idr Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft S. Sangli
Intended status: Standards Track J. Haas
Expires: January 13, 2021 Juniper Networks
July 12, 2020
Bitmask Route Target
draft-zzhang-idr-bitmask-route-target-00
Abstract
This document specifies a new type of Route Target called Bitmask
Route Target as a BGP Community Container. The key element of a
Bitmask Route Target is a Bitmask. Two Bitmask Route Targets are
considered equivalent for the purpose of controlling route
propagation (via Route Target Constraints) and importation if the
result of logical "AND" operation of the Bitmask of the two is non-
zero.
Requirements Language
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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
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 January 13, 2021.
Zhang, et al. Expires January 13, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft bitmask-route-target July 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The importation and propagation of BGP routes can be controled using
Route Targets [RFC4364] and Route Target Constrains [RFC4684]. Both
relies on comparing two Route Targets based on full match of the
8-octet encoding.
There are situations where it is desired to consider two Route
Targets to be equivalent (hence the route could be imported or
propagated) as long as certain bits have matching set values. This
document defines a new type of Route Target for that purpose.
An example use case of this Bitmask Route Target is documented in [I-
D.zzhang-teas-network-slicing-with-flex-te].
The use of Bitmask Route Target with Route Target Constrains is
specified separately in [I-D.zzhang-idr-bgp-route-target-constrains-
extension].
Zhang, et al. Expires January 13, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft bitmask-route-target July 2020
2. Specification
The Bitmask Route Target is a Transitive BGP Community Container of
type TBD [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities].
The container includes a 1-octet Global Administrator (GA) Type,
1-octet GA Length, a variable length GA, a 4-octet Local
Administrator (LA), a 1-octet Bitmask Length in number of octets, and
the Bitmask.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GA Type | GA Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (variable length) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bitmask Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Bitmask (variable length) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The following GA Types and corresponding lengths are defined in this
document:
o TBD1: AS Number, 4-octet
o TBD2: IPv4 Address, 4-octet
o TBD3: IPv6 Address, 16-octet
A Bitmask Route Targets A is considered to match Bitmask Route Target
B for the purpose of controlling propagation and importation of a
route with an attached Bitmask Route Target B if the following
conditions are met:
o The GA Type, GA Length, GA, and LA fields in A and B match.
o The result of the logical "AND" operation of the Bitmask field in
A and B is not 0. If A and B have different Bitmask Lengths, the
smaller one is used to truncate the longer Bitmask.
Zhang, et al. Expires January 13, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft bitmask-route-target July 2020
3. Security Considerations
This document does not change security aspects as discussed in
[RFC4364] and [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities].
4. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to assign a BGP Community Container Type
for the Bitmask Route Target from the "BGP Community Container Types"
registry.
This document requests IANA to setup a "Bitmask Route Target Global
Administrator Type Registry" and assign three type values as listed
in Section 2. Allocation from the first half of the number is based
on standardization and allocation from the second half is First Come
First Serve.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors thank John Scudder for his comments and suggestions.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]
Raszuk, R., Haas, J., Lange, A., Decraene, B., Amante, S.,
and P. Jakma, "BGP Community Container Attribute", draft-
ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05 (work in progress), July
2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
Zhang, et al. Expires January 13, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft bitmask-route-target July 2020
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4684>.
Authors' Addresses
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks
EMail: zzhang@juniper.net
Srihari Sangli
Juniper Networks
EMail: ssangli@juniper.net
Jeffrey Haas
Juniper Networks
EMail: jhaas@juniper.net
Zhang, et al. Expires January 13, 2021 [Page 5]