    +---------------------+------------------------------------------+

     Example documentation for AS 64497 offering Action Communities to
   trigger prepending of the AS_PATH only when propagating the route to
                            a certain Peer ASN.

                   Table 6: Action: Prepend to Peer ASN

4.2.2.  Location Based Selective AS_PATH Prepending

   AS 64497 might assign function identifier 7 to allow prepending of
   the AS_PATH on propagation of routes to on any EBGP neighbor's
   interconnection in the geographical entity listed in the second Local
   Data field.  This example follows the ISO 3166-1 numeric regions
   codes in the Local Data 2 field.

   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   |    BGP Large     | Description                                    |
   |    Community     |                                                |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   |   64497:7:528    | Prepend once to EBGP neighbors in the          |
   |                  | Netherlands                                    |
   |   64497:7:392    | Prepend once to EBGP neighbors in Japan        |
   |   64497:7:840    | Prepend once to EBGP neighbors in United       |
   |                  | States of America                              |
   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+

     Example documentation for AS 64497 offering Action Communities to
   trigger prepending of the AS_PATH only when propagating the route to
                      a certain geographical region.

                    Table 7: Action: Prepend in Region

4.3.  Location based manipulation of LOCAL_PREF

   In some cases, it can be desirable for an autonomous system to allow
   adjacent Autonomous Systems to directly influence the degree of
   preference associated with a route, usually expressed within the
   LOCAL_PREF attribute.

   Furthermore, in the case of large networks spanning significant
   geography, it is often also useful to be able to extend this



Snijders, et al.         Expires August 20, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Usage of BGP Large Communities        February 2017


   capability and scope its effect to a geographic region.  This is a
   more powerful mechanism than AS_PATH prepending, but since degree of
   preference determines BGP route selection and thus onward
   advertisement, it can also be self-limiting in its scope.

   Since the LOCAL_PREF attribute which influences degree of preference
   is locally significant within each autonomous system, it is not
   usually practical or useful to compare LOCAL_PREF attribute values
   between autonomous systems.  Instead it can be useful to classify the
   major types of route likely to exist within an autonomous system's
   routing hierarchy and provide an ability to set one's route to that
   preference:

   o  A qualified customer route.  Usually the highest preference.

   o  A peer, or network-share, route.  A co-operating network provider
      engaged in a partnership for customer coverage ("peering").

   o  A last resort, or backup route.

   It is entirely possible that some providers may have more classes of
   route preference but it is possible to codify both the route
   preference class and the regional scope within the Local Data fields
   of the Large Community attribute.

   For example, AS64497 might establish the following function
   identifiers to set route preference class, which could allow pairing
   with a location or peer-based operand to determine scope.

       +----------+-----------------------------------------------+
       | Function | Preference Class                              |
       +----------+-----------------------------------------------+
       |    10    | Qualified customer route. Highest preference. |
       |    15    | Peering partner. Median preference.           |
       |    19    | Route of last resort. Lowest preference.      |
       +----------+-----------------------------------------------+

             Table 8: Action: Preference Function Identifiers

   Once established, these route preference setting functions can be
   linked with a scoping operand such as per-peer or per-location based
   identifiers in order to provide AS64497's customers with a
   comprehensive and rich toolset to influence route preference.








Snijders, et al.         Expires August 20, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Usage of BGP Large Communities        February 2017


   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
   |     BGP Large      | Description                                  |
   |     Community      |                                              |
   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
   |    64497:15:528    | Set as peer route in Netherlands             |
   |    64497:19:840    | Set as backup route in United States of      |
   |                    | America                                      |
   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+

             Table 9: Action: Regional Preference Communities

   Since the degree of preference influences BGP best path selection
   (which in turn influences onward route propagation) Operators should
   take special care with a traffic engineering tool such as location
   based local preference influence (BGP Wedgies [RFC4264]).

5.  Security Considerations

   Network operators should note the recommendations in Section 11 of
   BGP Operations and Security [RFC7454].

6.  IANA Considerations

   None.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the insightful
   comments, contributions, critique and support from John Heasley, Adam
   Chappell, Jonathan Stewart, and Will Hargrave.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1997]  Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
              Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4264]  Griffin, T. and G. Huston, "BGP Wedgies", RFC 4264,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4264, November 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4264>.




Snijders, et al.         Expires August 20, 2017               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Usage of BGP Large Communities        February 2017


   [RFC7454]  Durand, J., Pepelnjak, I., and G. Doering, "BGP Operations
              and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454,
              February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>.

   [RFC8092]  Heitz, J., Ed., Snijders, J., Ed., Patel, K., Bagdonas,
              I., and N. Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities Attribute",
              RFC 8092, DOI 10.17487/RFC8092, February 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8092>.

8.2.  URIs

   [1] http://nanog.net

   [2] http://nlnog.net

   [3] http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm

Authors' Addresses

   Job Snijders
   NTT Communications
   Theodorus Majofskistraat 100
   Amsterdam  1065 SZ
   The Netherlands

   Email: job@ntt.net


   John Heasley
   NTT Communications
   12160 NW Coleman Drive
   Portland, OR  97229
   United States of America

   Email: heas@shrubbery.net


   Martijn Schmidt
   i3D.net
   Rivium 1e Straat 1
   Capelle aan den IJssel  2909 LE
   NL

   Email: martijnschmidt@i3d.net







Snijders, et al.         Expires August 20, 2017               [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/