Internet DRAFT - draft-scudder-bgp-entropy-label
draft-scudder-bgp-entropy-label
Internet Engineering Task Force J. G. Scudder
Internet-Draft K. Kompella
Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks
Expires: 30 October 2022 28 April 2022
BGP Entropy Label Capability, Version 2
draft-scudder-bgp-entropy-label-00
Abstract
RFC 6790 defined the Entropy Label Capability Attribute (ELC); RFC
7447 deprecated that attribute. This specification, dubbed "Entropy
Label Capability Attribute version 2" (ELCv2), was intended to be
offered for standardization, to replace the ELC as a way to signal
that a BGP protocol speaker is capable of processing entropy labels.
Although ultimately a different specification was chosen for that
purpose, at least one implementation of ELCv2 was shipped by Juniper
Networks and is currently in use in service provider networks. This
document is published in order to document what was implemented.
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 30 October 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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
Scudder & Kompella Expires 30 October 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ELCv2 April 2022
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Entropy Label Capability Path Attribute, Version 2 . . . . . 3
2.1. Sending the ELCv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Receiving the ELCv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
[RFC6790] defines the Entropy Label Capability attribute (ELC), an
optional, transitive BGP path attribute. For correct operation, it
is necessary that any intermediate node modifying the next hop of a
route must remove the ELC unless the node so doing is able to process
entropy labels. Sadly, these requirements cannot be fulfilled with
the ELC as specified, because it is an optional, transitive
attribute: by definition, a node that does not support the ELC will
propagate the attribute. But such a node might be exactly the one
that we desire to remove it.
Ultimately the IDR working group adopted
[I-D.ietf-idr-next-hop-capability] as a proposed solution for this
and similar problems. However, prior to that, at least one
implementation of this specification was shipped, by Juniper
Networks. The shipping implementation uses the code point that was
assigned by RFC 6790, and deprecated by RFC 7447. This document
explains what was implemented and deployed, dubbed "Entropy Label
Capability Attribute version 2" (ELCv2).
Although [I-D.ietf-idr-next-hop-capability] uses an optional, non-
transitive path attribute, at the time ELCv2 was developed it was
decided that an optional, non-transitive solution would over-
constrain the deployment options available -- in many cases (for
example, route reflectors) it's fine that an intermediate node does
propagate an ELC even if it doesn't itself have the ability to
process entropy labels.
Scudder & Kompella Expires 30 October 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ELCv2 April 2022
Instead, in this specification, we take the approach of carrying a
copy of the next hop information in the ELCv2. This allows the node
processing it to know if it can rely on the information carried
therein, while still allowing it to be propagated by all intermediate
nodes.
1.1. 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.
2. Entropy Label Capability Path Attribute, Version 2
The Entropy Label Capability Path Attribute, Version 2 (ELCv2) is an
optional, transitive BGP attribute (for the attribute type code, see
Section 3). The ELCv2 has as its data a network layer address,
representing the next hop of the route the ELCv2 accompanies. The
ELCv2 signals a useful optimization, so it is desirable to make it
transitive; the next hop data is to ensure correctness across BGP
speakers that do not understand the ELCv2.
The Attribute Data field of the ELCv2 path attribute is encoded as
shown below:
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Address Family Identifier (2 octets) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Subsequent Address Family Identifier (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Length of Next Hop Network Address (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Network Address of Next Hop (variable) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
The meanings of the fields are as given in Section 3 of [RFC4760].
When BGP [RFC4271] is used for distributing labeled Network Layer
Reachability Information (NLRI) as described in, for example,
[RFC8277], the route may include the ELCv2 as part of the Path
Attributes. The inclusion of this attribute with a route indicates
that the egress of the associated Label Switched Path (LSP) can
process entropy labels as an egress Label Switched Router (LSR) for
that route -- see Section 4.2 of [RFC6790]. Below, we refer to this
for brevity as being "EL-capable."
Scudder & Kompella Expires 30 October 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ELCv2 April 2022
2.1. Sending the ELCv2
When a BGP speaker S has a route R it wishes to advertise with next
hop N to its peer, it MUST NOT include the ELCv2 attribute except if
it knows that the egress of the associated LSP L is EL-capable.
Specifically, this will be true if S:
* Is itself the egress, and knows itself to be EL-capable, or
* Is re-advertising a BGP route it received with a valid ELCv2
attribute, and is not changing the value of N, or
* Is re-advertising a BGP route it received with a valid ELCv2
attribute, and is changing the value of N, and knows (for example,
through configuration) that the router represented by N is either
the LSP egress and is EL-capable, or that it will process the
outer label(s) without processing the entropy label below, as with
a transit LSR, or
* Is redistributing a route learned from another protocol, and that
other protocol conveyed the knowledge that the egress of L was EL-
capable (for example, this might be known through the LDP ELC TLV,
Section 5.1 of [RFC6790]).
In any event, when sending an ELCv2, S MUST set the data portion of
the ELCv2 to be equal to N, using the encoding given in Section 2.
The ELCv2 MAY be advertised with routes that are labeled, such as
those using SAFI 4 [RFC8277]. It MUST NOT be advertised with
unlabeled routes.
We note that due to the nature of BGP optional transitive path
attributes, any BGP speaker that does not implement this
specification will propagate the ELCv2, the requirements of this
section notwithstanding. However, such a speaker will not update the
data part of the ELCv2.
2.2. Receiving the ELCv2
When a BGP speaker receives an unlabeled route that includes the
ELCv2, it MUST discard the ELCv2.
When a BGP speaker receives a labeled route that includes the ELCv2,
it MUST compare the ELCv2's data portion to the next hop of the
route. If the two are equal, the egress of the LSP supports entropy
labels, which implies that the receiving BGP speaker, if acting as
ingress, MAY insert an entropy label below the advertised label, as
per Section 4.2 of [RFC6790]. If the two are not equal, either some
Scudder & Kompella Expires 30 October 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ELCv2 April 2022
intermediate router that does not implement this specification
modified the next hop, or some router on the path had an incorrect
implementation. In either case, the action taken is the same: the
ELCv2 MUST be discarded. The Partial bit MAY be inspected -- if it
is equal to zero, then the mismatch must have been caused by an
incorrect implementation, and the error MAY be logged.
When a BGP speaker receives a route that includes an ELCv2 whose
Attribute Length is less than 4, whose Attribute Length is not equal
to 4 plus the value encoded in the Length of Next Hop Network Address
carried in the Attribute Data, or whose Attribute Data is otherwise
inconsistent with the encoding specified in Section 2, it MUST
discard the ELCv2.
3. IANA Considerations
As per [RFC7447], IANA has deprecated BGP attribute 28. That
deprecated type code is used by implementations of this
specification. IANA is requested to update the references for
attribute 28 to include this specification.
4. Security Considerations
Insertion of an ELCv2 by an attacker could cause forwarding to fail.
Deletion of an ELCv2 by an attacker could cause one path in the
network to be overutilized and another to be underutilized. However,
we note that an attacker able to accomplish either of these (below,
an "on-path attacker") could equally insert or remove any other BGP
path attribute or message. The former attack described above denies
service for a given route, which can be accomplished by an on-path
attacker in any number of ways even absent ELCv2. The latter attack
defeats an optimization but nothing more; it seems dubious that an
attacker would go to the trouble of doing so rather than launching
some more damaging attack. In sum, the ELCv2 attribute creates no
significant issues beyond those analyzed in [RFC4272].
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Alia Atlas, Bruno Decraene, Martin Djernaes, John Drake,
Adrian Farrell, Keyur Patel, Ravi Singh, and Jim Uttaro for their
discussion of this issue. Particular thanks to Kevin Wang for his
many valuable contributions.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
Scudder & Kompella Expires 30 October 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ELCv2 April 2022
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7447] Scudder, J. and K. Kompella, "Deprecation of BGP Entropy
Label Capability Attribute", RFC 7447,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7447, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7447>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-next-hop-capability]
Decraene, B., Kompella, K., and W. Henderickx, "BGP Next-
Hop dependent capabilities", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability-07, 8 December
2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-
next-hop-capability-07.txt>.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
Authors' Addresses
Scudder & Kompella Expires 30 October 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ELCv2 April 2022
John G. Scudder
Juniper Networks
Email: jgs@juniper.net
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Scudder & Kompella Expires 30 October 2022 [Page 7]
