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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . 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, . 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, . 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]