draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-02.txt		draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-03.txt
	Global Routing Operations Working Group T. Manderson		Global Routing Operations Working Group T. Manderson
	Internet-Draft ICANN		Internet-Draft ICANN
	Intended status: Informational May 23, 2011		Intended status: Standards Track August 12, 2011
	Expires: November 24, 2011		Expires: February 13, 2012
	MRT BGP routing information export format with geo-location extensions		Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
	draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-02.txt		routing information export format with geo-location extensions
			draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-03.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document extends the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Multi-		This document updates the Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) export
	threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) export format for routing information		format for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information by
	to include terrestrial coordinates of a BGP Collector and its BGP		extending it to include optional terrestrial coordinates of a BGP
	Peers.		Collector and its BGP Peers.
	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.
	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 November 24, 2011.		This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 2012.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2011 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
	skipping to change at page 4, line 26		skipping to change at page 4, line 26
	The addition of geo-location coordinates (longitude and latitude)		The addition of geo-location coordinates (longitude and latitude)
	pertaining to the geographical location of both the BGP collector and		pertaining to the geographical location of both the BGP collector and
	its BGP peers to BGP export data enables a researcher or enquiring		its BGP peers to BGP export data enables a researcher or enquiring
	individual to gain a tererestrial insight to the routes seen by a BGP		individual to gain a tererestrial insight to the routes seen by a BGP
	speaker. Such data may ultimately aide reserachers in understanding		speaker. Such data may ultimately aide reserachers in understanding
	any disparity between the geographical location of networks and the		any disparity between the geographical location of networks and the
	topological location of networks in addition to the relationships		topological location of networks in addition to the relationships
	between geographical position and routing anomolies. Such insight		between geographical position and routing anomolies. Such insight
	could provide future input into network design or network security.		could provide future input into network design or network security.
	This memo documents an extension to the "MRT format"		This memo documents an optional 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
	subtype field that includes the terestrial coordinates of a BGP		subtype field that includes the terestrial coordinates of a BGP
	Collector and its BGP Peers.		Collector and its BGP Peers. A compliant MRT implementation does not
			necessarily need to implement these optional geo-location extensions.
	3. Definitions		3. Definitions
	Coordinates: A set of geographic latitude and longitude specifying a		Coordinates: A set of geographic latitude and longitude specifying a
	location on the Earth.		location on the Earth.
	BGP Speaker: A network device which exchanges network routing		BGP Speaker: A network device which exchanges network routing
	information using BGP.		information using BGP.
	Geo-location: Assigning a set of coordinates to a specific artifact,		Geo-location: Assigning a set of coordinates to a specific artifact,
	skipping to change at page 10, line 11		skipping to change at page 10, line 11
	topology including iBGP, eBGP, and so on. The implementation of a		topology including iBGP, eBGP, and so on. The implementation of a
	BGP collector in a network topology is therefore limited by that		BGP collector in a network topology is therefore limited by that
	network's use of BGP.		network's use of BGP.
	6. Acknowledgements		6. Acknowledgements
	Thanks to Andrew Clark, Ernest Foo, Dave Meyer, Larry Bluck, Richard		Thanks to Andrew Clark, Ernest Foo, Dave Meyer, Larry Bluck, Richard
	Barnes, and 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 Ph.D.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	This document makes no request to IANA		This section requests the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
			register the additional Subtype code value as:
			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.
	8. Security Considerations		8. 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. It		believes that they do not constitute an additional network based
	is recommended that the operators of the BGP collector and BGP peers		security risk. It is recommended that the operators of the BGP
	consider their own privacy concerns before supplying geographical		collector and BGP peers consider their own privacy and security
	coordinates to BGP data collection systems.		concerns before supplying geographical coordinates to BGP data
			collection systems. Special attention should be given to the
			physical security of an organisation before supplying geographical
			coordinates, especially if the resulting BGP data with geo-location
			extensions is made public.
			Entities that operate BGP Collectors, and users of data provided by
			BGP Collectors, should be aware that the geolocation data supplied by
			a peer can only be taken at face value. It is possible that a BGP
			peer may supply coordinates that is purposefully misleading or
			inaccurate. It is therefore up to the BGP Collector to include this
			information or not, or use its own methods to either trust or
			validate the data provided. It is not recommended that a BGP
			Collector use geographical coordinates not supplied by a BGP peer.
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative References		9.1. 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-14 (work		information export format", draft-ietf-grow-mrt-15 (work
	in progress), April 2011.		in progress), July 2011.
	[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.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic",		[IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic",
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	19 lines changed or deleted		40 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/