Revised Validation Procedure for BGP Flow Specifications
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid-10
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (idr WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2019-08-09
|
|
Replaces |
|
draft-djsmith-bgp-flowspec-oid
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
In WG Last Call
Other - see Comment Log
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
Susan Hares
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
|
Network Working Group J. Uttaro
Internet-Draft AT&T
Updates: 5575bis (if approved) J. Alcaide
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: February 9, 2020 D. Smith
Cisco
P. Mohapatra
Sproute Networks
August 8, 2019
Revised Validation Procedure for BGP Flow Specifications
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid-10
Abstract
This document describes a modification to the validation procedure
defined in [RFC5575bis] for the dissemination of BGP Flow
Specifications. [RFC5575bis] requires that the originator of the
Flow Specification matches the originator of the best-match unicast
route for the destination prefix embedded in the Flow Specification.
This allows only BGP speakers within the data forwarding path (such
as autonomous system border routers) to originate BGP Flow
Specifications. Though it is possible to disseminate such Flow
Specifications directly from border routers, it may be operationally
cumbersome in an autonomous system with a large number of border
routers having complex BGP policies. The modification proposed
herein enables Flow Specifications to be originated from a
centralized BGP route controller.
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 https://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 February 9, 2020.
Uttaro, et al. Expires February 9, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Revised Flowspec Validation Procedure August 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Revised Validation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Revision of Route Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Revision of AS_PATH Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Other RFC5575bis Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Topology Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction
[RFC5575bis] defined a new BGP [RFC4271] capability that can be used
to distribute traffic Flow Specifications amongst BGP speakers in
support of traffic filtering. The primary intention of [RFC5575bis]
is to enable downstream autonomous systems to signal traffic
filtering policies to upstream autonomous systems. In this way,
traffic is filtered closer to the source and the upstream autonomous
system(s) avoid carrying the traffic to the downstream autonomous
system only to be discarded. [RFC5575bis] also enables more granular
Show full document text