IDRInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. SnijdersInternet-DraftRequest for Comments: 8093 NTTIntended status:Category: Standards TrackDecember 29, 2016 Expires: July 2,February 2017 ISSN: 2070-1721 Deprecation of BGP Path AttributevaluesValues 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-02Abstract This document requests IANA to mark BGP path attribute values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 as"deprecated"."Deprecated". Status of This Memo ThisInternet-Draftissubmitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documentsan 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 listIt represents the consensus ofcurrent Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents validthe IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved fora maximumpublication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 ofsix monthsRFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may beupdated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documentsobtained atany 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 July 2, 2017.http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8093. Copyright Notice Copyright (c)20162017 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Appendix A.Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction It has been discovered that certain BGP Path Attribute values have been used in BGP implementationswhichthat have been deployed in the wild while not being assigned bytheIANA for such usage. Unregistered usage of BGP Path Attribute values can lead to deployment problems for new technologies. The use of these unregistered values was noticed when the BGP Large Communities attribute[I-D.ietf-idr-large-community][RFC8092] was initially assigned value 30 by IANA. It was subsequently discovered that awidely-deployedwidely deployed BGP-4 [RFC4271] implementation had released codewhichthat used path attribute 30 andwhichthat applied a "Treat-as-withdraw" [RFC7606] strategy to routes containing a valid Large Community attribute, since it was expecting a different data structure. Because these routes were dropped, early adopters of Large Communities were unreachable from parts of the Internet. As a workaround, a new Early IANA Allocation was requested. The squatting of values 30, 31, 129, 241,242242, and 243 has been confirmed by the involved vendors or through source code review. 2. IANA ConsiderationsPer this document,IANAis requested to markhas marked values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 as"deprecated""Deprecated" in the "BGP Path Attributes"registrysubregistry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters"group.registry. The marking"deprecated" meaning"Deprecated" means "use is not recommended"([I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis]).([IANA-GUIDELINES]). 3. Security Considerations There are no meaningful security consequences arising from this registry update. 4. Informative References[I-D.ietf-idr-large-community] Heitz, J., Snijders, J., Patel, K., Bagdonas, I., and N. Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities", draft-ietf-idr-large- community-11 (work in progress), December 2016. [I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis][IANA-GUIDELINES] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",draft- leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-18 (workWork inprogress),Progress, draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-18, September 2016. [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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. [RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.Appendix A.[RFC8092] Heitz, J., Ed., Snijders, J., Ed., Patel, K., Bagdonas, I., and N. Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities Attribute", RFC 8092, DOI 10.17487/RFC8092, February 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8092>. Acknowledgements The author would like to gratefully acknowledge Marlien Vijfhuizen who helped discover the squatting of value 30, and Nick Hilliard for editorial feedback. Author's Address Job Snijders NTT Communications Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 Amsterdam 1065 SZNLThe Netherlands Email: job@ntt.net