<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-idr-node-target-ext-comm-03"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="BGP Node Target Extended Community">BGP Extended Community
    for Identifying the Target Nodes</title>

    <author fullname="Jie Dong" initials="J." surname="Dong">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <code>100095</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <email>jie.dong@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Shunwan Zhuang" initials="S." surname="Zhuang">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <code>100095</code>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <email>zhuangshunwan@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Gunter Van de Velde" initials="G."
            surname="Van de Velde">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Antwerp</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>BE</country>
        </postal>

        <email>gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Jeff Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura">
      <organization>Nvidia</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country/>
        </postal>

        <email>jefftant.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="28" month="February" year="2026"/>

    <abstract>
      <t>BGP has been used to distribute different types of routing and policy
      information. In some cases, the information distributed may be only
      intended for one or a particular group of BGP nodes in the network.
      Currently BGP does not have a generic mechanism of designating the
      target nodes of the routing information. This document defines a new
      type of BGP Extended Community called "Node Target" for this
      purpose.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>BGP <xref target="RFC4271"/> has been used to distribute different
      types of routing and policy information. In some cases, the information
      distributed may be only intended for one or a group of receiving BGP
      nodes in the network. One typical use case is the distribution of BGP
      Flow Spec <xref target="RFC8955"/> <xref target="RFC8956"/> rules only
      to a particular group of BGP nodes. Such a targeted distribution
      mechanism is considered useful as it can save the resources on nodes
      which do not need that information.</t>

      <t>Currently BGP does not have a generic mechanism of designating the
      set of nodes to which the information is to be distributed. Route Target
      (RT) as defined in <xref target="RFC4364"/> was designed for the
      matching of VPN routes into the target VPN Routing and Forwarding tables
      (VRFs) on the PE nodes. <xref target="RFC9830"/> introduces the
      mechanism of steering the SR Policy information to the target head end
      node based on RT, it is only applicable to the SR Policy Address Family.
      Although it is possible to reuse RT to control the distribution of
      non-VPN information to one or a group of receiving nodes, such mechanism
      is not applicable when the information to be distributed is VPN-specific
      and is advertised with another set of RTs for the VRF matching, as the
      matching or any of the VPN RT in the BGP route would result in that
      route being imported to a local VRF, regardless of whether the receiving
      node is the target node or not. Thus a general mechanism which is
      independent from the control of VPN route to VRF import is needed.</t>

      <t>Another possible approach is to configure, on each router, a
      community and the corresponding policies to match the community to
      determine whether to accept the received routes or not. Such mechanism
      relies on manual configuration thus is considered error-prone. It is
      preferable by some operators that an automatic approach can be provided,
      which would make the operation much easier.</t>

      <t>This document defines a new type of BGP Extended Community called
      "Node Target". It can be used by a receiving BGP node to determine
      whether it is the target of the BGP routes. The mechanism of using the
      Node Target extended community to control the BGP route distribution
      only to particular BGP nodes is out of the scope and will be specified
      in a separate document.</t>

      <section title="Requirements Language">
        <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only
        when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Node Target Extended Communities">
      <t>This section defines a new BGP Extended Community <xref
      target="RFC4360"/> called "Node Target Extended Community". It can be a
      transitive extended community with the high-order octet of the type set
      to 0x01, or a non-transitive extended community with the high-order
      octet type set to 0x41. The sub-type of the Node Target Extended
      Community is TBA.</t>

      <t>The format of Node Target Extended Community is shown in Figure
      1.</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork align="center"
                   name="Figure 1. IPv4 Node Target extended community"><![CDATA[    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  0x01 or 0x41 | Sub-Type(TBA) |    Target BGP Identifier      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Target BGP Identifier (cont.) |           Reserved            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 1. Node Target extended community
]]></artwork>
        </figure>Where:</t>

      <t>Target BGP Identifier (4 octets): The BGP Identifier of a target
      node. It is a 4-octet, unsigned, non-zero integer as defined in <xref
      target="RFC6286"/>.</t>

      <t>Reserved field (2 octets): Reserved for future use, MUST be set to
      zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.</t>

      <t>One or more Node Target extended communities MAY be carried in an
      Update message to designate a group of target BGP nodes.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Procedures">
      <t>In this section, the mechanism for intra-domain scenario is
      described, the mechanism for inter-domain scenario is for further study.
      The domain here refers to an administrative domain, which may consists
      of one or multiple ASes managed by a single operator.</t>

      <t>When a network controller or BGP speaker plans to advertise some BGP
      routing or policy information only to one or a group of BGP nodes in the
      network, it MUST put the BGP Identifier of each target node into the
      Node Target extended communities, and attach the Node Target extended
      communities to the routes to be advertised.</t>

      <t>When a BGP speaker receives a BGP Update which contains one or more
      Node Target extended communities, it MUST check the target BGP
      Identifiers carried in the Node Target extended communities of the
      Update. If the target BGP Identifier in any of the Node Target extended
      community matches with the local BGP Identifier, this node is one of the
      target nodes of the Update, the information in the Update is eligible to
      be kept and installed on this node. If the target BGP Identifier in any
      of the Node Target extended community does not match with the local BGP
      Identifier, this node is not the target node of Update, and the
      information in the Update is not eligible to be installed on this
      node.</t>

      <t>The mechanism of using the Node Target extended community to control
      the BGP route distribution only to particular BGP nodes is out of the
      scope and will be specified in a separate document.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Compatibility Considerations">
      <t>The Node Target extended community introduced in this document can be
      deployed incrementally in the network. For BGP speakers which understand
      the Node Target extended community, it is used to determine whether the
      nodes are the target nodes of the Update. For BGP speakers which do not
      understand the Node Target extended community, it will be ignored and
      the information in the Update will be processed and advertised based on
      normal BGP procedure. Although this could ensure that the target nodes
      can always obtain the information needed, this may result in unnecessary
      state maintained on the legacy BGP nodes. If the information advertised
      with the Node Target extended community is FlowSpec, the legacy BGP
      speakers may install unnecessary Flowspec rules, this may have impact on
      traffic which matches such rules, thus may result in unexpected traffic
      steering or filtering behaviors on such legacy nodes. This may be
      mitigated by setting appropriate routing policies on the legacy BGP
      nodes.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>IANA assigns the sub-type value 0x09 for "Node Target Extended
      Community" from the "Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended Community
      Sub-Types" registry of the "BGP Extended Communities" registry.</t>

      <t>IANA assigns the sub-type value 0x09 for "Node Target Extended
      Community" from the "Non-Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended
      Community Sub-Types" registry of the "BGP Extended Communities"
      registry.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>The mechanism defined in this document can limit the scope of the
      receiving nodes of BGP Updates, which make it possible for an attacker
      to do fine-grained targeting of malicious BGP Updates only to a
      restricted set of routers. This may make it more difficult for a network
      administrator to discover an attack. This may be mitigated by filtering
      the Node Target extended communities at the administrative network
      boundaries.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Contributors">
      <t><figure>
          <artwork><![CDATA[Haibo Wang
Email: rainsword.wang@huawei.com]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The authors would like to thank Zhenbin Li, Ercin Torun, Jeff Haas,
      Robert Raszuk and John Scudder for the review and discussion of this
      document.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4271'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4360'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4364'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6286'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8955'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8956'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9830'?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
