Network Working Group S. Sangli Request for Comments: 4360 D. Tappan Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems Y. Rekhter Juniper Networks February 2006 BGP Extended Communities Attribute Status of This Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
AbstractThis document describes the "extended community" BGP-4 attribute. This attribute provides a mechanism for labeling information carried in BGP-4. These labels can be used to control the distribution of this information, or for other applications. BGP-4]. It provides two important enhancements over the existing BGP Community Attribute [RFC1997]: - An extended range, ensuring that communities can be assigned for a plethora of uses, without fear of overlap. - The addition of a Type field provides structure for the community space. The addition of structure allows the usage of policy based on the application for which the community value will be used. For example, one can filter out all communities of a particular type, or allow only certain values for a particular type of community. It also allows one to specify whether a particular community is transitive or non-transitive across an Autonomous System (AS) boundary. Without structure, this can only be accomplished by explicitly enumerating
all community values that will be denied or allowed and passed to BGP speakers in neighboring ASes based on the transitive property. RFC2119].
The high-order octet of the Type Field is as shown below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I|T| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I - IANA authority bit Value 0: IANA-assignable type using the "First Come First Serve" policy Value 1: Part of this Type Field space is for IANA assignable types using either the Standard Action or the Early IANA Allocation policy. The rest of this Type Field space is for Experimental use. T - Transitive bit Value 0: The community is transitive across ASes Value 1: The community is non-transitive across ASes Remaining 6 bits: Indicates the structure of the community Value Field: The encoding of the Value Field is dependent on the "type" of the community as specified by the Type Field. Two extended communities are declared equal only when all 8 octets of the community are equal. The two members in the tuple <Type, Value> should be enumerated to specify any community value. The remaining octets of the community interpreted based on the value of the Type field.
The Value field consists of two sub-fields: Global Administrator sub-field: 4 octets This sub-field contains an IPv4 unicast address assigned by one of the Internet registries. Local Administrator sub-field: 2 octets The organization that has been assigned the IPv4 address in the Global Administrator sub-field can encode any information in this sub-field. The format and meaning of this value encoded in this sub-field should be defined by the sub-type of the community.
When the value of the high-order octet of the Type field is 0x00 or 0x02, the Local Administrator sub-field contains a number from a numbering space that is administered by the organization to which the Autonomous System number carried in the Global Administrator sub- field has been assigned by an appropriate authority. When the value of the high-order octet of the Type field is 0x01, the Local Administrator sub-field contains a number from a numbering space that is administered by the organization to which the IP address carried in the Global Administrator sub-field has been assigned by an appropriate authority. One possible use of the Route Target Community is specified in [RFC4364]. RFC4364].
The value allocated for a regular Type MUST NOT be reused as the value of the high-order octet when allocating an extended Type. The value of the high-order octet allocated for an extended Type MUST NOT be reused when allocating a regular Type. The Type field indicates where the Extended Community is transitive or not. Future requests for assignment of a Type value must specify whether the Type value is intended for a transitive or a non- transitive Extended Community. Future assignment are to be made using either the Standards Action process defined in [RFC2434], the Early IANA Allocation process defined in [RFC4020], or the "First Come First Served" policy defined in [RFC2434]. The following table summarizes the ranges for the assignment of Types: Type Standard Action First Come Early IANA Allocation First Served ------------------ --------------------- ------------ regular, transitive 0x90-0xbf 0x00-x3f regular, non-transitive 0xd0-0xff 0x40-0x7f extended, transitive 0x9000-0xbfff 0x0000-0x3fff extended, non-transitive 0xd000-0xffff 0x4000-0x7fff Assignments consist of a name and the value. The Type values 0x80-0x8f and 0xc0-0xcf for regular Types, and 0x8000-0x8fff and 0xc000-0xcfff for extended Types are for Experimental use as defined in RFC 3692. This document defines a class of extended communities called two- octet AS specific extended community for which the IANA is to create and maintain a registry entitled "Two-octet AS Specific Extended Community". All the communities in this class are of extended Types. Future assignment are to be made using the "First Come First Served" policy defined in [RFC2434]. The Type values for the transitive communities of the two-octet AS specific extended community class are 0x0000-0x00ff, and for the non-transitive communities of that class are 0x4000-0x40ff. Assignments consist of a name and the value. This document makes the following assignments for the two-octet AS specific extended community:
Name Type Value ---- ---------- two-octet AS specific Route Target 0x0002 two-octet AS specific Route Origin 0x0003 This document defines a class of extended communities called IPv4 address specific extended community for which the IANA is to create and maintain a registry entitled "IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community". All the communities in this class are of extended Types. Future assignment are to be made using the "First Come First Served" policy defined in [RFC2434]. The Type values for the transitive communities of the two-octet AS specific extended community class are 0x0100-0x01ff, and for the non-transitive communities of that class are 0x4100-0x41ff. Assignments consist of a name and the value. This document makes the following assignments for the IPv4 address specific extended community: Name Type Value ---- ---------- IPv4 address specific Route Target 0x0102 IPv4 address specific Route Origin 0x0103 This document defines a class of extended communities called opaque extended community for which the IANA is to create and maintain a registry entitled "Opaque Extended Community". All the communities in this class are of extended Types. Future assignment are to be made using the "First Come First Served" policy defined in [RFC2434]. The Type values for the transitive communities of the opaque extended community class are 0x0300-0x03ff, and for the non-transitive communities of that class are 0x4300-0x43ff. Assignments consist of a name and the value. When requesting an allocation from more than one registry defined above, one may ask for allocating the same Type value from these registries. If possible, the IANA should accommodate such requests. RFC1997]. This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues. 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.
[BGP-4] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005. [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
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).