draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-07.txt   rfc6397.txt 
Global Routing Operations Working Group T. Manderson Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Manderson
Internet-Draft ICANN Request for Comments: 6397 ICANN
Intended status: Standards Track August 26, 2011 Category: Standards Track October 2011
Expires: February 27, 2012 ISSN: 2070-1721
Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Multi-Threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
routing information export format with geo-location extensions Routing Information Export Format with Geo-Location Extensions
draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-07.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document updates the Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) export This document updates the Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) export
format for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information by format for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information by
extending it to include optional terrestrial coordinates of a BGP extending it to include optional terrestrial coordinates of a BGP
Collector and its BGP Peers. collector and its BGP peers.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 27, 2012. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6397.
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
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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Geo-location aware MRT Routing Information Subtype . . . . . . 6 4. Geo-Location-Aware MRT Routing Information Subtype . . . . . . 3
4.1. GEO_PEER_TABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. GEO_PEER_TABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. GEO_PEER_TABLE and peer entry values. . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. GEO_PEER_TABLE and Peer Entry Values . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. BGP Collector Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. BGP Collector Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Requirements notation
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].
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
Researchers and engineers often wish to analyze network behavior by Researchers and engineers often wish to analyze network behavior by
studying routing protocol transactions and routing information base studying routing protocol transactions and routing information base
snapshots in relation to geographical topologies. Usually the Border snapshots in relation to geographical topologies. Usually, the
Gateway Protocol [RFC4271] is the subject of study and the analysis Border Gateway Protocol [RFC4271] is the subject of study, and the
can be significantly aided by the availability and extension of the analysis can be significantly aided by the availability and extension
"Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) format" [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt]. of the "Multi-Threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Routing Information
The MRT format was originally defined in the Multi-threaded Routing Export Format" [RFC6396]. The MRT format was originally defined in
Toolkit Programmer's Guide [MRT-GUIDE]. the MRT Programmer's Guide [MRT-GUIDE].
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 terrestrial insight to the routes seen by a BGP
speaker. Such data may ultimately aid reserachers in understanding speaker. Such data may ultimately aid researchers 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 anomalies. Such insight
could provide future input into network design or network security. could provide future input into network design and network security.
This memo documents an optional extension to the "MRT format" This memo documents an optional extension to the MRT format [RFC6396]
[I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] and introduces an additional definition of a MRT and introduces an additional definition of an MRT Subtype field that
subtype field that includes the terestrial coordinates of a BGP includes the terrestrial coordinates of a BGP collector and its BGP
Collector and its BGP Peers. peers.
2. Requirements Notation
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. Definitions 3. Definitions
Coordinates: A set of geographic latitude and longitude specifying a Coordinates: The 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 that 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,
in this case a BGP speaker. in this case a BGP speaker.
BGP Collector: A BGP speaker (usually passive) that stores and BGP Collector: A BGP speaker (usually passive) that stores and
archives BGP routing data from active BGP peers for analysis. archives BGP routing data from active BGP peers for analysis.
BGP Peer: Either an internal or external BGP peer [RFC4271]. BGP Peer: Either an internal or external BGP peer [RFC4271].
Not A Number (NAN): numeric data type representing an undefined or Not A Number (NAN): Numeric data type representing an undefined or
unrepresentable value. As defined in IEEE Standard for Floating- unrepresentable value, as defined in the IEEE Standard for Floating-
Point Arithmetic [IEEE754]. Point Arithmetic [IEEE754].
4. Geo-location aware MRT Routing Information Subtype 4. Geo-Location-Aware MRT Routing Information Subtype
An additional subtype (GEO_PEER_TABLE) is defined for the An additional subtype (GEO_PEER_TABLE) is defined for the
TABLE_DUMP_v2 format, extending TABLE_DUMP_V2 Type. TABLE_DUMP_V2 format, extending TABLE_DUMP_V2 Type.
4.1. GEO_PEER_TABLE 4.1. GEO_PEER_TABLE
The GEO_PEER_TABLE Subtype updates the TABLE_DUMP_v2 Types 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 the World Geodetic System
coordinates. 1984 (WGS84) [WGS-84] formatted coordinates.
The document adds the 7th subtype number and name below. The first 6 The document adds the 7th subtype number and name below. The first 6
subtypes are defined by the "MRT format" [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt]. subtypes are defined by the MRT format [RFC6396].
Subtype Number Subtype Name Subtype Number Subtype Name
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
7 GEO_PEER_TABLE 7 GEO_PEER_TABLE
The GEO_PEER_TABLE MRT record provides the BGP ID of the collector, The GEO_PEER_TABLE MRT record provides the BGP ID of the collector,
its latitude and longitude in WGS84 [WGS-84] format, and a list of its latitude and longitude in WGS84 [WGS-84] format, and a list of
indexed peers and their respective latitudes and longitudes in WGS84 indexed peers and their respective latitudes and longitudes in WGS84
[WGS-84] format. [WGS-84] format.
The format and function of the Collector BGP ID, Peer Count are as The format and function of the Collector BGP ID and Peer Count are as
defined by the TABLE_DUMP_V2 PEER_INDEX_TABLE format. defined by the TABLE_DUMP_V2, PEER_INDEX_TABLE format [RFC6396].
[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 Collector Latitude and Collector Longitude. The latitude and the Collector Latitude and Collector Longitude. The latitude and
longitude MAY be a Not A Number (NAN) [IEEE754] for situations where longitude MAY be a Not A Number (NAN) [IEEE754] for situations where
the geo-location of the collector is considered private. The the geo-location of the collector is considered private. The
Collector Latitude and Collector Longitude MUST NOT be a mix of WGS84 Collector Latitude and Collector Longitude MUST NOT be a mix of WGS84
[WGS-84] datum coordinate and NAN values. [WGS-84] datum coordinates and NAN values.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Collector BGP ID | | Collector BGP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Collector Latitude | | Collector Latitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Collector Longitude | | Collector Longitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Count | Peer entries (variable) | Peer Count | Peer Entries (variable)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Format of the GEO_PEER_TABLE Format of the GEO_PEER_TABLE
The format of the peer entries is shown below. The Peer Type and the 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 BGP ID are as defined in the TABLE_DUMP_V2 MRT, PEER_INDEX_TABLE
[I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] PEER_INDEX_TABLE format. The order of the Peer format [RFC6396]. The order of the Peer Entries in the
entries in GEO_PEER_TABLE MUST match the order and number as existing GEO_PEER_TABLE MUST match the order and number as existing in the
in the PEER_INDEX_TABLE. PEER_INDEX_TABLE.
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 | | Peer Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer BGP ID | | Peer BGP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Latitude | | Peer Latitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Longitude | | Peer Longitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Format of peer entries Format of Peer Entries
The Peer Latitude and Peer Longitude are the geographical coordinates The Peer Latitude and Peer Longitude are the geographical coordinates
of the peer in WGS84 [WGS-84] datum decimal degrees format stored as of the peer in WGS84 [WGS-84] datum decimal degrees format stored as
a single precision float in the 32 bits allocated to the Peer a single precision float in the 32 bits allocated to the Peer
Latitude and Peer Longitude. The latitude and longitude MAY be a Not Latitude and Peer Longitude. The latitude and longitude MAY be a Not
A Number (NAN) [IEEE754] for situations where the geo-location of the A Number (NAN) [IEEE754] for situations where the geo-location of the
peer is considered private. The Peer Latitude and Peer Longitude peer is considered private. The Peer Latitude and Peer Longitude
MUST NOT be a mix of WGS84 [WGS-84] datum coordinate and NAN values MUST NOT be a mix of WGS84 [WGS-84] datum coordinates and NAN values
for a single Peer. for a single peer.
4.2. GEO_PEER_TABLE and peer entry values. 4.2. GEO_PEER_TABLE and Peer Entry Values
Collector BGP ID: Defined in the MRT format [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] Collector BGP ID: Defined in the MRT format [RFC6396].
Collector Latitude: Geographic latitude of the BGP collector in WGS84 Collector Latitude: Geographic latitude of the BGP collector in WGS84
[WGS-84] datum decimal degrees format stored as a single precision [WGS-84] datum decimal degrees format stored as a single precision
float. float.
Collector Longitude: Geographic Longitude of the BGP collector in Collector Longitude: Geographic longitude of the BGP collector in
WGS84 [WGS-84] datum decimal degrees format stored as a single WGS84 [WGS-84] datum decimal degrees format stored as a single
precision float. precision float.
Peer Count: Defined in the MRT format [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] Peer Count: Defined in the MRT format [RFC6396].
Peer entries: Defined in the MRT format [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] Peer Entries: Defined in the MRT format [RFC6396].
Peer Type: Defined in the MRT format [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt]
Peer BGP ID: Defined in the MRT format [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] Peer Type: Defined in the MRT format [RFC6396].
Peer BGP ID: Defined in the MRT format [RFC6396].
Peer Latitude: Geographic latitude of the BGP peer in WGS84 [WGS-84] Peer Latitude: Geographic latitude of the BGP peer in WGS84 [WGS-84]
datum decimal degrees format stored as a single precision float. datum decimal degrees format stored as a single precision float.
Peer Longitude: Geographic Longitude of the BGP peer in WGS84 Peer Longitude: Geographic longitude of the BGP peer in WGS84
[WGS-84] datum decimal degrees format stored as a single precision [WGS-84] datum decimal degrees format stored as a single precision
float. float.
5. BGP Collector Construction 5. BGP Collector Construction
This section is to aid the reader in understanding the function of a This section aids the reader in understanding the function of a BGP
BGP collector. collector.
The BGP Collector is a device (hardware or software based) which The BGP collector is a hardware- or software-based device that speaks
speaks the Border Gateway Protocol and its intended function is to the Border Gateway Protocol. Its intended function is to store (and
store (and archive) the BGP routing data it receives from other BGP archive) the BGP routing data it receives from other BGP speakers
speakers it has peering relationships with, providing data for later with which it has peering relationships, providing data for later
analysis. The general nature of a BGP Collector is that it is a analysis. The general nature of a BGP collector is that it is a
passive device in that it listens to route updates, and does not passive device in that it listens to route updates and does not
announce nor propagate any information it knows or receives. It announce or propagate any information it knows or receives. It
should be noted that this is not always the case, network operators should be noted that this is not always the case; network operators
sometimes enable the collection of BGP routing data on active BGP sometimes enable the collection of BGP routing data on active BGP
speakers to obtain a situational view of the routing system as they speakers to obtain a situational view of the routing system as they
see it at a particular point in time. see it at a particular point in time.
As a fully fledged BGP speaker the BGP Collector can fit into any BGP As a fully fledged BGP speaker, the BGP collector can fit into any
topology including iBGP, eBGP, and so on. The implementation of a BGP topology including Internal BGP (iBGP), External BGP (eBGP), and
BGP collector in a network topology is therefore limited by that so on. The implementation of a BGP collector in a network topology
network's use of BGP. is therefore limited by that network's use of BGP.
6. Privacy Considerations 6. Privacy Considerations
The GEOPRIV [RFC6280] architecture requires that privacy rules The GEOPRIV [RFC6280] architecture requires that privacy rules
attached to a location object be transmitted alongside the location attached to a location object be transmitted alongside the location
information in the object. If a BGP Collector adds location information in the object. If a BGP collector adds location
coordinates to an MRT record based on GEOPRIV location objects, then coordinates to an MRT record based on GEOPRIV location objects, then
it would have to include privacy rules as well. Since the MRT geo- it would have to include privacy rules as well. Since the MRT geo-
location format does not support the provision of privacy rules, each location format does not support the provision of privacy rules, each
location entry in an MRT object is assigned the following default location entry in an MRT object is assigned the following default
privacy rules [RFC4119]: privacy rules [RFC4119]:
-- retransmission-allowed: True -- retransmission-allowed: True
-- retention-expires: 100 years from timestamp of the MRT object -- retention-expires: 100 years from timestamp of the MRT object
-- ruleset-reference: Empty -- ruleset-reference: Empty
-- note-well: Empty -- note-well: Empty
Location information derived from a location object with more Location information derived from a location object with more
restrictive privacy rules MUST NOT be included in a MRT geo-location restrictive privacy rules MUST NOT be included in an MRT geo-location
record unless there are non-technical measures in place that enforce record unless there are non-technical measures in place that enforce
and communicate the constraints on the use of the location and communicate the constraints on the use of the location
information in the MRT geo-location format (e.g., contractual information in the MRT geo-location format (e.g., contractual
agreements between peers). agreements between peers).
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Andrew Clark, Ernest Foo, Dave Meyer, Larry Bluck, Richard Thanks to Andrew Clark, Ernest Foo, Dave Meyer, Larry Blunk, 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 Ph.D. author's Ph.D.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This section requests the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Per this section, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has
register the additional Subtype code value as: registered the additional Subtype code value as:
7 GEO_PEER_TABLE 7 GEO_PEER_TABLE
in the "MRT format" [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] and Subtype code values in the MRT format [RFC6396] and Subtype code values related to the
related to the TABLE_DUMP_v2 type in the MRT namespace. TABLE_DUMP_V2 Type in the MRT namespace.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This extension to the "MRT format" [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] defines fields This extension to the MRT format [RFC6396] defines fields that are of
that are of a descriptive nature and provide information that is a descriptive nature and provides information that is useful in the
useful in the analysis of routing systems. As such, the author analysis of routing systems. As such, the author believes that they
believes that they do not constitute an additional network based do not constitute an additional network-based security risk. It is
security risk. It is recommended that the operators of the BGP recommended that the operators of the BGP collector and BGP peers
collector and BGP peers consider their own privacy and security consider their own privacy and security concerns before supplying
concerns before supplying geographical coordinates to BGP data geographical coordinates to BGP data collection systems. Special
collection systems. Special attention should be given to the attention should be given to the physical security of an organization
physical security of an organisation before supplying geographical before supplying geographical coordinates, especially if the
coordinates, especially if the resulting BGP data with geo-location resulting BGP data with geo-location extensions is made public.
extensions is made public.
Entities that operate BGP Collectors, and users of data provided by Entities that operate BGP collectors, and users of data provided by
BGP Collectors, should be aware that the geolocation data supplied by BGP collectors, should be aware that the geo-location data supplied
a peer can only be taken at face value. It is possible that a BGP 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 peer may supply coordinates that are purposefully misleading or
inaccurate. It is therefore up to the BGP Collector to include this inaccurate. It is therefore up to the BGP collector whether or not
information or not, or use its own methods to either trust or to include this information or use its own methods to either trust or
validate the data provided. It is not recommended that a BGP validate the data provided. It is not recommended that a BGP
Collector use geographical coordinates not supplied by a BGP peer. collector use geographical coordinates not supplied by a BGP peer.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Blunk, L., Karir, M., and C. Labovitz, "MRT routing Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
information export format", draft-ietf-grow-mrt-17 (work
in progress), August 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.
[RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Format", RFC 4119, December 2005. Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J.,
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for
Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications",
BCP 160, RFC 6280, July 2011.
[RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J., [RFC6396] Blunk, L., Karir, M., and C. Labovitz, "Multi-Threaded
Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for Routing Toolkit (MRT) Routing Information Export
Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications", Format", RFC 6396, October 2011.
BCP 160, RFC 6280, July 2011.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", [IEEE754] IEEE 754, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic",
August 2008, August 2008, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/ opac?punumber=4610933>.
opac?punumber=4610933>.
[MRT-GUIDE] [MRT-GUIDE] Labovitz, C., "MRT Programmer's Guide", November 1999,
Labovitz, C., "MRT Programmer's Guide", November 1999, <http://www.merit.edu/networkresearch/
<http://www.merit.edu/networkresearch/mrtprogrammer.pdf>. 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
Terry Manderson Terry Manderson
ICANN ICANN
Email: terry.manderson@icann.org EMail: terry.manderson@icann.org
 End of changes. 54 change blocks. 
152 lines changed or deleted 145 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/