draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-04.txt   draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-05.txt 
Network Working Group B. Decraene Network Working Group B. Decraene
Internet-Draft France Telecom - Orange Internet-Draft France Telecom - Orange
Intended status: Standards Track P. Francois Intended status: Standards Track P. Francois
Expires: May 23, 2013 IMDEA Networks Expires: November 22, 2013 IMDEA Networks
November 19, 2012 May 21, 2013
Assigned BGP extended communities Assigned BGP extended communities
draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-04 draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-05
Abstract Abstract
This document defines an IANA registry in order to assign non- This document defines an IANA registry in order to assign non-
transitive extended communities from. These are similar to the transitive extended communities from. These are similar to the
existing well-known BGP communities defined in RFC 1997 but provide a existing well-known BGP communities defined in RFC 1997 but provide a
control over inter-AS community advertisement as, per RFC RFC 4360, control over inter-AS community advertisement as, per RFC RFC 4360,
they are not transitive across Autonomous System boundaries. they are not transitive across Autonomous System boundaries.
For that purpose, this document defines the use of the reserved For that purpose, this document defines the use of the reserved
Autonomous System number 0.65535 in the non-transitive generic four- Autonomous System number 0.65535 in the non-transitive generic four-
octet AS specific extended community type. octet AS specific extended community type.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 22, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 3, line 42 skipping to change at page 3, line 42
significance. The lists of those communities are maintained by the significance. The lists of those communities are maintained by the
IANA in the registry "Assigned non-transitive extended communities". IANA in the registry "Assigned non-transitive extended communities".
Note that this use of the reserved AS number 0.65535 in the AS field Note that this use of the reserved AS number 0.65535 in the AS field
of the communities is similar to the one defined by [RFC1997] for the of the communities is similar to the one defined by [RFC1997] for the
BGP Well-Known communities. In particular, [RFC1997] also uses the BGP Well-Known communities. In particular, [RFC1997] also uses the
reserved AS number 65535. reserved AS number 65535.
3. Assigned transitive extended communities 3. Assigned transitive extended communities
As per [RFC4893], a 2-octet Autonomous System number can be converted As per [RFC6793], a 2-octet Autonomous System number can be converted
into a 4-octet Autonomous System number by setting the two high-order into a 4-octet Autonomous System number by setting the two high-order
octets of the 4-octet field to zero. This applies to the reserved octets of the 4-octet field to zero. This applies to the reserved
2-octet Autonous System number 65535 which could use either a 2-octet Autonous System number 65535 which could use either a
standard community or the 4-octet AS specific generic extended standard community or the 4-octet AS specific generic extended
community. As noted in community. As noted in
[I-D.ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype], this is undesirable [I-D.ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype], this is undesirable
as they would be treated as different communities, even if they had as they would be treated as different communities, even if they had
the same values. the same values.
Therefore, this document does not define a non-transitive extended Therefore, this document does not define a non-transitive extended
skipping to change at page 5, line 14 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge John Scudder and Jeffrey Haas for their We would like to acknowledge John Scudder and Jeffrey Haas for their
contribution to this document. contribution to this document.
7. Normative References 7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype] [I-D.ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype]
Rao, D., Mohapatra, P., and J. Haas, "Generic Subtype for Rao, D., Mohapatra, P., and J. Haas, "Generic Subtype for
BGP Four-octet AS specific extended community", BGP Four-octet AS specific extended community", draft-
draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-06 (work ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype-06 (work in
in progress), October 2012. progress), October 2012.
[RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP [RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP
Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996. Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
[RFC4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-octet AS
Number Space", RFC 4893, May 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
Appendix A. Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, December
2012.
Appendix A. Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes
[RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ] [RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ]
Changes -01 Changes -01:
o Name changed from 'Reserved BGP extended communities' to 'Assigned o Name changed from 'Reserved BGP extended communities' to 'Assigned
BGP extended communities' BGP extended communities'
o Addition of section 'Assigned extended communities' o Addition of section 'Assigned extended communities'
Changes -02: no change, refresh only. Changes -02: no change, refresh only.
Changes -03 Changes -03:
o Use of AS number 0.65535 (0x0000FFFF) instead of AS 0. This is o Use of AS number 0.65535 (0x0000FFFF) instead of AS 0. This is
better aligned with RFC 1997 which also uses AS 65535. better aligned with RFC 1997 which also uses AS 65535.
o Remove the transitive flavor of assigned extended communities. o Remove the transitive flavor of assigned extended communities.
RFC 1997 well-known standard communities to be used instead. RFC 1997 well-known standard communities to be used instead.
Changes -04: no change, refresh only. Changes -04: no change, refresh only.
Changes -05: minor editorial change (RFC 4893 obsoleted by 6793).
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Bruno Decraene Bruno Decraene
France Telecom - Orange France Telecom - Orange
38 rue du General Leclerc 38 rue du General Leclerc
Issy Moulineaux cedex 9 92794 Issy Moulineaux cedex 9 92794
France France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 19 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/