| Network Working Group | B. Decraene |
| Internet-Draft | Orange |
| Updates: 6790 (if approved) | K. Kompella |
| Intended status: Standards Track | Juniper Networks, Inc. |
| Expires: September 12, 2016 | W. Henderickx |
| Nokia | |
| March 11, 2016 |
BGP Next-Hop dependant capabilities
draft-decraene-idr-next-hop-capability-02
RFC 5492 defines capabilities advertisement for the BGP peer. In addition, it is useful to be able to advertise BGP Next-Hop dependant capabilities, in particular for forwarding plane features. RFC 5492 is not applicable because the BGP peer may be different from the BGP Next-Hop, in particular when BGP Route Reflection is used. This document defines a mechanism to advertise such BGP Next Hop dependant Capabilities.
This document defines a new BGP non-transitive attribute to carry Next-Hop Capabilities. This attribute is deleted or possibly modified when the BGP Next Hop is changed.
This document also defines a Next-Hop capability to advertise the ability to handle the MPLS Entropy Label defined in RFC 6790. It updates RFC 6790 with regard to this BGP signaling.
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].
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 12, 2016.
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
[RFC5492] defines capabilities advertisement for the BGP peer. In addition, it is useful to be able to advertise BGP Next-Hop dependant capabilities, in particular for forwarding plane features. RFC 5492 is not applicable because the BGP peer may be different from the BGP Next-Hop, in particular when BGP Route Reflection is used. This document defines a mechanism to advertise such BGP Next Hop Capabilities.
This document defines a new BGP non-transitive attribute to carry Next-Hop Capabilities. When the BGP Next Hop is changed, this attribute is deleted or possibly modified to take into account the capabilities of the new BGP Next-Hop. Hence it allows advertising capabilities which are dependent of the BGP Next-Hop.
Note that this capability advertise the capabilities of the BGP Next-Hop for the NLRI advertised in the same BGP update. Hence, a BGP Next-Hop may advertise different capabilities for different set of NLRI.
This document also defines a first application to advertise the capability to handle the MPLS Entropy Label defined in [RFC6790]. Note that RFC 6790 had originally defined a BGP attribute for this but it has been latter deprecated in [RFC7447].
The BGP Next-Hop dependant Capabilities Attribute is an optional, non-transitive BGP Attribute, of value TBD1. The attribute consists of a set of Next-Hop Capabilities.
Inclusion of a Next-Hop Capability "X" in a BGP UPDATE message, indicates that the BGP Next-Hop, encoded in either the NEXT_HOP attribute defined in [RFC4271] or the Network Address of Next Hop field of the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute defined in [RFC4760], supports the capability "X" for the NLRI advertised in this BGP UPDATE. This document does not make a distinction between these two Next-Hop fields and uses the term 'BGP Next-Hop' to refer to whichever one is used in a given BGP UPDATE message.
A Next-Hop Capability is a triple (Capability Code, Capability Length, Capability Value) aka a TLV:
A Next-Hop Capability:
+------------------------------+
| Capability Code (1 octet) |
+------------------------------+
| Capability Length (1 octet) |
+------------------------------+
| Capability Value (variable) |
~ ~
+------------------------------+
Capability Code: a one-octet unsigned binary integer which indicates the type of "Next-Hop Capability" advertised and unambiguously identifies an individual capability.
Capability Length: a one-octet unsigned binary integer which indicates the length, in octets, of the Capability Value field. A length of 0 indicates that no Capability Value Field is present.
Capability Value: a variable-length field from 0 to 255 octets. It is interpreted according to the value of the Capability Code.
BGP speakers SHOULD NOT include more than one instance of a Next-Hop capability with the same Capability Code, Capability Length, and Capability Value. Note, however, that processing of multiple instances of such capability does not require special handling, as additional instances do not change the meaning of the announced capability; thus, a BGP speaker MUST be prepared to accept such multiple instances.
BGP speakers MAY include more than one instance of a capability (as identified by the Capability Code) with non-zero Capability Length field, but with different Capability Value and either the same or different Capability Length. Processing of these capability instances is specific to the Capability Code and MUST be described in the document introducing the new capability.
The BGP Next-Hop dependant Capabilities attribute being non-transitive, as per [RFC4271], a BGP speaker which does not understand it will quietly ignore it and not pass it along to other BGP peers.
A BGP speaker that understands the BGP Next-Hop dependant Capabilities Attribute and does not change the BGP Next-Hop, SHOULD NOT change the BGP Next-Hop dependant Capabilities Attribute and SHOULD pass the attribute unchanged along to other BGP peers.
A BGP speaker that understands the BGP Next-Hop dependant Capabilities Attribute and changes the BGP Next-Hop, MUST remove the received BGP Next-Hop dependant Capabilities Attribute before propagating the BGP UPDATE to other BGP peers. It MAY attach a new BGP Next-Hop dependant Capabilities attribute describing the capabilities of the new BGP Next-Hop for these NLRIs.
A BGP speaker receiving a BGP Next-Hop Capability Code that it supports may behave as defined in the document defining this Capability Code. A BGP speaker receiving a BGP Next-Hop Capability Code that it does not support MUST ignore this BGP Next-Hop Capability Code. In particular, this MUST NOT be handled as an error. In both cases, the BGP speaker MUST examine the remaining BGP Next-Hop Capability Code that may be present in the BGP Next-Hop Capabilities Attribute.
The BGP Next-Hop Capability Code MUST reflect the capability of the router indicated in the BGP Next-Hop, for the NLRI advertised in the BGP UPDATE. If a BGP speaker sets the BGP Next-Hop to an address of a different router (e.g. R), it MUST NOT advertise BGP Next-Hop Capabilities not supported by this router R for these NLRI.
The presence of a Next-Hop Capability SHOULD NOT influence route selection or route preference of an route, unless tunneling is used to reach the BGP Next-Hop or the selected route has been learnt from EBGP (i.e. the Next-Hop is in a different AS). Indeed, it is in general impossible for a node to know that all BGP routers of the Autonomous System (AS) will understand a given Next-Hop Capability; and having different routers, within an AS, use a different preference for a route, may result in forwarding loops if tunnelling is not used to reach the BGP Next-Hop.
An implementations MAY allow, by configuration, removing this attribute or specific Next-Hop capabilities when advertising the routes over EBGP.
A BGP Next-Hop dependant Capabilities Attribute is considered malformed if the length of the Attribute is not equal to the sum of all (BGP Hop Capability Length +2) of each capability carried in this attribute. Note that "2" is the length of the fields "Type" and "Length" of each BGP Next Hop dependant Capability.
A BGP UPDATE message with a malformed BGP Next-Hop dependant Capabilities Attribute SHALL be handled using the approach of "attribute discard" defined in [RFC7606].
Unknown Next-Hop Capabilities Codes MUST be silently ignored.
A document that specifies a new Next-Hop Capability SHOULD provide specifics regarding what constitutes an error for that Next-Hop Capability.
If a Next-Hop dependant Capability is malformed, this Next-Hop Capability Type MUST be ignored. Others Next-Hop Capabilities MUST be processed as usual.
The Entropy Label Next-Hop Capability has type code 1 and a length of 0 or 1 octet.
The inclusion of the "Entropy Label" Next-Hop Capability indicates that the BGP Next-Hop can be sent packets, for all routes indicated in the NRLI, with a MPLS entropy labels (ELI, EL) added immediately after the label stack advertised with the NLRI.
On the receiving side, suppose BGP speaker S has determined that packet P is to be forwarded according to BGP route R, where R is a route of one of the labeled address families. And suppose that L is the label stack embedded in the NLRI of route R. Then to forward packet P according to route R, S either replaces P's top label with L, or else pushes L onto the MPLS label stack. If the EL-Capability is advertised in the BGP UPDATE advertising this route R, S knows that it may safely place the ELI and an EL on the label stack immediately beneath L.
A BGP speaker S that sends an UPDATE with the BGP Next-Hop "NH" MAY include the Entropy Label Next-Hop Capability only if the NLRI are labelled and for all the NLRI in the BGP UPDATE, either of the following is true:
When stacked LSPs are used and a LSR nests LSP inside this BGP signalled LSP, it would be useful for the ingress LSRs to know how many additional labels the downstream LSR(s) may read when load-balancing based on the Entropy Label. In other words, how many labels the ingress LER may push, in addition to the BGP label(s) advertised in the Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field, before pushing an entropy label that will be seen by all downstream LSRs.
This maximum number of additional labels is called the Readable Label Depth (RLD) of the LSP(s). It is related, yet different, to the RLD of an node which is defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]
The RLD of the LSP(s) advertised in the NLRI, may be advertised in the value field of the Entropy Label Next-Hop Capability. This value field is optional. If present, the value field is a one-octet unsigned binary integer which indicates the maximum Readable Label Depth (RLD) of the LSP(s) advertised in the NLRI. In other words, this is the maximum number of additional MPLS labels that may be pushed by the ingress, in addition to the label(s) of the NRLI advertised in the BGP UPDATE, before pushing the ELI, EL labels, if it wish that all downstream LSR be capable of performing load-balancing based on the entropy label.
S SHOULD advertise a RLD of:
255 is a reserved value.
Note that the local RLD is meant as a node value. If a router has multiple line cards with different capabilities, the router SHOULD advertise the smallest one. However, a router MAY choose to only consider the line cards that may be used by the BGP routers receiving the ELC. e.g. if the ELC is advertised over an EBGP session with peer A, a router MAY consider only the line cards connected to peer A.
Advertisement of the RLD is optional. When used, changes in IGP routing may trigger BGP re-advertisement and hence will increase BGP churn. We note however that labelled BGP routes are typically not advertised outside of an administrative domain.
If the Entropy Label Next-Hop Capability is present more than once, it MUST be considered as received once with a length of 0.
If the Entropy Label Next-Hop Capability is received with a length other than 0 or 1, it is not considered malformed, but its semantics are exactly the same as if it had a length of 0. This is to allow for graceful future extension.
IANA is requested to allocate a new Path Attribute, called "Next-Hop Capabilities", type Code TBD1, from the "BGP Path Attributes" registry.
The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled "Next-Hop Capabilities".
The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry are:
1-63 IETF Review
64-127 First Come First Served
128-250 Standards Action
251-254 Experimental Use
255 Reserved
IANA is requested to make the following initial assignments:
Registry Name: Next-Hop Capability.
Value Meaning Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
0 Reserved (not to be allocated) This document
1 Entropy Label This document
2-250 Unassigned
251-254 Experimental This document
255 Reserved (for futur registry extension) This document
This document does not introduce new security vulnerabilities in BGP. Specifically, an operator who is relying on the information carried in BGP must have a transitive trust relationship back to the source of the information. Specifying the mechanism(s) to provide such a relationship is beyond the scope of this document. Please refer to the Security Considerations section of [RFC4271] for security mechanisms applicable to BGP.
The Entropy Label Next-Hop Capability defined in this document is based on the ELC BGP attribute defined in section 5.2 of [RFC6790].
The authors wish to thank John Scudder for the discussions on this topics and Eric Rosen for his in-depth review of this document.
The authors wish to thank Jie Dond for his review and comments.
| [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. |
| [RFC4760] | Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007. |
| [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. |
| [RFC6790] | Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W. and L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012. |
| [RFC7606] | Chen, E., Scudder, J., Mohapatra, P. and K. Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015. |
| [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] | Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S., Shakir, R., Xu, X., Henderickx, W. and J. Tantsura, "Entropy labels for source routed tunnels with label stacks", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-02, January 2016. |
| [RFC5492] | Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February 2009. |
| [RFC7447] | Scudder, J. and K. Kompella, "Deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute", RFC 7447, DOI 10.17487/RFC7447, February 2015. |