IDR Working Group S. Hares
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track March 13, 2017
Expires: September 14, 2017

BGP Regisries by IDR and other BGP WGs
draft-hares-idr-bgp-registries-01.txt

Abstract

The BGP Registries at IANA were set up as one of the earliest IANA registries. Over time, the registries have become denoted as requiring "standards action", "early allocation", "FCFS (first-come, first served)", "vendor specific", and "IETF review". This draft proposes that certain BGP registries that are labelled "standards action", "early allocation", or "IETF Review" add to these registration actions a "Expert Review. It also proposes that the chairs of BGP Protocol related WG groups be part of the review team. The intent is that these chairs will be responsible for bringing questionable allocations to their workings attention.

The BGP relate working groups are currently the IDR, BESS, SIDROPS, and GROW, but other working groups like SPRING might be added.

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 http://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 September 14, 2017.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2017 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 (http://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

During 2016, several BGP attributes were squatted upon causing operational problems during the early deployment of large communities [RFC8092]. Due these problems, [RFC8093] deprecated the use of 6 attribute numbers.

To avoid this problem in the future, it is helpful to increase pace of the early-allocations process and to coordinate the review of key BGP registries. This document proposes to augment existing registration processes for BGP registries with Expert review.

This draft proposes that certain BGP registries that are labelled "standards action", "early allocation", or "IETF Review" add to these registration actions a "Expert Review. It also recommends that the chairs of BGP Protocol related WG groups be part of the review team.

2. BGP Registries to Change Registration Process on

This document proposes the that IETF BGP registries in Table 1 below require their current registration policy plus Expert Review. It recommends that the chairs of the BGP related working groups (e.g. IDR, Bess, SIDROPS, GROW) be a part of this review team. The IESG can define which working groups are BGP working groups, but it is important to get the chairs of the Working Groups that originate or maintain the drafts in Table 1 as part of the review team.

If no BGP WG groups remain, the IESG may select designated experts to fulfill this role.

 
   ER = Expert Review 
   
   Table 1 - Registries with changes 
 +----------------------+------------------+-----------+--------+
 | BGP registry         | Registration     | reference | Add ER |
 +----------------------+------------------+-----------+--------+
 | Message Types        | Standards Action | RFC4271   |  yes   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 | BGP Path Attributes  | Standards Action | RFC4271   |  yes   |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 | BGP Error            | Standards Action | RFC4271   |  yes   |
 | (notification) codes |                  | RFC7313   |        | 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 | BGP Error Subcodes   | Standards Action | RFC4271   |  yes   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 | Open Message Error   | Standards Action | RFC4271   |  yes   |
 |  subcodes            |                  |           |        | 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Update Message Error | Standards Action | RFC4271   |  yes   |
 |  subcodes            |                  |           |        |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 | BGP Finite State     | Standards Action | RFC6608   |  yes   |
 |  Machine Error       |                  |           |        |
 |  subcodes            |                  |           |        |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 | BGP Cease            | Standards Action | RFC4486   |  yes   | 
 |  NOTIFICATION        | or Early         |           |        |
 |  message subcodes    | Allocation       |           |        |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 | BGP Route Refresh    | Standards Action | RFC7313   |  yes   |
 |  Message Error       | (1-127 range     |           |        |
 |  subcodes            |                  |           |        |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 | BGP Outbound Route   | Standards Action | RFC5291   |  yes   |
 |  Filtering (ORF)     |                  |           |        | 
 |  Types               |                  |           |        |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 | BGP Open Optional    | IETF Review      | RFC5492   |  yes   |
 |  Parameter types     |                  |           |        |
 +----------------------+---------------------------------------+
 | BGP Tunnel           | Standards Action | RFC5512   |  yes   | 
 |  Encapsulation       |                  |           |        |
 |  Attribute Sub-TLVS  |                  |           |        |
 +----------------------+---------------------------------------+
 | BGP AIGP Attribute   | Standards Action | RFC7311   | Yes    |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | BGP Tunnel           | Standards Action | RFC5512   |  yes   | 
 |  Encapsulation       |                  |           |        |
 |  Attribute Sub-TLVS  |                  |           |        |
 +----------------------+---------------------------------------+
 | BGP AIGP Attribute   | Standards Action | RFC7311   | Yes    |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Route Refresh        | Standards Action | RFC7313   | Yes    |
 | Subcdes              | (1-127)          |           |        |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 | P-Multicast Service  | IETF Review      | RFC7385   | Yes    |
 | Interface Tunnel     |                  |           |        |
 | (PMSI) Tunnel Types  |                  |           |        |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 | P-Multicast Service  | Standards Action | RFC7385   | Yes    |
 |  Interface Tunnel    |                  |           |        |
 |  (PMSI) Attribute    |                  |           |        |
 |   Flags              |                  |           |        |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 | BGP MCAST-VPN Route  | Standards Action | RFC7441   | Yes    |
 |  Types               |                  |           |        |
 +----------------------+------------------+-----------+--------+
   

The registries in Table 2 have Expert Review. This document requests that IANA increase their designated expert pool by adding to the pool the chairs in BGP related Working Groups (E.g. IDR, BESS, SIDROPS, GROW).

 
   ER = Expert Review 
   
   Table 2 - Registries with Expert Review 
 +----------------------+------------------+-----------+--------+
 | BGP registry         | Registration     | reference | Add ER |
 +----------------------+------------------+-----------+--------+
 | BGP Layer 2          | Expert Review    | RFC6624   |  yes   |
 |  Encapsulation Types |  (0-127)         |           |        |   
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+
 | BGP Layer 2 TLV      | Expert Review    | RFC6624   |  yes   |
 |  Types               |                  |           |        |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------+  
 

3. Security Considerations

Administrative process - Not applicable.

4. IANA Considerations

For all of the BGP registries or portions of BGP Registries listed in table 1 append "Designated reviewers" to the registration process.

This document requests the IESG nominate the chairs of the current BGP related working groups which manage the following base protocols that established the registries:

5. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Alavaro Retana, John Scudder, Jeff Haas, Job Snijders, and members of the IDR and Grow working groups for the active discussion at IETF 97 and post-IETF 97 that inspired this draft.

6. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T. and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006.
[RFC4486] Chen, E. and V. Gillet, "Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message", RFC 4486, DOI 10.17487/RFC4486, April 2006.
[RFC5291] Chen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "Outbound Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4", RFC 5291, DOI 10.17487/RFC5291, August 2008.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February 2009.
[RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512, DOI 10.17487/RFC5512, April 2009.
[RFC6608] Dong, J., Chen, M. and A. Suryanarayana, "Subcodes for BGP Finite State Machine Error", RFC 6608, DOI 10.17487/RFC6608, May 2012.
[RFC6624] Kompella, K., Kothari, B. and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012.
[RFC7311] Mohapatra, P., Fernando, R., Rosen, E. and J. Uttaro, "The Accumulated IGP Metric Attribute for BGP", RFC 7311, DOI 10.17487/RFC7311, August 2014.
[RFC7313] Patel, K., Chen, E. and B. Venkatachalapathy, "Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 7313, DOI 10.17487/RFC7313, July 2014.
[RFC7385] Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points", RFC 7385, DOI 10.17487/RFC7385, October 2014.
[RFC7441] Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E. and U. Joorde, "Encoding Multipoint LDP (mLDP) Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs) in the NLRI of BGP MCAST-VPN Routes", RFC 7441, DOI 10.17487/RFC7441, January 2015.
[RFC8092] Heitz, J., Snijders, J., Patel, K., Bagdonas, I. and N. Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities Attribute", RFC 8092, DOI 10.17487/RFC8092, February 2017.
[RFC8093] Snijders, J., "Deprecation of BGP Path Attribute Values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243", RFC 8093, DOI 10.17487/RFC8093, February 2017.

Author's Address

Susan Hares Huawei 7453 Hickory Hill Saline, MI 48176 USA EMail: shares@ndzh.com