Section 6.3. If an optional non-transitive attribute is unrecognized, it is quietly ignored. If an optional transitive attribute is unrecognized, the Partial bit (the third high-order bit) in the attribute flags octet is set to 1, and the attribute is retained for propagation to other BGP speakers. If an optional attribute is recognized and has a valid value, then, depending on the type of the optional attribute, it is processed locally, retained, and updated, if necessary, for possible propagation to other BGP speakers. If the UPDATE message contains a non-empty WITHDRAWN ROUTES field, the previously advertised routes, whose destinations (expressed as IP prefixes) are contained in this field, SHALL be removed from the Adj-RIB-In. This BGP speaker SHALL run its Decision Process because the previously advertised route is no longer available for use. If the UPDATE message contains a feasible route, the Adj-RIB-In will be updated with this route as follows: if the NLRI of the new route is identical to the one the route currently has stored in the Adj- RIB-In, then the new route SHALL replace the older route in the Adj- RIB-In, thus implicitly withdrawing the older route from service. Otherwise, if the Adj-RIB-In has no route with NLRI identical to the new route, the new route SHALL be placed in the Adj-RIB-In. Once the BGP speaker updates the Adj-RIB-In, the speaker SHALL run its Decision Process.
c) Phase 3 is invoked after the Loc-RIB has been modified. It is responsible for disseminating routes in the Loc-RIB to each peer, according to the policies contained in the PIB. Route aggregation and information reduction can optionally be performed within this phase.
The Phase 2 decision function is blocked from running while the Phase 3 decision function is in process. The Phase 2 function locks all Adj-RIBs-In prior to commencing its function, and unlocks them on completion. If the NEXT_HOP attribute of a BGP route depicts an address that is not resolvable, or if it would become unresolvable if the route was installed in the routing table, the BGP route MUST be excluded from the Phase 2 decision function. If the AS_PATH attribute of a BGP route contains an AS loop, the BGP route should be excluded from the Phase 2 decision function. AS loop detection is done by scanning the full AS path (as specified in the AS_PATH attribute), and checking that the autonomous system number of the local system does not appear in the AS path. Operations of a BGP speaker that is configured to accept routes with its own autonomous system number in the AS path are outside the scope of this document. It is critical that BGP speakers within an AS do not make conflicting decisions regarding route selection that would cause forwarding loops to occur. For each set of destinations for which a feasible route exists in the Adj-RIBs-In, the local BGP speaker identifies the route that has: a) the highest degree of preference of any route to the same set of destinations, or b) is the only route to that destination, or c) is selected as a result of the Phase 2 tie breaking rules specified in Section 18.104.22.168. The local speaker SHALL then install that route in the Loc-RIB, replacing any route to the same destination that is currently being held in the Loc-RIB. When the new BGP route is installed in the Routing Table, care must be taken to ensure that existing routes to the same destination that are now considered invalid are removed from the Routing Table. Whether the new BGP route replaces an existing non-BGP route in the Routing Table depends on the policy configured on the BGP speaker. The local speaker MUST determine the immediate next-hop address from the NEXT_HOP attribute of the selected route (see Section 5.1.3). If either the immediate next-hop or the IGP cost to the NEXT_HOP (where the NEXT_HOP is resolved through an IGP route) changes, Phase 2 Route Selection MUST be performed again.
Notice that even though BGP routes do not have to be installed in the Routing Table with the immediate next-hop(s), implementations MUST take care that, before any packets are forwarded along a BGP route, its associated NEXT_HOP address is resolved to the immediate (directly connected) next-hop address, and that this address (or multiple addresses) is finally used for actual packet forwarding. Unresolvable routes SHALL be removed from the Loc-RIB and the routing table. However, corresponding unresolvable routes SHOULD be kept in the Adj-RIBs-In (in case they become resolvable). Section 9.1.2, BGP speakers SHOULD exclude unresolvable routes from the Phase 2 decision. This ensures that only valid routes are installed in Loc-RIB and the Routing Table. The route resolvability condition is defined as follows: 1) A route Rte1, referencing only the intermediate network address, is considered resolvable if the Routing Table contains at least one resolvable route Rte2 that matches Rte1's intermediate network address and is not recursively resolved (directly or indirectly) through Rte1. If multiple matching routes are available, only the longest matching route SHOULD be considered. 2) Routes referencing interfaces (with or without intermediate addresses) are considered resolvable if the state of the referenced interface is up and if IP processing is enabled on this interface. BGP routes do not refer to interfaces, but can be resolved through the routes in the Routing Table that can be of both types (those that specify interfaces or those that do not). IGP routes and routes to directly connected networks are expected to specify the outbound interface. Static routes can specify the outbound interface, the intermediate address, or both. Note that a BGP route is considered unresolvable in a situation where the BGP speaker's Routing Table contains no route matching the BGP route's NEXT_HOP. Mutually recursive routes (routes resolving each other or themselves) also fail the resolvability check. It is also important that implementations do not consider feasible routes that would become unresolvable if they were installed in the Routing Table, even if their NEXT_HOPs are resolvable using the current contents of the Routing Table (an example of such routes
would be mutually recursive routes). This check ensures that a BGP speaker does not install routes in the Routing Table that will be removed and not used by the speaker. Therefore, in addition to local Routing Table stability, this check also improves behavior of the protocol in the network. Whenever a BGP speaker identifies a route that fails the resolvability check because of mutual recursion, an error message SHOULD be logged.
c) Remove from consideration routes with less-preferred MULTI_EXIT_DISC attributes. MULTI_EXIT_DISC is only comparable between routes learned from the same neighboring AS (the neighboring AS is determined from the AS_PATH attribute). Routes that do not have the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute are considered to have the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value. This is also described in the following procedure: for m = all routes still under consideration for n = all routes still under consideration if (neighborAS(m) == neighborAS(n)) and (MED(n) < MED(m)) remove route m from consideration In the pseudo-code above, MED(n) is a function that returns the value of route n's MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If route n has no MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, the function returns the lowest possible MULTI_EXIT_DISC value (i.e., 0). Similarly, neighborAS(n) is a function that returns the neighbor AS from which the route was received. If the route is learned via IBGP, and the other IBGP speaker didn't originate the route, it is the neighbor AS from which the other IBGP speaker learned the route. If the route is learned via IBGP, and the other IBGP speaker either (a) originated the route, or (b) created the route by aggregation and the AS_PATH attribute of the aggregate route is either empty or begins with an AS_SET, it is the local AS. If a MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute is removed before re-advertising a route into IBGP, then comparison based on the received EBGP MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute MAY still be performed. If an implementation chooses to remove MULTI_EXIT_DISC, then the optional comparison on MULTI_EXIT_DISC, if performed, MUST be performed only among EBGP-learned routes. The best EBGP- learned route may then be compared with IBGP-learned routes after the removal of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute. If MULTI_EXIT_DISC is removed from a subset of EBGP-learned routes, and the selected "best" EBGP-learned route will not have MULTI_EXIT_DISC removed, then the MULTI_EXIT_DISC must be used in the comparison with IBGP-learned routes. For IBGP- learned routes, the MULTI_EXIT_DISC MUST be used in route comparisons that reach this step in the Decision Process. Including the MULTI_EXIT_DISC of an EBGP-learned route in the comparison with an IBGP-learned route, then removing the MULTI_EXIT_DISC attribute, and advertising the route has been proven to cause route loops.
d) If at least one of the candidate routes was received via EBGP, remove from consideration all routes that were received via IBGP. e) Remove from consideration any routes with less-preferred interior cost. The interior cost of a route is determined by calculating the metric to the NEXT_HOP for the route using the Routing Table. If the NEXT_HOP hop for a route is reachable, but no cost can be determined, then this step should be skipped (equivalently, consider all routes to have equal costs). This is also described in the following procedure. for m = all routes still under consideration for n = all routes in still under consideration if (cost(n) is lower than cost(m)) remove m from consideration In the pseudo-code above, cost(n) is a function that returns the cost of the path (interior distance) to the address given in the NEXT_HOP attribute of the route. f) Remove from consideration all routes other than the route that was advertised by the BGP speaker with the lowest BGP Identifier value. g) Prefer the route received from the lowest peer address.
be installed in the Adj-Rib-Out unless the destination, and NEXT_HOP described by this route, may be forwarded appropriately by the Routing Table. If a route in Loc-RIB is excluded from a particular Adj-RIB-Out, the previously advertised route in that Adj-RIB-Out MUST be withdrawn from service by means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2). Route aggregation and information reduction techniques (see Section 22.214.171.124) may optionally be applied. Any local policy that results in routes being added to an Adj-RIB-Out without also being added to the local BGP speaker's forwarding table is outside the scope of this document. When the updating of the Adj-RIBs-Out and the Routing Table is complete, the local BGP speaker runs the Update-Send process of 9.2.
the more specific routes or aggregate the two routes and install, in Loc-RIB, the aggregated route, provided that both routes have the same value of the NEXT_HOP attribute. If a BGP speaker chooses to aggregate, then it SHOULD either include all ASes used to form the aggregate in an AS_SET, or add the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute to the route. This attribute is now primarily informational. With the elimination of IP routing protocols that do not support classless routing, and the elimination of router and host implementations that do not support classless routing, there is no longer a need to de-aggregate. Routes SHOULD NOT be de-aggregated. In particular, a route that carries the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute MUST NOT be de-aggregated. That is, the NLRI of this route cannot be more specific. Forwarding along such a route does not guarantee that IP packets will actually traverse only ASes listed in the AS_PATH attribute of the route. RFC2796]). As part of Phase 3 of the route selection process, the BGP speaker has updated its Adj-RIBs-Out. All newly installed routes and all newly unfeasible routes for which there is no replacement route SHALL be advertised to its peers by means of an UPDATE message. A BGP speaker SHOULD NOT advertise a given feasible BGP route from its Adj-RIB-Out if it would produce an UPDATE message containing the same BGP route as was previously advertised. Any routes in the Loc-RIB marked as unfeasible SHALL be removed. Changes to the reachable destinations within its own autonomous system SHALL also be advertised in an UPDATE message. If, due to the limits on the maximum size of an UPDATE message (see Section 4), a single route doesn't fit into the message, the BGP speaker MUST not advertise the route to its peers and MAY choose to log an error locally.
Section 126.96.36.199. They reduce the size of the AS_PATH information by listing each AS number only once, regardless of how many times it may have appeared in multiple AS_PATHs that were aggregated. An AS_SET implies that the destinations listed in the NLRI can be reached through paths that traverse at least some of the constituent autonomous systems. AS_SETs provide sufficient information to avoid routing information looping; however, their use may prune potentially feasible paths because such paths are no longer listed individually in the form of AS_SEQUENCEs. In practice, this is not likely to be a problem because once an IP packet arrives at the edge of a group of autonomous systems, the BGP speaker is likely to have more detailed path information and can distinguish individual paths from destinations.
belongs to (e.g., AS_SEQUENCE, AS_SET), and "value" identifies the AS number. If the routes to be aggregated have different AS_PATH attributes, then the aggregated AS_PATH attribute SHALL satisfy all of the following conditions: - all tuples of type AS_SEQUENCE in the aggregated AS_PATH SHALL appear in all of the AS_PATHs in the initial set of routes to be aggregated. - all tuples of type AS_SET in the aggregated AS_PATH SHALL appear in at least one of the AS_PATHs in the initial set (they may appear as either AS_SET or AS_SEQUENCE types). - for any tuple X of type AS_SEQUENCE in the aggregated AS_PATH, which precedes tuple Y in the aggregated AS_PATH, X precedes Y in each AS_PATH in the initial set, which contains Y, regardless of the type of Y. - No tuple of type AS_SET with the same value SHALL appear more than once in the aggregated AS_PATH. - Multiple tuples of type AS_SEQUENCE with the same value may appear in the aggregated AS_PATH only when adjacent to another tuple of the same type and value. An implementation may choose any algorithm that conforms to these rules. At a minimum, a conformant implementation SHALL be able to perform the following algorithm that meets all of the above conditions: - determine the longest leading sequence of tuples (as defined above) common to all the AS_PATH attributes of the routes to be aggregated. Make this sequence the leading sequence of the aggregated AS_PATH attribute. - set the type of the rest of the tuples from the AS_PATH attributes of the routes to be aggregated to AS_SET, and append them to the aggregated AS_PATH attribute. - if the aggregated AS_PATH has more than one tuple with the same value (regardless of tuple's type), eliminate all but one such tuple by deleting tuples of the type AS_SET from the aggregated AS_PATH attribute. - for each pair of adjacent tuples in the aggregated AS_PATH, if both tuples have the same type, merge them together, as long as doing so will not cause a segment with a length greater than 255 to be generated.
Appendix F, Section F.6 presents another algorithm that satisfies the conditions and allows for more complex policy configurations. ATOMIC_AGGREGATE: If at least one of the routes to be aggregated has ATOMIC_AGGREGATE path attribute, then the aggregated route SHALL have this attribute as well. AGGREGATOR: Any AGGREGATOR attributes from the routes to be aggregated MUST NOT be included in the aggregated route. The BGP speaker performing the route aggregation MAY attach a new AGGREGATOR attribute (see Section 5.1.7). RFC2439]). Section 9.1). These routes MAY also be distributed to other BGP speakers within the local AS as part of the update process (see Section 9.2). The decision of whether to distribute non-BGP acquired routes within an AS via BGP depends on the environment within the AS (e.g., type of IGP) and SHOULD be controlled via configuration.
Section 8), HoldTimer (see Section 4.2), KeepaliveTimer (see Section 8), MinASOriginationIntervalTimer (see Section 188.8.131.52), and MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer (see Section 184.108.40.206). Two optional timers MAY be supported: DelayOpenTimer, IdleHoldTimer by BGP (see Section 8). Section 8 describes their use. The full operation of these optional timers is outside the scope of this document. ConnectRetryTime is a mandatory FSM attribute that stores the initial value for the ConnectRetryTimer. The suggested default value for the ConnectRetryTime is 120 seconds. HoldTime is a mandatory FSM attribute that stores the initial value for the HoldTimer. The suggested default value for the HoldTime is 90 seconds. During some portions of the state machine (see Section 8), the HoldTimer is set to a large value. The suggested default for this large value is 4 minutes. The KeepaliveTime is a mandatory FSM attribute that stores the initial value for the KeepaliveTimer. The suggested default value for the KeepaliveTime is 1/3 of the HoldTime. The suggested default value for the MinASOriginationIntervalTimer is 15 seconds. The suggested default value for the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer on EBGP connections is 30 seconds. The suggested default value for the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer on IBGP connections is 5 seconds. An implementation of BGP MUST allow the HoldTimer to be configurable on a per-peer basis, and MAY allow the other timers to be configurable. To minimize the likelihood that the distribution of BGP messages by a given BGP speaker will contain peaks, jitter SHOULD be applied to the timers associated with MinASOriginationIntervalTimer, KeepaliveTimer, MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer, and ConnectRetryTimer. A given BGP speaker MAY apply the same jitter to each of these quantities, regardless of the destinations to which the updates are being sent; that is, jitter need not be configured on a per-peer basis.
The suggested default amount of jitter SHALL be determined by multiplying the base value of the appropriate timer by a random factor, which is uniformly distributed in the range from 0.75 to 1.0. A new random value SHOULD be picked each time the timer is set. The range of the jitter's random value MAY be configurable.
RFC1771] (too many to list here). The following list the technical changes: Changes to reflect the usage of features such as TCP MD5 [RFC2385], BGP Route Reflectors [RFC2796], BGP Confederations [RFC3065], and BGP Route Refresh [RFC2918]. Clarification of the use of the BGP Identifier in the AGGREGATOR attribute. Procedures for imposing an upper bound on the number of prefixes that a BGP speaker would accept from a peer. The ability of a BGP speaker to include more than one instance of its own AS in the AS_PATH attribute for the purpose of inter-AS traffic engineering. Clarification of the various types of NEXT_HOPs. Clarification of the use of the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. The relationship between the immediate next hop, and the next hop as specified in the NEXT_HOP path attribute. Clarification of the tie-breaking procedures. Clarification of the frequency of route advertisements. Optional Parameter Type 1 (Authentication Information) has been deprecated. UPDATE Message Error subcode 7 (AS Routing Loop) has been deprecated. OPEN Message Error subcode 5 (Authentication Failure) has been deprecated. Use of the Marker field for authentication has been deprecated. Implementations MUST support TCP MD5 [RFC2385] for authentication. Clarification of BGP FSM.
Appendix A, plus the following. BGP-4 is capable of operating in an environment where a set of reachable destinations may be expressed via a single IP prefix. The concept of network classes, or subnetting, is foreign to BGP-4. To accommodate these capabilities, BGP-4 changes the semantics and encoding associated with the AS_PATH attribute. New text has been added to define semantics associated with IP prefixes. These abilities allow BGP-4 to support the proposed supernetting scheme [RFC1518, RFC1519]. To simplify configuration, this version introduces a new attribute, LOCAL_PREF, that facilitates route selection procedures. The INTER_AS_METRIC attribute has been renamed MULTI_EXIT_DISC. A new attribute, ATOMIC_AGGREGATE, has been introduced to insure that certain aggregates are not de-aggregated. Another new attribute, AGGREGATOR, can be added to aggregate routes to advertise which AS and which BGP speaker within that AS caused the aggregation. To ensure that Hold Timers are symmetric, the Hold Timer is now negotiated on a per-connection basis. Hold Timers of zero are now supported. Appendices A and B, plus the following. To detect and recover from BGP connection collision, a new field (BGP Identifier) has been added to the OPEN message. New text (Section 6.8) has been added to specify the procedure for detecting and recovering from collision. The new document no longer restricts the router that is passed in the NEXT_HOP path attribute to be part of the same Autonomous System as the BGP Speaker. The new document optimizes and simplifies the exchange of information about previously reachable routes.
Appendices A, B, and C, plus the following. Minor changes to the [RFC1105] Finite State Machine were necessary to accommodate the TCP user interface provided by BSD version 4.3. The notion of Up/Down/Horizontal relations presented in RFC 1105 has been removed from the protocol. The changes in the message format from RFC 1105 are as follows: 1. The Hold Time field has been removed from the BGP header and added to the OPEN message. 2. The version field has been removed from the BGP header and added to the OPEN message. 3. The Link Type field has been removed from the OPEN message. 4. The OPEN CONFIRM message has been eliminated and replaced with implicit confirmation, provided by the KEEPALIVE message. 5. The format of the UPDATE message has been changed significantly. New fields were added to the UPDATE message to support multiple path attributes. 6. The Marker field has been expanded and its role broadened to support authentication. Note that quite often BGP, as specified in RFC 1105, is referred to as BGP-1; BGP, as specified in [RFC1163], is referred to as BGP-2; BGP, as specified in RFC 1267 is referred to as BGP-3; and BGP, as specified in this document is referred to as BGP-4. RFC2474] for TCP connections, then the TCP connection used by BGP SHOULD be opened with bits 0-2 of the DSCP field set to 110 (binary). An implementation MUST support the TCP MD5 option [RFC2385].
Section 6.1) may prefer to see all path attributes presented in a known order. This permits them to quickly identify sets of attributes from different update messages that are semantically identical. To facilitate this, it is a useful optimization to order the path attributes according to type code. This optimization is entirely optional.
- X precedes Y in both AS_PATH attributes, or - Y precedes X in both AS_PATH attributes. b) The aggregated AS_PATH attribute consists of ASes identified in (a), in exactly the same order as they appear in the AS_PATH attributes to be aggregated. If two consecutive ASes identified in (a) do not immediately follow each other in both of the AS_PATH attributes to be aggregated, then the intervening ASes (ASes that are between the two consecutive ASes that are the same) in both attributes are combined into an AS_SET path segment that consists of the intervening ASes from both AS_PATH attributes. This segment is then placed between the two consecutive ASes identified in (a) of the aggregated attribute. If two consecutive ASes identified in (a) immediately follow each other in one attribute, but do not follow in another, then the intervening ASes of the latter are combined into an AS_SET path segment. This segment is then placed between the two consecutive ASes identified in (a) of the aggregated attribute. c) For each pair of adjacent tuples in the aggregated AS_PATH, if both tuples have the same type, merge them together if doing so will not cause a segment of a length greater than 255 to be generated. If, as a result of the above procedure, a given AS number appears more than once within the aggregated AS_PATH attribute, all but the last instance (rightmost occurrence) of that AS number should be removed from the aggregated AS_PATH attribute. RFC2385]. The authentication provided by this mechanism could be done on a per-peer basis. BGP makes use of TCP for reliable transport of its traffic between peer routers. To provide connection-oriented integrity and data origin authentication on a point-to-point basis, BGP specifies use of the mechanism defined in RFC 2385. These services are intended to detect and reject active wiretapping attacks against the inter-router TCP connections. Absent the use of mechanisms that effect these security services, attackers can disrupt these TCP connections and/or masquerade as a legitimate peer router. Because the mechanism defined in the RFC does not provide peer-entity authentication, these connections may be subject to some forms of replay attacks that will not be detected at the TCP layer. Such attacks might result in delivery (from TCP) of "broken" or "spoofed" BGP messages.
The mechanism defined in RFC 2385 augments the normal TCP checksum with a 16-byte message authentication code (MAC) that is computed over the same data as the TCP checksum. This MAC is based on a one- way hash function (MD5) and use of a secret key. The key is shared between peer routers and is used to generate MAC values that are not readily computed by an attacker who does not have access to the key. A compliant implementation must support this mechanism, and must allow a network administrator to activate it on a per-peer basis. RFC 2385 does not specify a means of managing (e.g., generating, distributing, and replacing) the keys used to compute the MAC. RFC 3562 [RFC3562] (an informational document) provides some guidance in this area, and provides rationale to support this guidance. It notes that a distinct key should be used for communication with each protected peer. If the same key is used for multiple peers, the offered security services may be degraded, e.g., due to an increased risk of compromise at one router that adversely affects other routers. The keys used for MAC computation should be changed periodically, to minimize the impact of a key compromise or successful cryptanalytic attack. RFC 3562 suggests a crypto period (the interval during which a key is employed) of, at most, 90 days. More frequent key changes reduce the likelihood that replay attacks (as described above) will be feasible. However, absent a standard mechanism for effecting such changes in a coordinated fashion between peers, one cannot assume that BGP-4 implementations complying with this RFC will support frequent key changes. Obviously, each should key also be chosen to be difficult for an attacker to guess. The techniques specified in RFC 1750 for random number generation provide a guide for generation of values that could be used as keys. RFC 2385 calls for implementations to support keys "composed of a string of printable ASCII of 80 bytes or less." RFC 3562 suggests keys used in this context be 12 to 24 bytes of random (pseudo-random) bits. This is fairly consistent with suggestions for analogous MAC algorithms, which typically employ keys in the range of 16 to 20 bytes. To provide enough random bits at the low end of this range, RFC 3562 also observes that a typical ACSII text string would have to be close to the upper bound for the key length specified in RFC 2385. BGP vulnerabilities analysis is discussed in [RFC4272].
Section 4.2 UPDATE 2 See Section 4.3 NOTIFICATION 3 See Section 4.5 KEEPALIVE 4 See Section 4.4 Future assignments are to be made using either the Standards Action process defined in [RFC2434], or the Early IANA Allocation process defined in [RFC4020]. Assignments consist of a name and the value. The BGP UPDATE messages may carry one or more Path Attributes, where each Attribute contains an 8-bit Attribute Type Code. IANA is already maintaining such a registry, entitled "BGP Path Attributes". This document defines the following Path Attributes Type Codes: Name Value Definition ---- ----- ---------- ORIGIN 1 See Section 5.1.1 AS_PATH 2 See Section 5.1.2 NEXT_HOP 3 See Section 5.1.3 MULTI_EXIT_DISC 4 See Section 5.1.4 LOCAL_PREF 5 See Section 5.1.5 ATOMIC_AGGREGATE 6 See Section 5.1.6 AGGREGATOR 7 See Section 5.1.7 Future assignments are to be made using either the Standards Action process defined in [RFC2434], or the Early IANA Allocation process defined in [RFC4020]. Assignments consist of a name and the value. The BGP NOTIFICATION message carries an 8-bit Error Code, for which IANA has created and is maintaining a registry entitled "BGP Error Codes". This document defines the following Error Codes: Name Value Definition ------------ ----- ---------- Message Header Error 1 Section 6.1 OPEN Message Error 2 Section 6.2 UPDATE Message Error 3 Section 6.3 Hold Timer Expired 4 Section 6.5 Finite State Machine Error 5 Section 6.6 Cease 6 Section 6.7
Future assignments are to be made using either the Standards Action process defined in [RFC2434], or the Early IANA Allocation process defined in [RFC4020]. Assignments consist of a name and the value. The BGP NOTIFICATION message carries an 8-bit Error Subcode, where each Subcode has to be defined within the context of a particular Error Code, and thus has to be unique only within that context. IANA has created and is maintaining a set of registries, "Error Subcodes", with a separate registry for each BGP Error Code. Future assignments are to be made using either the Standards Action process defined in [RFC2434], or the Early IANA Allocation process defined in [RFC4020]. Assignments consist of a name and the value. This document defines the following Message Header Error subcodes: Name Value Definition -------------------- ----- ---------- Connection Not Synchronized 1 See Section 6.1 Bad Message Length 2 See Section 6.1 Bad Message Type 3 See Section 6.1 This document defines the following OPEN Message Error subcodes: Name Value Definition -------------------- ----- ---------- Unsupported Version Number 1 See Section 6.2 Bad Peer AS 2 See Section 6.2 Bad BGP Identifier 3 See Section 6.2 Unsupported Optional Parameter 4 See Section 6.2 [Deprecated] 5 See Appendix A Unacceptable Hold Time 6 See Section 6.2 This document defines the following UPDATE Message Error subcodes: Name Value Definition -------------------- --- ---------- Malformed Attribute List 1 See Section 6.3 Unrecognized Well-known Attribute 2 See Section 6.3 Missing Well-known Attribute 3 See Section 6.3 Attribute Flags Error 4 See Section 6.3 Attribute Length Error 5 See Section 6.3 Invalid ORIGIN Attribute 6 See Section 6.3 [Deprecated] 7 See Appendix A Invalid NEXT_HOP Attribute 8 See Section 6.3 Optional Attribute Error 9 See Section 6.3 Invalid Network Field 10 See Section 6.3 Malformed AS_PATH 11 See Section 6.3
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. [RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2385] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998. [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC904] Mills, D., "Exterior Gateway Protocol formal specification", RFC 904, April 1984. [RFC1092] Rekhter, J., "EGP and policy based routing in the new NSFNET backbone", RFC 1092, February 1989. [RFC1093] Braun, H., "NSFNET routing architecture", RFC 1093, February 1989. [RFC1105] Lougheed, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)", RFC 1105, June 1989. [RFC1163] Lougheed, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)", RFC 1163, June 1990. [RFC1267] Lougheed, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)", RFC 1267, October 1991. [RFC1771] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP- 4)", RFC 1771, March 1995. [RFC1772] Rekhter, Y. and P. Gross, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet", RFC 1772, March 1995. [RFC1518] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR", RFC 1518, September 1993.
[RFC1519] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J., and K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy", RFC 1519, September 1993. [RFC1930] Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)", BCP 6, RFC 1930, March 1996. [RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996. [RFC2439] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route Flap Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998. [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998. [RFC2796] Bates, T., Chandra, R., and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000. [RFC2858] Bates, T., Rekhter, Y., Chandra, R., and D. Katz, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000. [RFC3392] Chandra, R. and J. Scudder, "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 3392, November 2002. [RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918, September 2000. [RFC3065] Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001. [RFC3562] Leech, M., "Key Management Considerations for the TCP MD5 Signature Option", RFC 3562, July 2003. [IS10747] "Information Processing Systems - Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems - Protocol for Exchange of Inter-domain Routeing Information among Intermediate Systems to Support Forwarding of ISO 8473 PDUs", ISO/IEC IS10747, 1993. [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC 4272, January 2006 [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005.
Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at email@example.com. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).