]> Orange

bruno.decraene@orange.com

HPE

kireeti@juniper.net

Cisco Systems

sekrier@cisco.com

Zscaler

smohanty@zscaler.com

HPE

jgs@bgp.nu

HPE

kfwang@juniper.net

Comcast

Bin_Wen@comcast.com

rtg Internet Engineering Task Force bgp nhc RFC 5492 allows a BGP speaker to advertise its capabilities to its peer. When a route is propagated beyond the immediate peer, it is useful to allow certain characteristics to be conveyed further. In particular, it is useful to advertise forwarding plane features. This specification defines a BGP transitive attribute to carry such information, the "Next Hop Dependent Characteristics Attribute," or NHC. Unlike the capabilities defined by RFC 5492, the characteristics conveyed in the NHC apply solely to the routes advertised by the BGP UPDATE that contains the particular NHC. About This Document Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the IDR Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at .

Introduction allows a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) speaker to advertise its capabilities to its peer. When a route is propagated beyond the immediate peer, it is useful to allow certain characteristics to be conveyed further. In particular, it may be useful to advertise forwarding plane features. This specification defines a BGP optional transitive attribute to carry such information, the "Next Hop Dependent Characteristics Attribute", or NHC. Since the NHC is intended chiefly for conveying information about forwarding plane features, it needs to be regenerated whenever the BGP route's next hop is changed. Since, owing to the properties of BGP transitive attributes, this can't be guaranteed (an intermediate router that doesn't implement this specification would be expected to propagate the NHC as opaque data), the NHC encodes the next hop of its originator, or the router that most recently updated the attribute. If the NHC passes through a router that changes the next hop without regenerating the NHC, they will fail to match when later examined, and the recipient can act accordingly. This scheme allows NHC support to be introduced into a network incrementally. Informally, the intent is that,

• If a router is not changing the next hop, it can obliviously propagate the NHC just like any other optional transitive attribute.
• If a router is changing the next hop, then it has to be able to vouch for every characteristic it includes in the NHC.

Complete details are provided in . An NHC carried in a given BGP UPDATE message conveys information that relates to all Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) advertised in that particular UPDATE, and only to those NLRI. A different UPDATE message originated by the same source might not include an NHC, and if so, the NLRI carried in that UPDATE would not be affected by the NHC. By implication, if a router wishes to use NHC to describe all NLRI it originates, it needs to include an NHC with each UPDATE it sends. Informally, a characteristic included in a given NHC should not be thought of as a characteristic of the next hop, but rather a characteristic of the path, which depends on the ability of the next hop to support it. Hence, it is said to be "dependent on" the next hop.

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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

BGP Next Hop Dependent Characteristics Attribute

Encoding The BGP Next Hop Dependent Characteristics attribute (NHC attribute, or just NHC) is an optional, transitive BGP path attribute with type code 39. The NHC always includes a network layer address identifying the next hop of the route the NHC accompanies. The NHC signals potentially useful information related to the forwarding plane features, so it is desirable to make it transitive to ensure propagation across BGP speakers (e.g., route reflectors) that do not change the next hop and are therefore not in the forwarding path. The next hop data is to ensure correctness if it traverses BGP speakers that do not understand the NHC. This is further explained below. The Attribute Data field of the NHC attribute is encoded as a header portion that identifies the router that created or most recently updated the attribute, followed by one or more Type-Length-Value (TLV) triples:

NHC Format

The meanings of the header fields (Address Family Identifier, SAFI or Subsequent Address Family Identifier, Length of Next Hop, and Network Address of Next Hop) are as given in Section 3 of . In turn, each Characteristic is a TLV:

Characteristic TLV Format

Characteristic Code: a two-octet unsigned integer that indicates the type of characteristic advertised and unambiguously identifies an individual characteristic. Characteristic Length: a two-octet unsigned integer that indicates the length, in octets, of the Characteristic Value field. A length of 0 indicates that the Characteristic Value field is zero-length, i.e., it has a null value. Characteristic Value: a variable-length field. It is interpreted according to the value of the Characteristic Code. A BGP speaker MUST NOT include more than one instance of a characteristic with the same Characteristic Code, Characteristic Length, and Characteristic Value. Note, however, that processing multiple instances of such a characteristic does not require special handling, as additional instances do not change the meaning of the announced characteristic; thus, a BGP speaker MUST be prepared to accept such multiple instances. BGP speakers MAY include more than one instance of a characteristic (as identified by the Characteristic Code) with different Characteristic Values. Processing of these characteristic instances is specific to the Characteristic Code and MUST be described in the document introducing the new characteristic. Characteristic TLVs MUST be placed in the NHC in increasing order of Characteristic Code. (In the event of multiple instances of a characteristic with the same Characteristic Code as discussed above, no further sorting order is defined here.) Although the major sorting order is mandated, an implementation MUST be prepared to consume characteristics in any order, for robustness reasons.

Sending the NHC Suppose a BGP speaker S has a route R it wishes to advertise with next hop N to its peer. If S is originating R into BGP, it MAY include an NHC attribute with it, that carries characteristic TLVs that describe aspects of R. S MUST set the next hop depicted in the header portion of the NHC to be equal to N, using the encoding given above. If S has received R from some other BGP speaker, two possibilities exist. First, S could be propagating R without changing N. In that case, S does not need to take any special action; it SHOULD simply propagate the NHC unchanged unless specifically configured otherwise. Indeed, we observe that this is no different from the default action a BGP speaker takes with an unrecognized optional transitive attribute -- it is treated as opaque data and propagated. Second, S could be changing R in some way, and in particular, it could be changing N. If S has changed N, it MUST NOT propagate the NHC unchanged. It SHOULD include a newly-constructed NHC attribute with R, constructed as described above in the "originating R into BGP" case. Any given characteristic TLV carried by the newly-constructed NHC attribute might use information from the received NHC attribute as input to its construction, possibly as straightforwardly as simply copying the TLV. The details of how the characteristics in the new NHC are constructed are specific to the definition of each characteristic. Any characteristic TLVs received by S that are for characteristics not supported by S will not be included in the newly-constructed NHC attribute S includes with R. An implementation SHOULD propagate the NHC and its contained characteristics by default. An implementation SHOULD provide configuration control of whether any given characteristic is propagated. An implementation MAY provide finer-grained control on propagation based on attributes of the peering session, as discussed in . Due to the nature of BGP optional transitive path attributes, any BGP speaker that does not implement this specification will propagate the NHC, the requirements of this section notwithstanding. Such a speaker will not update the NHC, however. Certain NLRI formats do not include a next hop at all, one example being the Flow Specification NLRI . The NHC MUST NOT be sent with such NLRI.

Link-Local-Only Next Hops In some cases, the BGP speaker sending a route might encode only a link-local address and no global address. In such a case, a problem arises because there is no expectation of global uniqueness of such an address, and the "semantic match" discussed in could yield a false positive. An illustration is provided in . To mitigate this problem, if a BGP speaker originates a route whose next hop has no global part, it MUST include a BGPID TLV ().

Aggregation When aggregating routes, the above rules for constructing a new NHC MUST be followed. The decision of whether to include the NHC with the aggregate route and what its form will be depends in turn on whether any characteristics are eligible to be included with the aggregate route. If there are no eligible characteristics, the NHC MUST NOT be included. The specification for an individual characteristic must define how that characteristic is to be aggregated. If no rules are defined for a given characteristic, that characteristic MUST NOT be aggregated. (Route aggregation is described in . Although prefix aggregation -- combining two or more more-specific prefixes to form one less-specific prefix -- is one application of aggregation, we note that another is when two or more routes for the same prefix are selected to be used for multipath forwarding.)

When Next Hop Resolution is Irrelevant to Forwarding In some cases, forwarding routes can be derived from a BGP route without regard to its next hop. One example is when the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Egress Endpoint Sub-TLV is used to point to a remote router. (The final paragraph of Section 7.2 of RFC 9012 includes a warning about this case.) The use of NHC is not completely precluded in such scenarios. The principle that must be followed is that the router that attaches the attribute must have reliable knowledge that the information it includes with the NHC accurately depicts the forwarding plane that packets will encounter when forwarded according to the route. If the router cannot accurately make that determination, it must not attach the NHC. A remaining concern pertains to intermediate routers. It's possible that such a router might not support this specification and might change some aspect of the route that affects forwarding, without changing the next hop. An example is if a route carried a Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute that was stripped by an intermediate router. Such scenarios are fraught with danger even in the absence of the NHC, but are not precluded by the protocol. Owing to these considerations, use of NHC in situations where forwarding is, or might be, noncongruent with the next hop, should be done with care.

Receiving the NHC An implementation receiving routes with an NHC SHOULD NOT discard the attribute or its contained characteristics by default. An implementation SHOULD provide configuration control of whether any given characteristic is processed. An implementation MAY provide finer-grained control on propagation based on attributes of the peering session, as discussed in . When a BGP speaker receives a BGP route that includes the NHC, it MUST compare the address given in the header portion of the NHC and illustrated in to the next hop of the BGP route. If the two match, the NHC may be further processed. If the two do not match, it means that some intermediate BGP speaker that handled the route in transit both does not support NHC and changed the next hop of the route. In this case, the contents of the NHC cannot be used, and the NHC MUST be discarded without further processing, except that the contents MAY be logged. In considering whether the next hop "matches", a semantic match is sought. While bit-for-bit equality is a trivial test of matching, there may be certain cases where the two are not bit-for-bit equal, but still "match". An example is when an MP_REACH Next Hop encodes both a global and a link-local IPv6 address. In that case, the link-local address might be removed during Internal BGP (IBGP) propagation, but the two would still be considered to match if they were equal on the global part. See Section 3 of . In other cases, only a link-local address might be present. This is discussed in ; in such a case, further information is required to permit matching. This is discussed in . A BGP speaker receiving a Characteristic Code that it supports behaves as defined in the document defining the Characteristic Code. A BGP speaker receiving a Characteristic Code that it does not support MUST ignore that Characteristic Code. In particular, the receipt of an unrecognized Characteristic Code MUST NOT be handled as an error. The presence of a characteristic SHOULD NOT influence route selection or route preference, unless tunneling is used to reach the BGP next hop, the selected route has been learned from External BGP (that is, the next hop is in a different Autonomous System), or by configuration (see following). Indeed, it is in general impossible for a node to know that all BGP routers of the Autonomous System (AS) will understand a given characteristic, and if different routers within an AS were to use a different preference for a route, forwarding loops could result unless tunneling is used to reach the BGP next hop. Following this reasoning, if the administrator of the network is confident that all routers within the AS will interpret the presence of the characteristic in the same way, they could relax this restriction by configuration.

Attribute Error Handling An NHC is considered malformed if the length of the attribute, encoded in the Attribute Length field of the BGP Path Attribute header (Section 4.3 of ), is inconsistent with the lengths of the contained characteristic TLVs. In other words, the sum of the sizes (Characteristic Length plus 4) of the contained characteristic TLVs, plus the length of the NHC header (), must be equal to the overall Attribute Length. A BGP UPDATE message with a malformed NHC SHALL be handled using the approach of "attribute discard" defined in . Unknown Characteristic Codes MUST NOT be considered to be an error. An NHC that contains no characteristic TLVs MAY be considered malformed, although it is observed that the prescribed behavior of "attribute discard" is semantically no different from that of having no TLVs to process. There is no reason to propagate an NHC that contains no characteristic TLVs. A document that specifies a new NHC Characteristic should provide specifics regarding what constitutes an error for that NHC Characteristic. If a characteristic TLV is malformed, that characteristic TLV SHOULD be ignored and removed. Other characteristic TLVs SHOULD be processed as usual. If a given characteristic TLV requires different error-handling treatment than described in the previous sentences, its specification should provide specifics.

Anycast Next Hops In the corner case where multiple nodes use the same IP address as their BGP next hop, such as with anycast nodes as described in , a BGP speaker MUST NOT advertise a given characteristic unless all nodes sharing this same IP address support this characteristic. The network operator operating those anycast nodes is responsible for ensuring that an anycast node does not advertise a characteristic not supported by all nodes sharing this anycast address. The means for accomplishing this are beyond the scope of this document. In cases where a BGP speaker receives a route for some prefix P with next hop N that carries an NHC, and receives a different route for P, N that carries no NHC or a NHC with conflicting content, that could be indicative of a configuration error as described above. In such a case, an implementation MAY log an error to help diagnose the potential problem.

BGP Identifier Characteristic As discussed in , it might be possible that a route could be originated that has no global part in its next hop. To provide uniqueness in this case, it is sufficient to associate the BGP Identifier and AS Number of the route's sender. The BGP Identifier Characteristic (BGPID) provides a way to convey this information if required.

Encoding The BGPID has characteristic code 3, characteristic length 8, and carries as its value the BGP Identifier and Autonomous System Number of its sender:

BGPID TLV Format

BGP Identifier: The BGP Identifier (Section 4.2 of , and ) of the route's sender. AS Number: The Autonomous System Number of the route's sender. In cases where the sender might represent different Autonomous System Numbers to different peers (for example, , ), the value used is the one that was in the sender's BGP OPEN to the peer concerned.

Sending the BGPID Under the circumstances described in , the BGPID MUST be included. Under other circumstances, the BGPID MAY be included.

Aggregation Since the BGPID, by definition, is regenerated whenever the next hop is changed and provides context to disambiguate the next hop carried in the NHC header, there is no case in which it might need to be aggregated.

Receiving the BGPID Under the circumstances described in , a next hop received from a given peer MUST NOT be considered a "semantic match" for the NHC unless the BGP Identifier and Autonomous System of that peer match the BGP Identifier and Autonomous System carried in the BGPID. Since the only case in which the BGPID might be needed to disambiguate the next hop carried in the NHC involves the immediate peer (see for more detail), the BGP Identifier and Autonomous System of the peer are readily derived; they are the values that were received in that peer's OPEN message. Other uses of the BGPID are beyond the scope of this document. In particular, if a route is received that has a global part to its next hop and thus does not match the circumstances described in , but which nonetheless has a BGPID, this specification requires no specific action. In such a case, the BGPID can be disregarded.

Not Receiving the BGPID Under the circumstances described in , if a BGPID is not present in the NHC, the next hop match described in MUST be considered to have failed.

BGPID Error Handling The BGPID is considered malformed and must be disregarded if its length is other than eight. If more than one instance of the BGPID is included in an NHC, instances beyond the first MUST be disregarded. The situation where a route is received that fails the test described in is not an error. However, it might indicate a misconfiguration in the network, and a message MAY be logged.

IANA Considerations IANA has made a temporary allocation in the BGP Path Attributes registry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters group. IANA is requested to make this allocation permanent and to update its name and reference as shown below.

Value	Code	Reference
39	BGP Next Hop Dependent Characteristic (NHC)	(this doc)

IANA is requested to create a new registry called "BGP Next Hop Dependent Characteristic Codes" within the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters group. The registry's allocation policy is First Come, First Served, except where designated otherwise in . It is seeded with the following values:

Value	Description	Reference	Change Controller
0	reserved	(this doc)	IETF
1	ELCv3	draft-ietf-idr-elc-00	IETF
2	NNHN	draft-wang-idr-next-next-hop-nodes-01	kfwang@juniper.net
3	BGPID	(this doc)	IETF
4	IFIT	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-05	IETF
5	AMetric	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-generic-metric-01	IETF
65400 - 65499	private use	(this doc)	IETF
65500 - 65534	reserved for experimental use	(this doc)	IETF
65535	reserved	(this doc)	IETF

The current versions of the above-referenced documents can be found at , , , and , respectively.

Implementation Status This section refers the reader to the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in . The description of implementations referenced by this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist. According to , "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit". Implementations are reported at the IDR implementation status Wiki.

Security Considerations The header portion of the NHC contains the next hop the attribute's originator included when sending it, or that an intermediate router included when updating the attribute (in the latter case, the "contract" with the intermediate router is that it performed the checks in before propagating the attribute). This will typically be an IP address of the router in question. This may be an infrastructure address the network operator does not intend to announce beyond the border of its Autonomous System, and it may even be considered confidential information. A motivating application for this attribute is to convey information between Autonomous Systems that are under the control of the same administrator. In such a case, it would not need to be sent to other Autonomous Systems. At the time of writing, work is underway to standardize a method of distinguishing between the two categories of external Autonomous Systems, and if such a distinction is available, an implementation can take advantage of it by constraining the NHC and its contained characteristics to only propagate by default to and from the former category of Autonomous Systems. If such a distinction is not available, a network operator may prefer to configure routers peering with Autonomous Systems not under their administrative control to not send or accept the NHC or its contained characteristics, unless there is an identified need to do so. The foregoing notwithstanding, control of NHC propagation can't be guaranteed in all cases -- if a border router doesn't implement this specification, the attribute, like all BGP optional transitive attributes, will propagate to neighboring Autonomous Systems. (This can be seen as a specific case of the general "attribute escape" phenomenon discussed in .) Similarly, if a border router receiving the attribute from an external Autonomous System doesn't implement this specification, it will store and propagate the attribute, the requirements of notwithstanding. So, sometimes this information could leak beyond its intended scope. (Note that it will only propagate as far as the first router that does support this specification, at which point it will typically be discarded due to a non-matching next hop, per .) If the attribute leaks beyond its intended scope, characteristics within it would potentially be exposed. Specifications for individual characteristics should consider the consequences of such unintended exposure, and should identify any necessary constraints on propagation. discusses Limited Domains and Internet Protocols. The functionality defined in this document might be useful in realizing the control plane of some kinds of limited domains.

References Normative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions (BGP-MP) defines the format of two BGP attributes (MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI) that can be used to announce and withdraw the announcement of reachability information. This document defines how compliant systems should make use of those attributes for the purpose of conveying IPv6 routing information. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document discusses the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol. The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This network reachability information includes information on the list of Autonomous Systems (ASes) that reachability information traverses. This information is sufficient for constructing a graph of AS connectivity for this reachability from which routing loops may be pruned, and, at the AS level, some policy decisions may be enforced. BGP-4 provides a set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). These mechanisms include support for advertising a set of destinations as an IP prefix, and eliminating the concept of network "class" within BGP. BGP-4 also introduces mechanisms that allow aggregation of routes, including aggregation of AS paths. This document obsoletes RFC 1771. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, L3VPN, etc.). The extensions are backward compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate with a router that doesn't support the extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK] To accommodate situations where the current requirements for the BGP Identifier are not met, this document relaxes the definition of the BGP Identifier to be a 4-octet, unsigned, non-zero integer and relaxes the "uniqueness" requirement so that only Autonomous-System-wide (AS-wide) uniqueness of the BGP Identifiers is required. These revisions to the base BGP specification do not introduce any backward compatibility issues. This document updates RFC 4271. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Autonomous System number is encoded as a two-octet entity in the base BGP specification. This document describes extensions to BGP to carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities. This document obsoletes RFC 4893 and updates RFC 4271. [STANDARDS-TRACK] According to the base BGP specification, a BGP speaker that receives an UPDATE message containing a malformed attribute is required to reset the session over which the offending attribute was received. This behavior is undesirable because a session reset would impact not only routes with the offending attribute but also other valid routes exchanged over the session. This document partially revises the error handling for UPDATE messages and provides guidelines for the authors of documents defining new attributes. Finally, it revises the error handling procedures for a number of existing attributes. This document updates error handling for RFCs 1997, 4271, 4360, 4456, 4760, 5543, 5701, and 6368. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Informative References Juniper Networks BGP-4 [RFC 4271] has been very successful in being extended over the years it has been deployed. A significant part of that success is due to its ability to incrementally add new features to its Path Attributes when they are marked "optional transitive". Implementations that are ignorant of a feature for an unknown Path Attribute that are so marked will propagate BGP routes with such attributes. Unfortunately, this blind propagation of unknown Path Attributes may happen for features that are intended to be used in a limited scope. When such Path Attributes inadvertently are carried beyond that scope, it can lead to things such as unintended disclosure of sensitive information, or cause improper routing. In their worst cases, such propagation may be for malformed Path Attributes and lead to BGP session resets or crashes. This document calls such inadvertent propagation of BGP Path Attributes, "attribute escape". This document further describes some of the scenarios that leads to this behavior and makes recommendations on practices that may limit its impact. Orange Juniper Networks, Inc. Nokia RFC 5492 advertises the capabilities of the BGP peer. When the BGP peer is not the same as the BGP Next-Hop, it is useful to also be able to advertise the capability of the BGP Next-Hop, in particular to advertise forwarding plane features. This document defines a mechanism to advertise such BGP Next Hop dependent Capabilities. This document defines a new BGP non-transitive attribute to carry Next-Hop Capabilities. This attribute is guaranteed to be deleted or updated when the BGP Next Hop is changed, in order to reflect the capabilities of the new BGP Next-Hop. This document also defines a Next-Hop capability to advertise the ability to process the MPLS Entropy Label as an egress LSR for all NLRI advertised in the BGP UPDATE. It updates RFC 6790 with regard to this BGP signaling. Juniper Networks Juniper Networks 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. Individual Contributor Futurewei Technologies, Inc. Google Arrcus, Inc. Comcast This document defines a new External BGP (EBGP) peering type known as EBGP-OAD, which is used between two EBGP peers that belong to One Administrative Domain (OAD). As the Internet has grown, and as systems and networked services within enterprises have become more pervasive, many services with high availability requirements have emerged. These requirements have increased the demands on the reliability of the infrastructure on which those services rely. Various techniques have been employed to increase the availability of services deployed on the Internet. This document presents commentary and recommendations for distribution of services using anycast. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is an inter-autonomous system routing protocol designed for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) networks. BGP requires that all BGP speakers within a single autonomous system (AS) must be fully meshed. This represents a serious scaling problem that has been well documented in a number of proposals. This document describes an extension to BGP that may be used to create a confederation of autonomous systems that is represented as a single autonomous system to BGP peers external to the confederation, thereby removing the "full mesh" requirement. The intention of this extension is to aid in policy administration and reduce the management complexity of maintaining a large autonomous system. This document obsoletes RFC 3065. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document defines an Optional Parameter, called Capabilities, that is expected to facilitate the introduction of new capabilities in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) by providing graceful capability advertisement without requiring that BGP peering be terminated. This document obsoletes RFC 3392. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document discusses some existing commonly used BGP mechanisms for Autonomous System Number (ASN) migration that are not formally part of the BGP4 protocol specification. It is necessary to document these de facto standards to ensure that they are properly supported in future BGP protocol work. This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section. This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. This process is not mandatory. Authors of Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. This document obsoletes RFC 6982, advancing it to a Best Current Practice. There is a noticeable trend towards network behaviors and semantics that are specific to a particular set of requirements applied within a limited region of the Internet. Policies, default parameters, the options supported, the style of network management, and security requirements may vary between such limited regions. This document reviews examples of such limited domains (also known as controlled environments), notes emerging solutions, and includes a related taxonomy. It then briefly discusses the standardization of protocols for limited domains. Finally, it shows the need for a precise definition of "limited domain membership" and for mechanisms to allow nodes to join a domain securely and to find other members, including boundary nodes. This document is the product of the research of the authors. It has been produced through discussions and consultation within the IETF but is not the product of IETF consensus. This document defines a Border Gateway Protocol Network Layer Reachability Information (BGP NLRI) encoding format that can be used to distribute (intra-domain and inter-domain) traffic Flow Specifications for IPv4 unicast and IPv4 BGP/MPLS VPN services. This allows the routing system to propagate information regarding more specific components of the traffic aggregate defined by an IP destination prefix. It also specifies BGP Extended Community encoding formats, which can be used to propagate Traffic Filtering Actions along with the Flow Specification NLRI. Those Traffic Filtering Actions encode actions a routing system can take if the packet matches the Flow Specification. This document obsoletes both RFC 5575 and RFC 7674. This document defines a BGP path attribute known as the "Tunnel Encapsulation attribute", which can be used with BGP UPDATEs of various Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFIs) to provide information needed to create tunnels and their corresponding encapsulation headers. It provides encodings for a number of tunnel types, along with procedures for choosing between alternate tunnels and routing packets into tunnels. This document obsoletes RFC 5512, which provided an earlier definition of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute. RFC 5512 was never deployed in production. Since RFC 5566 relies on RFC 5512, it is likewise obsoleted. This document updates RFC 5640 by indicating that the Load-Balancing Block sub-TLV may be included in any Tunnel Encapsulation attribute where load balancing is desired. Comcast HPE HPE Zscaler Cisco Systems HPE Orange The BGP Next Hop Dependent Characteristics Attribute (NHC) provides a way for a BGP speaker to advertise certain characteristics of routes. In particular, it is useful to advertise forwarding plane features. This specification defines an NHC characteristic that can be used to advertise the ability to process the MPLS Entropy Label as an egress LSR for all NLRI advertised in the BGP UPDATE. It updates RFC 6790 and RFC 7447 concerning this BGP signaling. HPE HPE New H3C Technologies Nvidia BGP speakers learn their next hop addresses for NLRI in RFC 4271 in the NEXT_HOP field and in RFC 4760 in the "Network Address of Next Hop" field. Under certain circumstances, it might be desirable for a BGP speaker to know both the next hops and the next-next hops of NLRI to make optimal forwarding decisions. One such example is global load balancing (GLB) in a Clos network. Draft-ietf-idr-entropy-label defines the "Next Hop Dependent Characteristics Attribute" (NHC) which allows a BGP speaker to signal the forwarding characteristics associated with a given next hop. This document defines a new NHC characteristic, the Next-next Hop Nodes (NNHN) characteristic, which can be used to advertise the next- next hop nodes associated with a given next hop. Huawei China Unicom China Telecom Orange Huawei Huawei In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM data plane on-path telemetry techniques, in particular In-situ OAM (IOAM) and Alternate Marking. This document defines a new Characteristic to advertise the In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) capabilities. Within an IFIT domain, the IFIT capabilities advertisement from the tail node to the head node assists the head node to determine whether a particular IFIT Option type can be encapsulated in data packets. Such advertisement helps mitigating the leakage threat and facilitating the deployment of IFIT measurements on a per-service and on-demand basis. Juniper Networks Inc. Juniper Networks Inc. Juniper Networks Inc. Orange Comcast Comcast Huawei Verizon Cisco RFC7311 describes mechanism for carrying accumulated IGP cost across BGP domains however it limits to IGP-metric only. There is a need to accumulate and propagate different types of metrics as it will aid in intent-based end-to-end path across BGP domains. This document defines BGP extensions for generic metric sub-types that enable different types of metrics to be accumulated and carried in BGP. This is applicable when multiple domains exchange BGP routing information.

A Case Where a Link-Local Next Hop Could Lead to a False Positive Consider a simple BGP peering topology, with four routers, in three Autonomous Systems:

A Trivial Peering Topology B <--> C <---> D | | | | | | | +----+ +------------+ +----+ AS X AS Y AS Z ]]>

Suppose A and D support NHC. B and C do not support NHC. In this case, when A originates a route with an attached NHC, if B propagates it to C, and C updates the next hop when propagating it to D, D will follow the procedures of and will discard the NHC without further processing. However, now suppose that on the peerings between A and B, and between C and D, only link-local addresses are used. Further, suppose that A uses link-local address L as its local address on its peering with B, and C also uses the same address, L, as its local address on its peering with D. In the situation described in the previous paragraph, D would have no way of detecting that C had violated the correctness assumptions of this specification, due to the collision between its address and A's. It can be seen that since the scope of a link-local address is, of course, only the local link, the problem to be solved is restricted to knowing whether an immediate peer whose link-local address appears in the NHC is truly the originator of that NHC, or if it might be an NHC-incapable speaker that has propagated an NHC that originated elsewhere, with a colliding address. It can further be seen that if the procedures of are followed, this issue is resolved since A will attach a BGPID TLV containing its own BGP Identifier and its AS Number, X. Even if C's BGP Identifier is the same as A's, its AS Number is different, and thus D will discard the NHC without further processing.

Acknowledgements This specification derives from two earlier documents, and . The authors of the present specification thank Randy Bush, Mach Chen, Giuseppe Fioccola, Wes Hardaker, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares, Ketan Talaulikar, and Gyan Mishra for their review and comments. Thanks are also due to Eric Rosen, Jie Dong, and Robert Raszuk for their review and comments on , and to Swadesh Agrawal, Alia Atlas, Martin Djernaes, John Drake, Adrian Farrell, Keyur Patel, Toby Rees, and Ravi Singh for their review and comments on .

Contributors Nokia

wim.henderickx@nokia.com

Independent Contributor

juttaro@ieee.org