wdiff rfc7611.original rfc7611.txt

Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Uttaro
Internet-Draft ATT
Intended status:
Request for Comments: 7611 AT&T
Category: Standards Track P. Mohapatra
Expires: December 26, 2015
ISSN: 2070-1721 Sproute Networks
D. Smith
Cisco Systems
R. Raszuk
Mirantis Inc.
J. Scudder
Juniper Networks
June 24,
August 2015

BGP ACCEPT_OWN Community Attribute
draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-10.txt

Abstract

Under certain conditions conditions, it is desirable for a Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) route reflector to be able to modify the Route Target
(RT) list of a Virtual Private Network (VPN) route that the route
reflector distributes, enabling the route reflector to control how a
route originated within one Virtual VPN Routing and Forwarding table (VRF) is
imported into other VRFs. This technique works effectively as long
as the VRF that exports the route is not on the same Provider Edge
(PE) router than as the VRF(s) that import imports the route. However, due to
the constraints of the BGP protocol, BGP, it does not work if the two are on the same
PE. This document describes a modification to the BGP
protocol allowing this
technique to work when the VRFs are on the same PE, PE and to be used in
a standard manner throughout an autonomous system.

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 an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 December 26, 2015.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7611.

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. ACCEPT_OWN Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Route Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Propagating ACCEPT_OWN Between between Address Families . . . . . 4
2.3. Configuration Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Decision Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Other Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Acknowledgments References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Local Extranet Application (non-normative) (Non-normative) . . . . . 6 7
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8

1. Introduction

In certain scenarios, a BGP speaker may maintain multiple VRFs
[RFC4364]. Under certain conditions, it is desirable for a route
reflector to be able to modify the RT list of a VPN route that the
route reflector distributes, enabling the route reflector to control
how a route originated within one VRF is imported into other VRFs.
Though it is possible to perform such policy control directly on the
originator, it may be operationally cumbersome in an autonomous
system with a large number of border routers having complex BGP
policies.

The technique of the route reflector modifying the RT list works
effectively as long as the VRF that exports the route is not on the
same PE as the VRF(s) that import imports the route. However, due to the
constraints of the BGP protocol, BGP, it does not work if the two are on the same PE.
This is because because, per the BGP specification [RFC4271], a BGP speaker
rejects received prefix advertisements received that were originated by
itself. In an autonomous system with route reflectors, the route
reflector attaches the ORIGINATOR_ID attribute to the UPDATE messages
so that if such prefix advertisements reach the originator, the
originator can reject them by simply checking the ORIGINATOR_ID
attribute. The BGP specification also mandates that a route should
not be accepted from a peer when the NEXT_HOP attribute matches the
receiver's own "IP address". IP address.

This document proposes a modification to BGP's behavior by defining a
new community [RFC1997] value, in order to allow the technique of RT
list modification by the route reflector to be used in a standard
manner throughout an autonomous system, irrespective of whether or
not the VRFs are on the same, same or different PEs.

1.1. Requirements Language

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2. ACCEPT_OWN Community

This memo defines ACCEPT_OWN, a new well-known BGP community from in the
First Come First Served [RFC5226] range, ACCEPT_OWN, whose value as assigned by
IANA is 0xFFFF0001. Processing of the ACCEPT_OWN community SHOULD be
controlled by configuration. The functionality SHOULD default to
being disabled, as further specified in Section 2.3.

2.1. Route Acceptance

A router MAY accept a route whose ORIGINATOR_ID or NEXT_HOP value
matches that of the receiving speaker if all of the following are
true:

o Processing of the ACCEPT_OWN community is enabled by
configuration.

o The route in question carries the ACCEPT_OWN community.

o The route in question was originated from a source VRF on the router.
The source VRF is a VRF on the router whose configured Route
Distinguisher is equal to the Route Distinguisher carried in the
route.

o The route in question is targeted to one or more destination VRFs
on the router (as determined by inspecting the Route Target(s)).

o At least one destination VRF is different from the source VRF.

A route MUST NOT ever be accepted back into its source VRF, even if
it carries one or more RTs which that match that VRF.

2.2. Propagating ACCEPT_OWN Between between Address Families

The ACCEPT_OWN community controls propagation of routes which that can be
associated with a source VRF by inspection of their Route
Distinguisher and with a target VRF by inspection of their Route
Target list (for example example, VPN routes with a SAFI Subsequent Address Family
Identifier (SAFI) of 128). As such, it SHOULD NOT be attached to any
routes which that cannot be associated with a source VRF. This implies
that when propagating routes into a VRF, the ACCEPT_OWN community
SHOULD NOT be propagated. Likewise, if a route carrying the
ACCEPT_OWN community is received in an address family which that does not
allow the source VRF to be looked up, the ACCEPT_OWN community MUST
be discarded. An OPTIONAL message may be logged in this case.

2.3. Configuration Control

ACCEPT_OWN handling SHOULD be controlled by configuration, and if
controlled by configuration, it MUST default to being disabled. When
ACCEPT_OWN is disabled by configuration (either explicitly or by
default), the router MUST NOT apply the special route acceptance
rules detailed in Section 2.1. The router SHOULD still apply the
propagation rules detailed in Section 2.2.

3. Decision Process

If a BGP speaker supports ACCEPT_OWN and is configured for the
extensions defined in this document, the following step is inserted
after the LOCAL_PREF comparison step in the BGP decision process:

When comparing a pair of routes for a BGP destination, the route
attached
with the ACCEPT_OWN community attached is preferred over the route
that does not have the community.

In all other respects, the decision process remains unchanged. This
extra step MUST only be invoked during the best path selection
process of VPN-IP routes [RFC4364] (i.e., it MUST NOT be invoked for
the best path selection of "imported" imported IP routes in a VRF). The purpose
of the this extra step is to allow the paths advertised by the route
reflector with ACCEPT_OWN community to be selected as best over other
paths that the BGP speaker may have received, hence enabling the
applications ACCEPT_OWN is designed for.

4. Deployment Considerations

The ACCEPT_OWN community as described in this document is useful
within a single autonomous system which that uses a single layer of route
reflectors. Its use with hierarchical route reflectors would require
further specification and is out of the scope for of this document.
Likewise, its use across multiple autonomous systems is out of the
scope
for of this document.

5. Other Applications

This approach may also be relevant to in other scenarios where a BGP
speaker maintains multiple routing contexts using an approach
different from that of [RFC4364], as long as the specific approach in
use has the property that the BGP speaker originates and receives
routes within a particular context. In such a case, "VRF" in this
document should be understood to mean whatever construct provides a
routing context in the specific technology under consideration.
Likewise, "Route Distinguisher" should be understood to mean whatever
construct allows a route's originator to associate that route with
its source context, and "Route Target" should be understood to mean
whatever construct allows a route to be targeted for import into a
context other than its source.

6. Security Considerations

ACCEPT_OWN as described above in this document permits a router's own route
prefix to be advertised to a different VRF on that router. In this
respect, such a route is similar to any other BGP route and shares
the same set of security vulnerabilities and concerns. This
extension does not change the underlying security issues inherent in
BGP VPN [RFC4364].

7. IANA Considerations

IANA has assigned the value 0xFFFF0001 from BGP well-known
communities in the "BGP Well-known
Communities" registry for the ACCEPT_OWN community. No additional IANA
action is required.

8. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter, Jim Guichard, Clarence
Filsfils, John Mullooly, Jeff Haas, Pranav Mehta, and Tamas Mondal
for their valuable comments and suggestions. The decision process
changes were suggested by Pranav Mehta to solve the remote extranet
problem.

9. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996. 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997. 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI
10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006. 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 2006.
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

8.2. Informative References

[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

Appendix A. Local Extranet Application (non-normative) (Non-normative)

One of the applications for the BGP well-known community described in
this behavior document is auto-configuration of extranets within MPLS VPN
networks. Consider the following topology:

CE1 --------+
|
(VRF 1, RD 1, RT 1)
PE1 ................... RR
(VRF 2, RD 2, RT 2)
|
CE2 --------+

Figure 1: Extranet Application

Within the above this topology, PE1 receives a prefix X from CE1. Prefix X is
installed in VRF 1 and is advertised to the route reflector (RR) with
route distinguisher
Route Distinguisher (RD) 1 and route target Route Target (RT) 1 as configured on
PE1. The requirement is to import prefix X into VRF 2 and advertise
it to CE2 in support of extranet VPN connectivity between CE1/VRF1
and CE2/VRF2. Current BGP mechanisms for MPLS VPNs[RFC4364] VPNs [RFC4364] require
changing the import RT value and/or import policy for VRF 2 on PE1.
This is operationally cumbersome in a network with a large number of
border routers having complex BGP policies.

Alternatively, using the new ACCEPT_OWN community value, the route
reflector can simply re-advertise prefix X back to PE1 with RT 2
appended. In this way, PE1 will accept prefix X despite its
ORIGINATOR_ID or NEXT_HOP value, import it into VRF 2 as a result of
the presence of RT 2, 2 in the route's Extended Community path
attribute, and will then determine the correct adjacency rewrite within
VRF 1 based on the RD value (1) and the prefix. Note that the presence
of RT 1
value originally attached to in the route route's Extended Community path attribute will simply
be ignored since RT 1 is associated with the source VRF 1. The same
operation needs also needs to happen in the reverse direction (VRF 1
learning a route from VRF 2) to achieve establishment of an extranet
VPN strictly via the route reflector without changing the BGP policy
of PE1 in any way.

A router performing such an extranet application can accept a route
with its own ORIGINATOR_ID or NEXT_HOP value only if the VRF in which
the router originated the route is different than from the VRF in which
the router accepts the re-advertised route.

Acknowledgments

Authors' Addresses

James Uttaro
ATT
AT&T
200 S. Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
United States
Email: uttaro@att.com

Pradosh Mohapatra
Sproute Networks
Email: mpradosh@yahoo.com

David J. Smith
Cisco Systems
111 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
USA
United States
Email: djsmith@cisco.com

Robert Raszuk
Mirantis Inc.
615 National Ave. #100
Mt
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
United States
Email: robert@raszuk.net

John Scudder
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
United States
Email: jgs@juniper.net