draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-00.txt   draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-01.txt 
Global Routing Operations Working T. Manderson Global Routing Operations Working T. Manderson
Group ICANN Group ICANN
Internet-Draft September 8, 2010 Internet-Draft December 14, 2010
Intended status: Informational Intended status: Informational
Expires: March 12, 2011 Expires: June 17, 2011
MRT BGP routing information export format with geo-location extensions MRT BGP routing information export format with geo-location extensions
draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-00.txt draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document extends the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) MRT export This document extends the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) MRT export
format for routing information to include terrestrial coordinates. format for routing information to include terrestrial coordinates.
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.
skipping to change at page 1, line 32 skipping to change at page 1, line 32
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 March 12, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Geo-location aware MRT Routing Information Type . . . . . . . 5 3. Geo-location aware MRT Routing Information Subtype . . . . . . 5
4. TABLE_DUMP_v2+GEO Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. GEO_PEER_TABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Implementation Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Requirements notation 1. Requirements notation
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 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
Research is underway that analyzes the network behavior of routing Research is underway that analyzes the network behavior of routing
protocol transactions from routing information base snapshots in protocol transactions from routing information base snapshots in
relation to geographical coordinates. Specifically the BGP routing relation to geographical coordinates. Specifically the BGP routing
protocol is the subject of study and the analysis has been protocol is the subject of study and the analysis has been
significantly aided by the availability and extension of the "MRT significantly aided by the availability and extension of the "MRT
format" [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] originally defined in the MRT format" [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] originally defined in the MRT
Programmer's Guide [MRT PROG GUIDE]. Programmer's Guide [MRT PROG GUIDE].
This memo documents an extension to the "MRT format" This memo documents an extension to the "MRT format"
[I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] and introduces an additional definition of a MRT [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] and introduces an additional definition of a MRT
Type field and related Subtype fields. Subtype field.
3. Geo-location aware MRT Routing Information Type
The following additional Type is defined for the TABLE_DUMP_v2+GEO
format, which extends the TABLE_DUMP_V2 type.
[TYPE NUMBER] TABLE_DUMP_v2+GEO 3. Geo-location aware MRT Routing Information Subtype
The TYPE NUMBER, an FCFS entry from the future IANA MRT registry is The additional Subtype is defined for the TABLE_DUMP_v format, which
yet to be assigned. extends the TABLE_DUMP_V2 type.
4. TABLE_DUMP_v2+GEO Type 3.1. GEO_PEER_TABLE
The TABLE_DUMP_v2+GEO Type updates the TABLE_DUMP_v2 Type to include The GEO_PEER_TABLE Subtype updates the TABLE_DUMP_v2 Types to include
Geo-location information in the form of WGS84 [WGS 84] formatted Geo-location information in the form of WGS84 [WGS 84] formatted
coordinates. The following subtypes as used with the TABLE_DUMP_V2 coordinates. The MRT subtypes would be as follows.
Type, are used in the TABLE_DUMP_v2+GEO Type and their formats have
been augmented to include the WGS84 coordinates.
1 PEER_INDEX_TABLE 1 PEER_INDEX_TABLE
2 RIB_IPV4_UNICAST 2 RIB_IPV4_UNICAST
3 RIB_IPV4_MULTICAST 3 RIB_IPV4_MULTICAST
4 RIB_IPV6_UNICAST 4 RIB_IPV6_UNICAST
5 RIB_IPV6_MULTICAST 5 RIB_IPV6_MULTICAST
6 RIB_GENERIC 6 RIB_GENERIC
7 GEO_PEER_TABLE
The extended PEER_INDEX_TABLE MRT record provides the BGP ID of the The GEO_PEER_TABLE MRT record provides the BGP ID of the collector,
collector, the latitude and longitude in WGS84 [WGS 84] format, an Its latitude and longitude in WGS84 [WGS 84] format, and a list of
optional view name, and a list of indexed peers. indexed peers.
The format and function of the Collector BGP ID, the View Name Length The format and function of the Collector BGP ID, Peer Count are as
and View Name, Peer Count are as defined by the TABLE_DUMP_V2 MRT defined by the TABLE_DUMP_V2 MRT PEER_INDEX_TABLE format.
format [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt]. [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt].
The Collector Latitude and Collector Longitude are the geographical The Collector Latitude and Collector Longitude are the geographical
coordinates of the collector in WGS84 [WGS 84] datum decimal degrees coordinates of the collector in WGS84 [WGS 84] datum decimal degrees
format stored as a single precision float in the 32 bits allocated to format stored as a single precision float in the 32 bits allocated to
the Latitude and Longitude. the Collector Latitude and Collector Longitude. The latitude and
longitude may be a Not A Number (NAN) for situations where the geo-
0 1 2 3 location of the collector is considered private. The Collector
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 Latitude and Collector Longitude MUST NOT be a mix of WGS84 [WGS 84]
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ datum coordinate and NAN values.
| Collector BGP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Collector Latitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Collector Longitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| View Name Length | View Name (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The format of the peer entries is shown below. The PEER_INDEX_TABLE
record contains Peer Count peer entries.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Type | | Collector BGP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer BGP ID | | Collector Latitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IP address (variable) | | Collector Longitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer AS (variable) | | Peer Count | Peer entries (variable)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Latitude | The format of the peer entries is shown below. The Peer Type and the
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Peer BGP ID is as defined in the TABLE_DUMP_V2 MRT
| Peer Longitude | [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] PEER_INDEX_TABLE format. The order of the Peer
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ entries in GEO_PEER_TABLE MUST match the order and number as existing
in the PEER_INDEX_TABLE.
The Peer Type, Peer BGP ID, Peer IP, Peer AS, Peer Latitude, and Peer 0 1 2 3
Longitude fields are repeated as indicated by the Peer Count field. 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
The position of the Peer in the PEER_INDEX_TABLE is used as an index +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
in the subsequent TABLE_DUMP_V2+GEO MRT records. The index number | Peer Type |
begins with 0. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer BGP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Latitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Longitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Peer Latitude and Peer Longitude are the geographical coordinates The Peer Latitude and Peer Longitude are the geographical coordinates
of the collector in WGS84 [WGS 84] datum decimal degrees format of the peer in WGS84 [WGS 84] datum decimal degrees format stored as
stored as a single precision float in the 32 bits allocated to the a single precision float in the 32 bits allocated to the Peer
Latitude and Longitude. Latitude and Peer Longitude. The latitude and longitude may be a Not
A Number (NAN) for situations where the geo-location of the peer is
The Peer Type field remains as defined in the TABLE_DUMP_V2 MRT considered private. The Peer Latitude and Peer Longitude MUST NOT be
format [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt]. a mix of WGS84 [WGS 84] datum coordinate and NAN values for a single
Peer.
The records which follow the PEER_INDEX_TABLE record constitute the
RIB entries and their formats remain unchanged from TABLE_DUMP_V2+
GEO.
That is the common format for the RIB_IPV4_UNICAST,
RIB_IPV4_MULTICAST, RIB_IPV6_UNICAST, and RIB_IPV6_MULTICAST remains
as defined for TABLE_DUMP_V2 and the header is shown below for
informational purposes only.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Entry Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Similarly the the RIB_GENERIC format is unchanged and is shown here:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Family Identifier |Subsequent AFI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Layer Reachability Information (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Entry Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The RIB entries that follow the RIB entry headers are also unchanged
from MRT [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt]:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originated Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Attribute Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Attributes... (variable)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5. Implementation Note
In implementation of the formats above where a Collector has an
assigned Latitude and Longitude but a Peer does not. It is currently
recommended that the Collector's coordinates are replicated in the
Peer's Latitude and Longitude. The inquiring researcher can then
make the decision on the interpretation of the routes 'as seen' at
those coordinates, or disregard any geographical information for the
peer based on the comparison of the Collector and Peer coordinates.
The TABLE_DUMP_v2+GEO format MUST not be used if the Collector's
Latitude and Longitude have not been defined.
6. Acknowledgements 4. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Andrew Clark, Ernest Foo, Dave Meyer, Larry Bluck, and Thanks to Andrew Clark, Ernest Foo, Dave Meyer, Larry Bluck, Richard
Jeffrey Haas for reviewing this document. Barnes, and Jeffrey Haas for reviewing this document.
This document describes a small portion of the research towards the This document describes a small portion of the research towards the
author's PhD. author's PhD.
7. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This section requests the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) This section requests the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
register the Type code values (as FCFS as defined in the "MRT format" register the additional Subtype code value as:
[I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] and Subtype code values related to the
TABLE_DUMP_v2+GEO type as an entry in the MRT namespaces, in
accordance with BCP 26, RFC 5226 [RFC5226].
8. Security Considerations 7 GEO_PEER_TABLE
in the "MRT format" [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] and Subtype code values
related to the TABLE_DUMP_v2 type in the MRT namespace, in accordance
with BCP 26, RFC 5226 [RFC5226].
6. Security Considerations
This extension to the "MRT format" [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] defines fields This extension to the "MRT format" [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] defines fields
that are of a descriptive nature and provide information that is that are of a descriptive nature and provide information that is
useful in the analysis of routing systems. As such, the author useful in the analysis of routing systems. As such, the author
believes that they do not constitute an additional security risk. believes that they do not constitute an additional security risk. It
is recommended that the operators of the BGP collector and Peers
consider their own privacy concerns before supplying geographical
coordinates in MRT dumps.
9. References 7. References
9.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt]
Blunk, L., Karir, M., and C. Labovitz, "MRT routing Blunk, L., Karir, M., and C. Labovitz, "MRT routing
information export format", draft-ietf-grow-mrt-11 (work information export format", draft-ietf-grow-mrt-13 (work
in progress), March 2010. in progress), September 2010.
[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.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
January 2007. January 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.
9.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[MRT PROG GUIDE] [MRT PROG GUIDE]
Labovitz, C., "MRT Programmer's Guide", November 1999, Labovitz, C., "MRT Programmer's Guide", November 1999,
<http://www.merit.edu/networkresearch/mrtprogrammer.pdf>. <http://www.merit.edu/networkresearch/mrtprogrammer.pdf>.
[WGS 84] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic [WGS 84] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic
System 1984", January 2000, <http://earth-info.nga.mil/ System 1984", January 2000, <http://earth-info.nga.mil/
GandG/publications/tr8350.2/wgs84fin.pdf>. GandG/publications/tr8350.2/wgs84fin.pdf>.
Author's Address Author's Address
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
155 lines changed or deleted 86 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/