[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]



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]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/