IDR Working Group S. Hares
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track June 25, 2016
Expires: December 27, 2016
BGP Flow Specification Version 2
draft-hares-idr-flowspec-v2-00.txt
Abstract
BGP flow specification version 1 (RFC5575) describes the distribution
of traffic filter policy (traffic filters and actions) which are
distributed via BGP to BGP peers. Three applications utilize this
traffic filter policy: (1) mitigation of Denial of Service (DoS), (2)
enabling of traffic filtering in BGP/MPLS VPNS, and (3)centralized
traffic control for networks with SDN or NFV controllers.
Application of centralized traffic utilizing BGP Flow Specification
traffic filters may need user-ordered filters rather than RFC5575's
strict ordering of filters and defined ordering of actions.
This document proposes a new BGP Flow specification version 2 that
supports user-order of filters and actions plus allowing more actions
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 December 27, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
(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
1.1. RFC5575 vs. NETCONF/RESTCONF/I2RS Flow Filters . . . . . 4
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. RFC 2119 language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Dissemination of BGP Flow Specification version 2 NLRI and
Wide Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Encoding of BGP-FS v2 Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Encoding of BGP-FS v2 Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Required NLRI Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Optional Security Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. BGP FS v2 and BGPSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. BGP FS v2 with with ROA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Revise Flow Specification Security for centralized Server 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
BGP flow specification [RFC5575] describes the distribution of
filters and actions that apply when packets are received on a router
with the flow specification function turned on. If one considers the
reception of the packet as an event, then BGP flow specification
describes a set of minimalistic Event-MatchCondition-Action (ECA)
policies were the match-condition is defined in the BGP NLRI, and the
action is defined either by the default condition (accept traffic) or
actions defined in Extended BGP Communiites values [RFC4360].
The initial set of policy [RFC5575] and [RFC7674] for this policy
includes 12 types of match filters encoded in two application
specific AFI/SAFIs for the IPv4 AFI.
IP traffic: AFI:1, SAFI, 133;
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
BGP/MPLS VPN AFI:1 VPN SAFI, 134) for IPv4.
The popularity of these flow specification filters in deployment for
DoS and SDN/NFV has led to the requirement for more BGP flow
specification match filters in the NLRI and more BGP flow
specification actions.
This document describes distribution of two new BGP Flow
Specification NLRI (2 AFI/SAFI pairs) that allow user-ordered list of
traffic match filters, and user-ordered traffic match actions encoded
in BGP Wide Communities.
o section 2 - Definitions,
o section 3 - Rules for dissemination of Flow Specification v2,
o section 4 - Optional Security,
o section 5 - IANA considerations,
o section 6 - security considerations.
The rest of this section provides background on BGP Flow
Specification filters interaction with I2RS Filter-Based RIBs carried
by NETCONF/RESTCONF protocol. Figure 1 below is a logial description
of BGP Flow Specification rules that combine filters in BGP NLRI with
actions in BGP Extended communities.
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
+-----------------------------+
| Flow Specification (FS) |
| Policy |
+-----------------------------+
^ ^
| |
| |
+--------^-------+ +-------^-------+
| FS Rule | | FS Rule |
+----------------+ +---------------+
: :
: :
......: :.....
: :
+---------V---------+ +----V-------------+
| Rule Condition | | Rule Action |
| in BGP NLRIs | | in BGP extended |
| SAFI 133, 134 | | Communities |
+-------------------+ +------------------+
: : : : : :
.....: . :..... .....: . :.....
: : : : : :
+----V---+ +---V----+ +--V---+ +-V------+ +--V-----++--V---+
| Match | | match | |match | | Action | | action ||action|
|Operator| |Variable| |Value | |Operator| |variable|| Value|
|*1 | | | | | |(subtype| | || |
+--------+ +--------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------++------+
*1 match operator may be complex.
Figure 1: BGP Flow Specification Policy
BGP Flow Specification (BGP-FS) ([RFC5575] and
[I-D.raszuk-idr-rfc5575bis]) describes how to distribute the BGP Flow
Specification policy as BGP routes which are locally configured on
the originating BGP peer. Like BGP routes, if the BGP peer session
drops then BGP Flow Specification routes are dropped. [RFC5575] and
[I-D.raszuk-idr-rfc5575bis] do not indicate how the BGP Flow
Specification policy is installed in the kernel.
1.1. RFC5575 vs. NETCONF/RESTCONF/I2RS Flow Filters
[RFC5575] describes the dissemination of flow specification rules
policy is similar to the the statically configured Filter-Based RIB
described in [I-D.ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model], and the I2RS Filter-
Based RIB ([I-D.ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model],
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model],
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model]). These FB-RIBs start on the
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
reception of a packet using match filters to match frames (L2) or
packet data (L3/L4/Application), and perform actions as shown in
figure 2.
+-----------+ +------------+
|Rule Group | | Rule Group |
+-----------+ +------------+
^ ^
| |
| |
+--------^-------+ +-------^-----------+
| Rule | | Rule |
+----------------+ +-------------------+
: : : :
:.................: : : :
: |.........: : :
+--V--+ +--V--+ : :
| name| |order| .........: :.....
+-----+ +-----+ : :
: :
+--------------V-------+ +--V------------+
| Rule Match condition | | Rule Action |
+----------------------+ +---------------+
: : : : : :
.....: . :..... .....: . :.....
: : : : : :
+----V---+ +---V----+ +--V---+ +-V------++--V-----++--V---+
| Match | | match | |match | | Action || action ||action|
|Operator| |variable| |Value | |Operator||Variable|| Value|
+--------+ +--------+ +------+ +--------++--------++------+
Figure 2: I2RS Filter-Based RIB Policy
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model] suggests that the storage of BGP
Flow Specification routes in the kernel should utilize the same
format as the statically configured FB-RIB and the I2RS ephemeral FB-
RIB so that these traffic filters may be compared. This draft also
proposes that precedence between these three sources of filters in
the kernel (statically configured, I2RS ephemeral, and BGP ephemeral
routes) can either set by local policy or defaults. If it is set by
defaults [I-D.ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model] suggests the default
precedence between static, I2RS, and BGP-FS installed filters is:
o static FB-RIB -highest precedence (wins all ties)
o I2RS FB-RIB - middle preference (wins over BGP-FS originated
routes, loses to static FB-RIB),
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
o BGP-FS installed Filters - lows preference (loses to static and
I2RS FB-RIB)
2. Definitions
2.1. Definitions and Acronyms
NETCONF: The Network Configuration Protocol [RFC6241].
RESTconf - http programmatic protocol to access yang modules
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
BGPSEC - secure BGP [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol].
I2RS - Interface to Routing System [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture].
BGP Session ephemeral state - state which does not survive the
loss of BGP peer,
Ephemeral state - state which does not survive the reboot of a
software module, or a hardware reboot. Ephemeral state can be
ephemeral configuration state or operational state.
configuration state - state which persist across a reboot of
software module within a routing systsem or a reboot of a hardware
routing device.
2.2. RFC 2119 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].
3. Dissemination of BGP Flow Specification version 2 NLRI and Wide
Communities
The BGP Flow Specification version 2 (BGP-FS v2) uses an NRLI with
the format for AFI/SAFI (SAFI = TBD) for IP flow, and AFI/SAFI for
BGP/MPLS (SAFI = TBD). This NLRI information is encoded using
MP_READ_NRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes defined in [RFC4760].
Whenever the corresponding application does not require Next-HOP
information, this shall be encoded as zero-octet length Next Hop in
the MP_REAC_NLRI and ignored upon receipt.
Implementatinos wishing to exchange flow specificastion rules MUST
use BGP's Capability Advertisement facility to exchange the
Multiprotocol Extension Capability Code (Code 1) as defined in
[RFC4760].
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
3.1. Encoding of BGP-FS v2 Filters
The AFI/SAFI NLRI for BGP Flow Specification has the format
+------------------------+
|length (2 octets) |
+------------------------+
| Sub-TLVs (variable) |
| +====================+ |
| | order (2 octets) | |
| +--------------------+ |
| | type (2 octets) | |
| +--------------------+ |
| | length (2 octets) | |
| +--------------------+ |
| | value (variable) | |
| |[multiples of | |
| | 2 octets] | |
| +====================+ |
+------------------------+
Figure 16 - NRLI revision
where:
o length - is the length of the NLRI,
o Sub-TLVs contain a user-ordered set of filter components as
defined in [RFC5575] and [I-D.raszuk-idr-rfc5575bis]. The ranges
are defined as: standard BGP Flow Specification filters (types
0x01 - 0x3FFFF), and vendor specific filters (types 0x4ffff to
0x7FFFF) with type values 0x8000 to 0xFFFFFFFF reserved for future
use. Each sub-tlv has an length of 2 octets, and a variable
length value (in multiples of 2 octets).
Filters are process in the order specified by the user. If multiple
filters exist for the same order, the strict filter ordering defined
in [RFC5575] and [I-D.raszuk-idr-rfc5575bis] will be used for the
filters with the same value for user order.
3.2. Encoding of BGP-FS v2 Actions
The BGP-FS version 2 actions are passed in a Wide Community
[I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities] atom with the following format.
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
+--------------------------+
| order (2 octets) |
+--------------------------+
| Action type (2 octets) |
+--------------------------+
| Action length (2 octets) |
+--------------------------+
| Action Values (variable) |
| (multiples of 2 octets) |
+--------------------------+
Wide Community Atom
figure 17
where:
o Action type (2 octets) - is the type of action. These actions can
be standardized (0x0001 - 0x3ffff), vendor specific
(0x40000-0x7FFFF), or reserved (0x0, 0x80000-0xFFFFFFFF).
o Action length - length of actions including variable field,
o Action values - value of actions (variable) defined in individual
definitions.
The BGP Flow Specification (BGP-FS) atom can be part of the Wide
Community container (type 1) or the BGP Flow Specification Atom can
be part of the BGP Flow Specification container (type 2) which will
have:
+-----------------------------+
| Source AS Number (4 octets)|
+-----------------------------+
| list of atoms (variable) |
+-----------------------------+
figure 18
3.3. Required NLRI Validation
Same as [RFC5575] and [I-D.raszuk-idr-rfc5575bis].
4. Optional Security Additions
This section discusses the optional BGP Security additions for BGP-FS
v2: BGPSEC [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol], ROA [RFC6482] and revised
security for flow specification distributed from a centralized server
within an AS [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid]. These optional
security parameters can be applied per BGP peer.
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
4.1. BGP FS v2 and BGPSEC
[RFC5575] does not require BGP Flow specifications to be passed
BGPSEC [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]. BGP FS v2 can be passed in
BGPSEC, but it is not required.
4.2. BGP FS v2 with with ROA
BGP-FS v2 can utilize ROAs in the validation. If BGP-FS v2 is used
with BGPSEC and ROA, the first thing is to vaildate the route within
BGPSEC and second to utilize BGP ROA to validate the route origin.
The BGP-FS peers using both ROA and BGP-FS validation determine that
a BGP Flow specification is valid if and only if one of the following
cases:
o If the BGP Flow Specification NLRI has a IPv4 or IPv6 address in
destination address match filter and the following is true:
* A BGP ROA has been received to validate the originator, and
* the route is the best-match unicast route for the destination
prefix embedded in the match filter; or
o If a BGP ROA has not been received that matches the IPv4 or IPv6
destination address in the destination filter, the match filter
must abide by the [RFC5575] validation rules of:
* The originator match of the flow specification matches the
originator of the best-match unicast route for the destination
prefix filter embedded in the flow specification", and
* No more specific unicast routes exist when compared with the
flow destination prefix that have been received from a
different neighboring AS than the best-match unicast route,
which has been determined in step A.
The best match is defined to be the longest-match NLRI with the
highest preference.
4.3. Revise Flow Specification Security for centralized Server
The distribution of Flow Specifications from a centralized server
supports mitigation of DoS attacks. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid]
suggests the following redefined procedure for validation for this
case:
A route is valid if the following conditions holds true:
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
o The originator of the flow specification matches the originator of
the best-match unicast route for the destination prefix embedded
in the flow specification.
o The AS_PATH and AS4_PATH attribute of the flow specification are
empty (on originating AS)
o The AS_PATH and AS4_PATH attribute of the flow specification does
not contain AS_SET and AS_SEQUENCE segments (on originating AS
with AS Confederation)
This reduced validation mechanism can be used for BGP-FS v2 within a
single domain.
5. IANA Considerations
This section complies with [RFC7153]
This document requests:
SAFI be defined for IPv4 (AFI = 1), IPv6 (AFI=2), L2VPN (AFI=25)
for BGP-FS
SAFI be defined for BGP/MPLS IPv4 (AFI = 1), IPv6 (AFI=2), L2VPN
(AFI=25) for BGP-FS
Registry be created for BGP-FS V2 filter component types with the
following ranges:
0x00 - reserved
0x01 - 0x3FFFF - standards action
0x40000- 0x7FFFF - vendor specific filters
0x80000 -0xFFFFFFFF - reserved
0x80000 -0xFFFFFFFF - reserved
Registry be created for BGP-FS v2 action types with the following
ranges:
0x0 - reserved
0x01 - 0x3ffff - standards action
0x40000 - 0x7ffff - vendor actions
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
0x80000 - 0xFFFFFFF - reserved
6. Security Considerations
The use of ROA improves on [RFC5575] to check the route orgination is
valid can improve the validation sequence for a multiple-AS
environment. The use of BGPSEC [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] to
secure the packet can increase security of BGP flow specification
information sent in the packet.
The use of the reduced validation within an AS
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid] can provide adequate validation for
distribution of flow specification within an single autonomous system
for prevention of DDOS.
Distribution of flow filters may provide insight into traffic being
sent within an AS, but this information should be composite
information that does not reveal the traffic patterns of individuals.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid]
Uttaro, J., Filsfils, C., Smith, D., Alcaide, J., and P.
Mohapatra, "Revised Validation Procedure for BGP Flow
Specifications", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid-03 (work
in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]
Raszuk, R., Haas, J., Lange, A., Amante, S., Decraene, B.,
Jakma, P., and R. Steenbergen, "Wide BGP Communities
Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-02 (work
in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]
Lepinski, M. and K. Sriram, "BGPsec Protocol
Specification", draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-17 (work
in progress), June 2016.
[I-D.raszuk-idr-rfc5575bis]
Raszuk, R., McPherson, D., Mauch, J., Greene, B., and S.
Hares, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", draft-
raszuk-idr-rfc5575bis-00 (work in progress), June 2016.
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 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>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[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>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed. and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[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>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6482] Lepinski, M., Kent, S., and D. Kong, "A Profile for Route
Origin Authorizations (ROAs)", RFC 6482,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6482, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6482>.
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
[RFC7153] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "IANA Registries for BGP
Extended Communities", RFC 7153, DOI 10.17487/RFC7153,
March 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7153>.
[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.
[RFC7674] Haas, J., Ed., "Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect
Extended Community", RFC 7674, DOI 10.17487/RFC7674,
October 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7674>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-15 (work in
progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state]
Haas, J. and S. Hares, "I2RS Ephemeral State
Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-10 (work in
progress), June 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model]
Hares, S., Kini, S., Dunbar, L., Krishnan, R., Bogdanovic,
D., and R. White, "Filter-Based RIB Data Model", draft-
ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00 (work in progress), June
2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model]
Kini, S., Hares, S., Dunbar, L., Ghanwani, A., Krishnan,
R., Bogdanovic, D., and R. White, "Filter-Based RIB
Information Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model-00
(work in progress), June 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model]
Hares, S., Wu, Q., and R. White, "Filter-Based Packet
Forwarding ECA Policy", draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-
model-00 (work in progress), June 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-13 (work in
progress), April 2016.
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BGP FlowSpec v2 June 2016
[I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model]
Bogdanovic, D., Koushik, K., Huang, L., and D. Blair,
"Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model",
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-07 (work in progress), March
2016.
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
"Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6074, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6074>.
[RFC6483] Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "Validation of Route
Origination Using the Resource Certificate Public Key
Infrastructure (PKI) and Route Origin Authorizations
(ROAs)", RFC 6483, DOI 10.17487/RFC6483, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6483>.
Author's Address
Susan Hares
Huawei
7453 Hickory Hill
Saline, MI 48176
USA
Email: shares@ndzh.com
Hares Expires December 27, 2016 [Page 14]