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

Versions: (draft-litkowski-idr-flowspec-interfaceset) 00 01 02 03

Routing Area Working Group                                  S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
Intended status: Standards Track                              A. Simpson
Expires: September 12, 2017                                        Nokia
                                                                K. Patel
                                                             Arrcus, Inc
                                                                 J. Haas
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                                 L. Yong
                                                                  Huawei
                                                          March 11, 2017


        Applying BGP flowspec rules on a specific interface set
                draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset-03

Abstract

   BGP flowspec is an extension to BGP that allows for the dissemination
   of traffic flow specification rules.  The primary application of this
   extension is DDoS mitigation where the flowspec rules are applied in
   most cases to all peering routers of the network.

   This document will present another use case of BGP flowspec where
   flow specifications are used to maintain some access control lists at
   network boundary.  BGP flowspec is a very efficient distributing
   machinery that can help in saving OPEX while deploying/updating ACLs.
   This new application requires flow specification rules to be applied
   only on a specific subset of interfaces and in a specific direction.

   The current specification of BGP flowspec ([RFC5575]) introduces the
   notion of flow specification (which describes the matching criterion)
   and traffic filtering actions.  The flow specification is encoded as
   part of the NLRI while the traffic filtering actions are encoded as
   extended communities.  The combination of a flow specification and
   one or more actions is known as a flow specification rule.  [RFC5575]
   does not detail where the flow specification rules need to be
   applied.

   Besides the flow specification and traffic filtering actions, this
   document introduces the notion of traffic filtering scope in order to
   drive where a particular rule must be applied.  In particular, this
   document introduces the "interface-set" traffic filtering scope that
   could be used in parallel of traffic filtering actions (marking,
   rate-limiting ...).  The purpose of this extension is to inform
   remote routers about groups of interfaces where the rule must be
   applied.




Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


   This extension can also be used in a DDoS mitigation context where a
   provider wants to apply the filtering only on specific peers.

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 September 12, 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
   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.











Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


Table of Contents

   1.  Use case  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Specific filtering for DDoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  ACL maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Collaborative filtering and managing filter direction . . . .   5
   3.  Traffic filtering scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Interface specific filtering using BGP flowspec . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Interface-set extended community  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Handling rules from different sources in the processing pipe    9
     6.1.  Combining Policy Based Routing with BGP flowspec and
           interface-set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Combining flow collection with BGP flowspec and
           interface-set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Scaling of per interface rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Deployment considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.1.  FlowSpec Transitive Extended Communities . . . . . . . .  13
     11.2.  FlowSpec Non-Transitive Extended Communities . . . . . .  13
     11.3.  FlowSpec interface-set Extended Community  . . . . . . .  13
     11.4.  Allocation Advice to IANA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Use case

1.1.  Specific filtering for DDoS

                       -----------------    --- (ebgp) - Peer3 (BW 10G)
                      /                  \/
                     |                   /|
                     |                PE --- (ebgp) - Transit1(BW 4x10G)
 Cust1 --- (ebgp) --- PE                  |
                     |                PE ---- (ebgp) - Peer2 (BW 4*10G)
                     |                   \|
 Cust2 --- (ebgp) --- PE                  |----- (ebgp) - Customer3
                    /|                    |
 Peer1(BW10G)-(ebgp) |                PE --- (ebgp) - Transit2(BW 4x10G)
                     |                    |
                      \                  /
                       ------------------

                                    Figure 1




Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


   The figure 1 above displays a typical service provider Internet
   network owing Customers, Peers and Transit.  To protect pro actively
   against some attacks (e.g.  DNS, NTP ...), the service provider may
   want to deploy some rate-limiting of some flows on peers and transit
   links.  But depending on link bandwidth, the provider may want to
   apply different rate-limiting values.

   For 4*10G links peer/transit, it may want to apply a rate-limiting of
   DNS flows of 1G, while on 10G links, the rate-limiting would be set
   to 250Mbps.  Customer interfaces must not be rate-limited.

   BGP flowspec infrastructure may already be present on the network,
   and all PEs may have a BGP session running flowspec address family.
   The flowspec infrastructure may be reused by the service provider to
   implement such rate-limiting in a very quick manner and being able to
   adjust values in future quickly without having to configure each node
   one by one.  Using the current BGP flowspec specification, it would
   not be possible to implement different rate limiter on different
   interfaces of a same router.  The flowspec rule is applied to all
   interfaces in all directions or on some interfaces where flowspec is
   activated but flowspec rule set would be the same among all
   interfaces.

   Section Section 4 will detail a solution to address this use case
   using BGP flowspec.

1.2.  ACL maintenance

                              ---------------    --- (ebgp) - Cust4_VPN
                             /                \/
    Cust1_INT -- (ebgp) --- PE                /|
                            |              PE ------ (ebgp) - Transit1
    Cust3_VPN -- (ebgp) --- PE                 |
                            |              PE ------ (ebgp) - Peer2
                            |                 \|
    Cust2_INT -- (ebgp) --- PE                 |----- (ebgp) - Cust4_INT
                           /|                  |
    Peer1 ------ (ebgp) --  |              PE ------ (ebgp) - Transit2
                            |                  |
                             \                /
                              ----------------

                                       Figure 2

   The figure 1 above displays a typical service provider multiservice
   network owing Customers, Peers and Transit for Internet, as well as
   VPN services.  The service provider requires to ensure security of
   its infrastructure by applying ACLs at network boundary.  Maintaining



Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


   and deploying ACLs on hundreds/thousands of routers is really painful
   and time consuming and a service provider would be interested to
   deploy/updates ACLs using BGP flowspec.  In this scenario, depending
   on the interface type (Internet customer, VPN customer, Peer, Transit
   ...) the content of the ACL may be different.

   We foresee two main cases :

   o  Maintaining complete ACLs using flowspec : in this case all the
      ingress ACL are maintained and deployed using BGPflowspec.  See
      section Section 9 for more details on security aspects.

   o  Requirement of a quick deployment of a new filtering term due to a
      security alert : new security alerts often requires a fast
      deployment of new ACL terms.  Using traditional CLI and hop by hop
      provisioning, such deployment takes time and network is
      unprotected during this time window.  Using BGP flowspec to deploy
      such rule, a service provider can protect its network in few
      seconds.  Then the SP can decide to keep the rule permanently in
      BGP flowspec or update its ACL or remove the entry (in case
      equipments are not vulnerable anymore).

   Section Section 4 will detail a solution to address this use case
   using BGP flowspec.

2.  Collaborative filtering and managing filter direction

   [RFC5575] states in Section 5. : "This mechanism is primarily
   designed to allow an upstream autonomous system to perform inbound
   filtering in their ingress routers of traffic that a given downstream
   AS wishes to drop.".

   In case of networks collaborating in filtering, there is a use case
   for performing outbound filtering.  Outbound filtering allows to
   apply traffic action one step before and so may allow to prevent
   impact like congestions.















Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


             ----------------------
           /                        \
           |   Upstream provider     |
           \                        /
             -----------------------
               |                |
               |P2              |P1
             ----------------------
           /                        \
           |        MyAS             |
           \                        /
             -----------------------

                   Figure 3

   In the figure above, MyAS is connected to an upstream provider.  If a
   malicious traffic comes in from the upstream provider, it may
   congestion P1 or P2 links.  If MyAS apply inbound filtering on P1/P2
   using BGP flowspec, the congestion issue will not be solved.

   Using collaborative filtering, the upstream provider may propose to
   MyAS to filter malicious traffic sent to it.  We propose to enhance
   [RFC5575] to make myAS able to send BGP flowspec updates (on eBGP
   sessions) to the upstream provider to request outbound filtering on
   peering interfaces towards MyAS.  When the upstream provider will
   receive the BGP flowspec update from MyAS, the BGP flowspec update
   will contain request for outbound filtering on a specific set of
   interfaces.  The upstream provider will apply automatically the
   requested filter and congestion will be prevented.

3.  Traffic filtering scope

   We see with the use case described above that some BGP flowspec rules
   may need to be applied only on specific elements of the network
   (interfaces, nodes ...).  The basic specification detailed in
   [RFC5575] does not address this and does not give any detail on where
   the traffic filtering rule need to be applied.

   In addition to the flow specification (flow matching criterion) and
   traffic filtering actions described in [RFC5575], this document
   introduces the notion of traffic filtering scope.  The traffic
   filtering scope will describe where a particular flow specification
   rule must be applied.

   Using a traffic filtering scope in a BGP flowspec rule is optional.
   When a rule does not contain any traffic filtering scope parameter,
   [RFC5575] applies.




Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


4.  Interface specific filtering using BGP flowspec

   The use case detailed above requires application of different BGP
   flowspec rules on different set of interfaces.

   We propose to introduce, within BGP flowspec, a traffic filtering
   scope that identifies a group of interfaces where a particular filter
   should apply on.  Identification of interfaces within BGP flowspec
   will be done through group identifiers.  A group identifier marks a
   set of interfaces sharing a common administrative property.  Like a
   BGP community, the group identifier itself does not have any
   significance.  It is up to the network administrator to associate a
   particular meaning to a group identifier value (e.g. group ID#1
   associated to Internet customer interfaces).  The group identifier is
   a local interface property.  Any interface may be associated with one
   or more group identifiers using manual configuration.

   When a filtering rule advertised through BGP flowspec must be applied
   only to particular sets of interfaces, the BGP flowspec BGP update
   will contain the identifiers associated with the relevant sets of
   interfaces.  In addition to the group identifiers, it will also
   contain the direction the filtering rule must be applied in (see
   Section 5).

   Configuration of group identifiers associated to interfaces may
   change over time.  An implementation MUST ensure that the filtering
   rules (learned from BGP flowspec) applied to a particular interface
   are always updated when the group identifier mapping is changing.

   Considering figure 2, we can imagine the following design :

   o  Internet customer interfaces are associated with group-identifier
      1.

   o  VPN customer interfaces are associated with group-identifier 2.

   o  All customer interfaces are associated with group-identifier 3.

   o  Peer interfaces are associated with group-identifier 4.

   o  Transit interfaces are associated with group-identifier 5.

   o  All external provider interfaces are associated with group-
      identifier 6.

   o  All interfaces are associated with group-identifier 7.





Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


   If the service provider wants to deploy a specific inbound filtering
   on external provider interfaces only, the provider can send the BGP
   flow specification using group-identifier 6 and including inbound
   direction.

   There are some cases where nodes are dedicated to specific functions
   (Internet peering, Internet Edge, VPN Edge, Service Edge ...), in
   this kind of scenario, there is an interest for a constrained
   distribution of filtering rules that are using the interface specific
   filtering.  Without the constrained route distribution, all nodes
   will received all the filters even if they are not interested in
   those filters.  Constrained route distribution of flowspec filters
   would allow for a more optimized distribution.

5.  Interface-set extended community

   This document proposes a new BGP Route Target extended community
   called "flowspec interface-set".  This document so expands the
   definition of the Route Target extended community to allow a new
   value of high order octet (Type field) to be TBD (in addition to the
   values specified in [RFC4360]).

   In order to ease intra-AS and inter-AS use cases, this document
   proposes to have a transitive as well as a non transitive version of
   this extended community.

   This new BGP Route Target extended community is encoded as follows :


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Type (TBD)   |      0x02     |    Autonomous System Number   :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      :     AS Number (cont.)         |O|I|      Group Identifier     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



   The flags are :

   o  O : if set, the flow specification rule MUST be applied in
      outbound direction to the interface set referenced by the
      following group-identifier.

   o  I : if set, the flow specification rule MUST be applied in input
      direction to the interface set referenced by the following group-
      identifier.



Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


   Both flags can be set at the same time in the interface-set extended
   community leading to flow rule to be applied in both directions.  An
   interface-set extended community with both flags set to zero MUST be
   treated as an error and as consequence, the flowspec update MUST be
   discarded.  As having no direction indicated as no sense, there is no
   need to propagate the filter informations in the network.

   The Group Identifier is coded as a 14-bit number (values goes from 0
   to 16383).

   Multiple instances of the interface-set community may be present in a
   BGP update.  This may appear if the flow rule need to be applied to
   multiple set of interfaces.

   Multiple instances of the community in a BGP update MUST be
   interpreted as a "OR" operation : if a BGP update contains two
   interface-set communities with group ID 1 and group ID 2, the filter
   would need to be installed on interfaces belonging to Group ID 1 or
   Group ID 2.

   As using a Route Target, route distribution of flowspec NLRI with
   interface-set may be subject to constrained distribution as defined
   in [RFC4684].  Constrained route distribution for flowspec routes
   using interface-set requires discussion and will be addressed in a
   future revision of the document.

6.  Handling rules from different sources in the processing pipe

   A packet on a router may be processed by multiple rules that are
   originated by different sources (e.g. statically configured, I2RS
   ephemeral, BGP ephemeral ...).  [RFC5575] does not provide any
   guidance regarding the precedence of BGP flowspec rules compared to
   other sources.  A new version of BGP flowspec
   [I-D.hares-idr-flowspec-v2] should address these precedence rules
   definition in future.

   This document only addresses the usage of "interface-set" in the
   framework of [RFC5575] and the following generic rules SHOULD be used
   by an implementation:

   o  An inbound flowspec rule using interface-set SHOULD be processed
      after all existing inbound traffic processing rules (ACL, PBR,
      QoS, flow collection ...) and SHOULD be applied before forwarding
      decision is made.

   o  An outbound flowspec rule using interface-set SHOULD be processed
      after all existing outbound traffic processing rules (ACL, PBR,




Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


      QoS, flow collection ...) and SHOULD be applied after forwarding
      decision has been made.


     Inbound processing     Forwarding      Outbound processing
   ACL->PBR->BGP_FS in   ->  Lookup  ->  PBR->QoS->I2RS->BGP_FS out


                     Example of packet processing pipe

   In the example above, any BGP flowspec rule ([RFC5575]) with an
   inbound interface-set is processed after all existing features (ACL,
   PBR and QoS) but before the lookup is done.  The outbound BGP
   flowspec rules with interface-set are applied after the lookup and
   after all any existing feature.

   This section gives two examples of combining existing features with
   BGP flowspec+interface-set attribute on an interface.

6.1.  Combining Policy Based Routing with BGP flowspec and interface-set

   In this example, a router has an already configured inbound policy on
   an interface IF1 with the following rules:

   o  Static policy IN:

      *  Entry 1: from udp 10/8 to 11/8 port 53 then set dscp af11 and
         accept

      *  Entry 2: from tcp 10/8 to 11/8 port 22 then set dscp af22 and
         accept

      *  Entry 3: from tcp 10/8 to 11/8 port 80 then set dscp af11 and
         accept

      *  Entry 4: from ip 10/8 to 11/8 then drop

   In addition to this static inbound ACL, the router receives the
   following unordered BGP flowspec version 1 rules with an interface-
   set matching IF1.

   o  flowspec rules IN :

      *  from udp 10.0.0.1/32 to 11/8 port 53 then drop

      *  from tcp 10/8 to 11/8 port 80 then set dscp af32 and accept

      *  from udp 10/8 to 11/8 then accept



Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


   The combination of the static inbound ACL and the inbound "interface-
   set" flowspec rules should result in the following packet processing:

   o  a UDP flow from 10.0.0.1 to 11.0.0.2 on port 53 will be rejected:
      firstly, it is allowed by the static ACL and DSCP is set to af11
      but then it is dropped by the flowspec filter.

   o  a UDP flow from 10.0.0.2 to 11.0.0.2 on port 53 will be accepted
      and DSCP will be set to af11.

   o  a TCP flow from 10.0.0.2 to 11.0.0.2 on port 80 will be accepted
      and DSCP will be set to af32: firstly, the static PBR rule set the
      DSCP to af11 and accepts the packet, then the flowspec filter
      rewrites the DSCP to af32 and accepts it also.

6.2.  Combining flow collection with BGP flowspec and interface-set

   A router may activate flow collection features (used in collaboration
   with Netflow export).  Flow collection can be done at input side or
   output side.  When a router is configured to collect flow
   informations on an inbound interface, the flow collection happens
   before any BGP flowspec rule with interface-set: if a particular
   packet flow is denied by a BGP flowspec rule, it will still be
   collected.

   The same happens if a router is configured to collect flow
   informations on an outbound interface, the flow collection happens,
   and then the BGP flowspec rule is applied: the flow is collected
   whatever the result of the BGP flowspec rule.

7.  Scaling of per interface rules

   Without "interface-set", all the interfaces are using the same
   flowspec filter, while with "interface-set" different interfaces may
   have different flowspec filters (with different terms and actions).
   Having such flowspec rules that are applied on specific interfaces
   may create forwarding instructions that may be harder to share within
   the forwarding plane: a particular term may be present or not in the
   filter of a particular interface.

   An implementation SHOULD take care about trying to keep sharing
   forwarding structures as much as possible in order to limit the
   scaling impact.  How the implementation would do so is out of scope
   of the document.







Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


8.  Deployment considerations

   There are some cases where a particular BGP flowspec NLRI may be
   advertised to different interface groups with a different action.
   For example, a service provider may want to discard all ICMP traffic
   from customer interfaces to infrastructure addresses and want to
   rate-limit the same traffic when it comes from some internal
   platforms.  These particular cases require ADD-PATH to be deployed in
   order to ensure that all paths (NLRI+interface-set group-id+actions)
   are propagated within the BGP control plane.  Without ADD-PATH, only
   a single "NLRI+interface-set group-id+actions" will be propagated, so
   some filtering rules will never be applied.

9.  Security Considerations

   Managing permanent Access Control List by using BGP flowspec as
   described in Section 1.2 helps in saving roll out time of such ACL.
   However some ACL especially at network boundary are critical for the
   network security and loosing the ACL configuration may lead to
   network open for attackers.

   By design, BGP flowspec rules are ephemeral : the flow rule exists in
   the router while the BGP session is UP and the BGP path for the rule
   is valid.  We can imagine a scenario where a Service Provider is
   managing the network boundary ACLs by using only flowspec.  In this
   scenario, if , for example, an attacker succeed to make the internal
   BGP session of a router to be down , it can open all boundary ACLs on
   the node, as flowspec rules will disappear due to the BGP session
   down.

   In reality, the chance for such attack to occur is low, as boundary
   ACLs should protect the BGP session from being attacked.

   In order to complement the BGP flowspec solution is such deployment
   scenario and provides security against such attack, a service
   provider may activate Long lived Graceful Restart
   [I-D.uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence] on the BGP session owning flowspec
   address family.  So in case of BGP session to be down, the BGP paths
   of flowspec rules would be retained and the flowspec action will be
   retained.

10.  Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thanks Wim Hendrickx and Robert Raszuk for
   their valuable comments.






Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


11.  IANA Considerations

11.1.  FlowSpec Transitive Extended Communities

   This document requests a new type from the "BGP Transitive Extended
   Community Types" extended community registry from the First Come
   First Served range.  This type name shall be 'FlowSpec Transitive
   Extended Communities'.

   This document requests creation of a new registry called "FlowSpec
   Transitive Extended Community Sub-Types".  This registry contains
   values of the second octet (the "Sub-Type" field) of an extended
   community when the value of the first octet (the "Type" field) is the
   value allocated in this document.  The registration procedure for
   values in this registry shall be First Come First Served.

11.2.  FlowSpec Non-Transitive Extended Communities

   This document requests a new type from the "BGP Non-Transitive
   Extended Community Types" extended community registry from the First
   Come First Served range.  This type name shall be 'FlowSpec Non-
   Transitive Extended Communities'.

   This document requests creation of a new registry called "FlowSpec
   Non-Transitive Extended Community Sub-Types".  This registry contains
   values of the second octet (the "Sub-Type" field) of an extended
   community when the value of the first octet (the "Type" field) is the
   value allocated in this document.  The registration procedure for
   values in this registry shall be First Come First Served.

11.3.  FlowSpec interface-set Extended Community

   Within the two new registries above, this document requests a new
   subtype (suggested value 0x02).  This sub-type shall be named
   "interface-set", with a reference to this document.

11.4.  Allocation Advice to IANA

   IANA is requested to allocate the values of the FlowSpec Transitive
   and Non-Transitive Extended Communities such that their values are
   identical when ignoring the second high-order bit (Transitive).  See
   section 2, [RFC4360].  An example allocation would be 0x09/0x49.

   It is suggested to IANA that, when possible, allocations from the
   FlowSpec Transitive/Non-Transitive Extended Community Sub-Types
   registries are made for transitive or non-transitive versions of
   features (section 2, [RFC4360]) that their code point in both
   registries is identical.



Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt]
              Rosen, E., Patel, K., Haas, J., and R. Raszuk, "Route
              Target Constrained Distribution of Routes with no Route
              Targets", draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-06 (work in progress),
              November 2016.

   [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>.

   [RFC4360]  Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
              Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
              February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.

   [RFC4684]  Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
              R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
              Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
              Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
              Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684,
              November 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4684>.

   [RFC5575]  Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
              and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
              Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.hares-idr-flowspec-v2]
              Hares, S., "BGP Flow Specification Version 2", draft-
              hares-idr-flowspec-v2-00 (work in progress), June 2016.

   [I-D.uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence]
              Uttaro, J., Chen, E., Decraene, B., and J. Scudder,
              "Support for Long-lived BGP Graceful Restart", draft-
              uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-03 (work in progress), November
              2013.

Authors' Addresses







Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            flowspec-interfaceset               March 2017


   Stephane Litkowski
   Orange

   Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com


   Adam Simpson
   Nokia

   Email: adam.1.simpson@nokia.com


   Keyur Patel
   Arrcus, Inc

   Email: keyur@arrcus.com


   Jeff Haas
   Juniper Networks

   Email: jhaas@juniper.net


   Lucy Yong
   Huawei

   Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com























Litkowski, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017              [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/