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

Versions: (draft-rosen-idr-rtc-no-rt) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

IDR Working Group                                          E. Rosen, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                    Juniper Networks, Inc.
Updates: 4684 (if approved)                                     K. Patel
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Arccus
Expires: November 9, 2017                                        J. Haas
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                               R. Raszuk
                                                            Bloomberg LP
                                                             May 8, 2017


 Route Target Constrained Distribution of Routes with no Route Targets
                    draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-07.txt

Abstract

   There are a variety of BGP-enabled services in which the originator
   of a BGP route may attach one or more "Route Targets" to the route.
   By means of a procedure known as "RT Constrained Distribution" (RTC),
   a given BGP speaker (call it "B") can announce the set of RTs in
   which it has interest.  The implication is that if a particular route
   (call it "R") carries any RTs at all, BGP speaker B wants to receive
   route R if and only if B has announced interest in one of the RTs
   carried by R.  However, if route R does not carry any RTs at all,
   prior specifications do not make it clear whether B's use of RTC
   implies that it does not want to receive route R.  This has caused
   interoperability problems in the field, as some implementations of
   RTC do not allow B to receive R, but some services presuppose that B
   will receive R.  This document updates RFC 4684 by clarifying the
   effect of the RTC mechanism on routes that do not have any RTs.

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 November 9, 2017.




Rosen, et al.           Expires November 9, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            RTC Behavior w/o RTs                  May 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Some Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Default Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   A BGP route can carry a particular type of BGP path attribute known
   as an "Extended Communities Attribute" [RFC4360].  Each such
   attribute can contain a variable number of typed communities.
   Certain typed communities are known as "Route Targets" (RTs)
   ([RFC4360], [RFC4364]).

   [RFC4684] defines a procedure, known as "RT Constrained Distribution"
   (RTC) that allows a BGP speaker to advertise its interest in a
   particular set of RTs.  It does so by advertising "RT membership
   information".  (See [RFC4684] for details.)  It may advertise RT
   membership for any number of RTs.  By advertising membership for a
   particular RT, a BGP speaker declares that it is interested in
   receiving BGP routes that carry that RT.

   If RTC is enabled on a particular BGP session, the session must be
   provisioned with the set of "address family" and "subsequent address
   family" values (AFI/SAFIs) to which RTC is to be applied.  In
   [RFC4684] it is implicitly assumed that RTC will only be applied to
   AFI/SAFIs for which all the routes carry RTs.  When this assumption



Rosen, et al.           Expires November 9, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            RTC Behavior w/o RTs                  May 2017


   is true, the RTC semantics are clear.  A BGP speaker advertising its
   interest in RT1, RT2, ..., RTk is saying that, for the AFI/SAFIs to
   which RTC is being applied, it is interested in any route that
   carries at least one of those RTs, and it is not interested in any
   route that does not carry at least one of those RTs.

   However, [RFC4684] does not specify how the RTC procedures are to be
   applied to AFI/SAFIs whose routes sometimes carry RTs and sometimes
   do not.  Consider a BGP session between routers R1 and R2, where R1
   has advertised its interest in RT1, RT2, ..., RTk, and RTC is being
   applied to a particular AFI/SAFI.  Suppose R2 has a route of that
   AFI/SAFI, and that route carries no RTs.  Should R2 advertise this
   route to R1 or not?

   There are two possible answers to this question, each of which seems
   prima facie reasonable:

   o  No, R2 should not advertise the route, because it belongs to an
      AFI/SAFI to which RTC is being applied, and the route does not
      carry any of the RTs in which R1 is interested.

   o  Yes, R2 should advertise the route; since the route carries no
      RTs, the intention of the route's originator is that the
      distribution of the route not be constrained by the RTC mechanism.

   As might be expected, "one size does not fit all".  The best answer
   depends upon the particular deployment scenario, and upon the
   particular AFI/SAFI to which RTC is being applied.

   Section 3 defines a default behavior for existing AFI/SAFIs.  This
   default behavior ensures proper operation when RTC is applied to an
   existing AFI/SAFI.  The default behavior may of course be overridden
   by local policy.

   Section 3 also defines a default "default behavior" for new AFI/
   SAFIs.  When a new AFI/SAFI is defined, the specification defining it
   may specify a different default behavior; otherwise the default
   default behavior will apply.

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








Rosen, et al.           Expires November 9, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            RTC Behavior w/o RTs                  May 2017


2.  Some Deployment Scenarios

   The lack of a clearly defined default behavior for applying RTC to
   routes that carry no RTs is problematic in at least three scenarios.

   o  [RFC6037] describes a deployed Multicast VPN (MVPN) solution.  It
      defines a BGP SAFI known as "MDT-SAFI".  Routes with this SAFI may
      carry RTs, but are not required to do so.  In order for the
      procedures of [RFC6037] to work properly, if an MDT-SAFI route
      does not carry any RTs, the distribution of that route MUST NOT be
      constrained by RTC.  However, if an MDT-SAFI route does carry one
      or more RTs, its distribution SHOULD be constrained by RTC.

   o  [RFC7716] specifies a way to provide "Global Table Multicast" (as
      opposed to VPN multicast), using procedures that are very similar
      to those described in [RFC6513] and [RFC6514] for MVPN.  In
      particular, it uses routes of the MCAST-VPN SAFI that is defined
      in [RFC6514].  When used for MVPN, each MCAST-VPN route carries at
      least one RT.  However, when used for Global Table Multicast, it
      is optional for certain MCAST-VPN routes to carry RTs.  In order
      for the procedures of [RFC7716] to work properly, if an MCAST-VPN
      route does not carry any RTs, the distribution of that route MUST
      NOT be constrained by RTC.

   o  Typically, Route Targets have been carried only by routes that are
      distributed as part of a VPN service (or the Global
      Table Multicast service mentioned above).  However, it may be
      desirable to be able to place RTs on non-VPN routes (e.g., on
      unicast IPv4 or IPv6 routes) and then to use RTC to constrain the
      delivery of the non-VPN routes.  For example, if a BGP speaker
      desires to receive only a small set of IPv4 unicast routes, and
      the desired routes carry one or more RTs, the BGP speaker could
      use RTC to advertise its interest in one or more of those RTs.  In
      this application, the intention would be that any IPv4 unicast
      route not carrying an RT would be filtered.  Note that this is the
      opposite of the behavior needed for the other use cases discussed
      in this section.

3.  Default Behavior

   In order to handle the use cases discussed in Section 2, this
   document specifies a default behavior for the case where RTC is
   applied to a particular AFI/SAFI, and some (or all) routes of that
   address family do not carry any RTs.

   When RTC is applied, on a particular BGP session, to routes of the
   MDT-SAFI address family (SAFI=66, [RFC6037]), the default behavior




Rosen, et al.           Expires November 9, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            RTC Behavior w/o RTs                  May 2017


   MUST be that routes that do not carry any RTs are distributed on that
   session.

   When RTC is applied, on a particular BGP session, to routes of the
   MCAST-VPN address family (SAFI=5, [RFC6514], [RFC7716]), the default
   behavior MUST be that routes that do not carry any RTs are
   distributed on that session.

   When RTC is applied, on a particular BGP session, to routes of other
   address families, the default behavior MUST be that routes without
   any RTs are not distributed on that session.  This default "default
   behavior" applies to all AFI/SAFIs for which a different default
   behavior has not been defined.

   A BGP speaker MAY be provisioned to apply a non-default behavior to a
   given AFI/SAFI.  This is a matter of local policy.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document contains no actions for IANA.

5.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of [RFC4684] apply.

   The procedures of this document may allow the distribution of certain
   SAFI-5 and SAFI-66 routes, in situations where some implementations
   of RTC would previously have prevented their distribution.  However,
   it is necessary to distribute such routes in order for the
   applications using them to operate properly.  Allowing the
   distribution of such routes does not create any new security
   considerations beyond those of the applications that use the routes.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [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>.






Rosen, et al.           Expires November 9, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            RTC Behavior w/o RTs                  May 2017


   [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>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC6037]  Rosen, E., Ed., Cai, Y., Ed., and IJ. Wijnands, "Cisco
              Systems' Solution for Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs",
              RFC 6037, DOI 10.17487/RFC6037, October 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6037>.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
              BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
              2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.

   [RFC6514]  Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
              Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
              VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.

   [RFC7716]  Zhang, J., Giuliano, L., Rosen, E., Ed., Subramanian, K.,
              and D. Pacella, "Global Table Multicast with BGP Multicast
              VPN (BGP-MVPN) Procedures", RFC 7716,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7716, December 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7716>.

Authors' Addresses

   Eric C. Rosen (editor)
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   10 Technology Park Drive
   Westford, Massachusetts  01886
   United States

   Email: erosen@juniper.net


   Keyur Patel
   Arccus

   Email: keyur@arccus.com



Rosen, et al.           Expires November 9, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            RTC Behavior w/o RTs                  May 2017


   Jeffrey Haas
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, California  94089
   United States

   Email: jhaas@juniper.net


   Robert Raszuk
   Bloomberg LP
   731 Lexington Ave
   New York City, NY  10022
   United States

   Email: robert@raszuk.net



































Rosen, et al.           Expires November 9, 2017                [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/