Network Working Group S. Sangli
Request for Comments: 4360 D. Tappan
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Y. Rekhter
Juniper Networks
February 2006
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
扩展社区属性
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
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.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
Abstract
摘要
This 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.
本文档描述了“扩展社区”BGP-4属性。该属性提供了标记BGP-4中携带信息的机制。这些标签可用于控制此信息的分发，或用于其他应用程序。
The Extended Community Attribute provides a mechanism for labeling information carried in BGP-4 [BGP-4]. It provides two important enhancements over the existing BGP Community Attribute [RFC1997]:
扩展社区属性提供了标记BGP-4[BGP-4]中携带的信息的机制。它提供了对现有BGP社区属性[RFC1997]的两个重要增强：
- An extended range, ensuring that communities can be assigned for a plethora of uses, without fear of overlap.
- 一个扩展的范围，确保社区可以分配给过多的用途，而不必担心重叠。
- The addition of a Type field provides structure for the community space.
- 类型字段的添加为社区空间提供了结构。
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
结构的添加允许基于将使用社区值的应用程序使用策略。例如，可以过滤掉特定类型的所有社区，或者只允许特定类型社区的某些值。它还允许用户指定一个特定的社区是否可以跨越自治系统（AS）边界传递。如果没有结构，这只能通过显式枚举来实现
all community values that will be denied or allowed and passed to BGP speakers in neighboring ASes based on the transitive property.
基于传递属性，将被拒绝或允许并传递给相邻ASE中的BGP说话者的所有社区值。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
The Extended Communities Attribute is a transitive optional BGP attribute, with the Type Code 16. The attribute consists of a set of "extended communities". All routes with the Extended Communities attribute belong to the communities listed in the attribute.
扩展社区属性是可传递的可选BGP属性，类型代码为16。该属性由一组“扩展社区”组成。具有“扩展社区”属性的所有路由都属于该属性中列出的社区。
Each Extended Community is encoded as an 8-octet quantity, as follows:
每个扩展社区编码为8个八位组，如下所示：
- Type Field : 1 or 2 octets - Value Field : Remaining octets
- 类型字段：1或2个八位字节-值字段：剩余八位字节
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type high | Type low(*) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Value |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type high | Type low(*) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Value |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(*) Present for Extended types only, used for the Value field otherwise.
（*）仅用于扩展类型，否则用于值字段。
Type Field:
类型字段：
Two classes of Type Field are introduced: Regular type and Extended type.
介绍了两类类型字段：正则类型和扩展类型。
The size of Type Field for Regular types is 1 octet, and the size of the Type Field for Extended types is 2 octets.
常规类型的类型字段大小为1个八位字节，扩展类型的类型字段大小为2个八位字节。
The value of the high-order octet of the Type Field determines if an extended community is a Regular type or an Extended type. The class of a type (Regular or Extended) is not encoded in the structure of the type itself. The class of a type is specified in the document that defines the type and the IANA registry.
类型字段的高阶八位组的值确定扩展社区是常规类型还是扩展类型。类型的类（常规或扩展）不在类型本身的结构中编码。类型的类在定义类型和IANA注册表的文档中指定。
The high-order octet of the Type Field is as shown below:
类型字段的高阶八位字节如下所示：
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I|T| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I|T| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
I - IANA authority bit
我有点权威
Value 0: IANA-assignable type using the "First Come First Serve" policy
值0:使用“先到先得”策略的IANA可分配类型
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.
使用“早期分配”字段的“策略类型”或“早期分配”字段的“策略类型”为“可分配空间”。该类型场空间的其余部分用于实验。
T - Transitive bit
T传递位
Value 0: The community is transitive across ASes
值0:社区可跨ASE传递
Value 1: The community is non-transitive across ASes
值1：社区不可跨ASE传递
Remaining 6 bits: Indicates the structure of the community
剩余6位：表示社区的结构
Value Field:
值字段：
The encoding of the Value Field is dependent on the "type" of the community as specified by the Type Field.
值字段的编码取决于类型字段指定的社区“类型”。
Two extended communities are declared equal only when all 8 octets of the community are equal.
只有当社区的所有8个八位字节相等时，才宣布两个扩展社区相等。
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.
应该枚举tuple<Type，Value>中的两个成员以指定任何社区值。根据类型字段的值解释社区的其余八位字节。
This section introduces a few extended types and defines the format of the Value Field for those types. The types introduced here provide "templates", where each template is identified by the high-order octet of the extended community Type field, and the lower-order octet (sub-type) is used to indicate a particular type of extended community.
本节介绍一些扩展类型，并定义这些类型的值字段的格式。这里介绍的类型提供“模板”，其中每个模板由扩展社区类型字段的高阶八位组标识，低阶八位组（子类型）用于指示扩展社区的特定类型。
This is an extended type with Type Field composed of 2 octets and Value Field composed of 6 octets.
这是一个扩展类型，类型字段由2个八位字节组成，值字段由6个八位字节组成。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x00 or 0x40 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x00 or 0x40 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The value of the high-order octet of this extended type is either 0x00 or 0x40. The low-order octet of this extended type is used to indicate sub-types.
此扩展类型的高阶八位组的值为0x00或0x40。此扩展类型的低阶八位组用于指示子类型。
The Value Field consists of two sub-fields:
值字段由两个子字段组成：
Global Administrator sub-field: 2 octets
全局管理员子字段：2个八位字节
This sub-field contains an Autonomous System number assigned by IANA.
此子字段包含IANA分配的自主系统编号。
Local Administrator sub-field: 4 octets
本地管理员子字段：4个八位字节
The organization identified by Autonomous System number in the Global Administrator sub-field can encode any information in this sub-field. The format and meaning of the value encoded in this sub-field should be defined by the sub-type of the community.
由全局管理员子字段中的自治系统编号标识的组织可以对该子字段中的任何信息进行编码。此子字段中编码的值的格式和含义应由社区的子类型定义。
This is an extended type with Type Field composed of 2 octets and Value Field composed of 6 octets.
这是一个扩展类型，类型字段由2个八位字节组成，值字段由6个八位字节组成。
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 | Global Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (cont.) | Local Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 | Global Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (cont.) | Local Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The value of the high-order octet of this extended type is either 0x01 or 0x41. The low-order octet of this extended type is used to indicate sub-types.
此扩展类型的高阶八位组的值为0x01或0x41。此扩展类型的低阶八位组用于指示子类型。
The Value field consists of two sub-fields:
值字段由两个子字段组成：
Global Administrator sub-field: 4 octets
全局管理员子字段：4个八位字节
This sub-field contains an IPv4 unicast address assigned by one of the Internet registries.
此子字段包含由一个Internet注册表分配的IPv4单播地址。
Local Administrator sub-field: 2 octets
本地管理员子字段：2个八位字节
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.
已在全局管理员子字段中分配IPv4地址的组织可以对此子字段中的任何信息进行编码。此子字段中编码的此值的格式和含义应由社区的子类型定义。
This is an extended type with Type Field composed of 2 octets and Value Field composed of 6 octets.
这是一个扩展类型，类型字段由2个八位字节组成，值字段由6个八位字节组成。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x03 or 0x43 | Sub-Type | Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x03 or 0x43 | Sub-Type | Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The value of the high-order octet of this extended type is either 0x03 or 0x43. The low-order octet of this extended type is used to indicate sub-types.
此扩展类型的高阶八位组的值为0x03或0x43。此扩展类型的低阶八位组用于指示子类型。
This is a generic community of extended type. The value of the sub-type that should define the Value Field is to be assigned by IANA.
这是一个扩展类型的泛型社区。应定义值字段的子类型的值将由IANA分配。
The Route Target Community identifies one or more routers that may receive a set of routes (that carry this Community) carried by BGP. This is transitive across the Autonomous System boundary.
路由目标社区标识一个或多个路由器，这些路由器可能接收BGP承载的一组路由（承载此社区）。这是跨越自治系统边界的传递。
The Route Target Community is of an extended type.
路由目标社区是扩展类型。
The value of the high-order octet of the Type field for the Route Target Community can be 0x00, 0x01, or 0x02. The value of the low-order octet of the Type field for this community is 0x02.
路由目标社区的类型字段的高阶八位组的值可以是0x00、0x01或0x02。此社区类型字段的低阶八位组值为0x02。
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.
当类型字段的高阶八位字节的值为0x00或0x02时，本地管理员子字段包含一个编号空间中的数字，该编号空间由组织管理，全局管理员子字段中的自治系统编号已由适当的机构分配给该组织。
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.
当类型字段的高阶八位字节的值为0x01时，本地管理员子字段包含一个编号空间中的数字，该编号空间由组织管理，全局管理员子字段中的IP地址已由适当的机构分配给该组织。
One possible use of the Route Target Community is specified in [RFC4364].
[RFC4364]中规定了路由目标社区的一种可能用途。
The Route Origin Community identifies one or more routers that inject a set of routes (that carry this Community) into BGP. This is transitive across the Autonomous System boundary.
Route Origin社区标识将一组路由（承载此社区）注入BGP的一个或多个路由器。这是跨越自治系统边界的传递。
The Route Origin Community is of an extended type.
路由源社区属于扩展类型。
The value of the high-order octet of the Type field for the Route Origin Community can be 0x00, 0x01, or 0x02. The value of the low-order octet of the Type field for this community is 0x03.
路由源社区的类型字段的高阶八位字节的值可以是0x00、0x01或0x02。此社区类型字段的低阶八位组值为0x03。
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.
当类型字段的高阶八位字节的值为0x00或0x02时，本地管理员子字段包含一个编号空间中的数字，该编号空间由组织管理，全局管理员子字段中的自治系统编号已由适当的机构分配给该组织。
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.
当类型字段的高阶八位字节的值为0x01时，本地管理员子字段包含一个编号空间中的数字，该编号空间由组织管理，全局管理员子字段中的IP地址已由适当的机构分配给该组织。
One possible use of the Route Origin Community is specified in [RFC4364].
[RFC4364]中规定了路线起点社区的一种可能用途。
A BGP speaker may use the Extended Communities attribute to control which routing information it accepts or distributes to its peers.
BGP演讲者可以使用Extended Communities属性来控制其接受或分发给对等方的路由信息。
The Extended Community attribute MUST NOT be used to modify the BGP best path selection algorithm in a way that leads to forwarding loops.
扩展社区属性不得用于以导致转发循环的方式修改BGP最佳路径选择算法。
A BGP speaker receiving a route that doesn't have the Extended Communities attribute MAY append this attribute to the route when propagating it to its peers.
接收到不具有扩展社区属性的路由的BGP说话人在将该路由传播到其对等方时，可能会将该属性附加到该路由。
A BGP speaker receiving a route with the Extended Communities attribute MAY modify this attribute according to the local policy.
接收到具有扩展社区属性的路由的BGP说话者可以根据本地策略修改该属性。
By default if a range of routes is to be aggregated and the resultant aggregates path attributes do not carry the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute, then the resulting aggregate should have an Extended Communities path attribute that contains the set union of all the Extended Communities from all of the aggregated routes. The default behavior could be overridden via local configuration, in which case handling the Extended Communities attribute in the presence of route aggregation becomes a matter of the local policy of the BGP speaker that performs the aggregation.
默认情况下，如果要聚合一系列路由，并且生成的聚合路径属性不包含原子聚合属性，则生成的聚合应具有扩展社区路径属性，该属性包含来自所有聚合路由的所有扩展社区的集合并集。默认行为可以通过本地配置覆盖，在这种情况下，在存在路由聚合的情况下处理扩展社区属性将成为执行聚合的BGP说话者的本地策略的问题。
If a route has a non-transitivity extended community, then before advertising the route across the Autonomous System boundary the community SHOULD be removed from the route. However, the community SHOULD NOT be removed when advertising the route across the BGP Confederation boundary.
如果路线具有非传递性扩展社区，则在跨自治系统边界宣传路线之前，应将社区从路线中移除。但是，在为跨越BGP联邦边界的路线做广告时，不应删除社区。
A route may carry both the BGP Communities attribute, as defined in [RFC1997]), and the Extended BGP Communities attribute. In this case, the BGP Communities attribute is handled as specified in [RFC1997], and the Extended BGP Communities attribute is handled as specified in this document.
一条路由可以同时包含[RFC1997]中定义的BGP Communities属性和Extended BGP Communities属性。在这种情况下，BGP Communities属性按照[RFC1997]中的规定进行处理，扩展BGP Communities属性按照本文档中的规定进行处理。
All the BGP Extended Communities contain a Type field. The IANA has created a registry entitled, "BGP Extended Communities Type". The IANA will maintain this registry.
所有BGP扩展社区都包含一个类型字段。IANA创建了一个名为“BGP扩展社区类型”的注册表。IANA将维护此注册表。
The Type could be either regular or extended. For a regular Type the IANA allocates an 8-bit value; for an extended Type the IANA allocates a 16-bit value.
类型可以是常规类型，也可以是扩展类型。对于常规类型，IANA分配8位值；对于扩展类型，IANA分配16位值。
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.
在分配扩展类型时，为常规类型分配的值不得重新用作高阶八位组的值。分配常规类型时，不得重用为扩展类型分配的高阶八位组的值。
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.
类型字段指示扩展社区是否可传递。将来对类型值赋值的请求必须指定该类型值是用于可传递的还是不可传递的扩展社区。
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].
未来分配将使用[RFC2434]中定义的标准行动流程、[RFC4020]中定义的早期IANA分配流程或[RFC2434]中定义的“先到先得”策略进行。
The following table summarizes the ranges for the assignment of Types:
下表总结了类型分配的范围：
Type Standard Action First Come
Early IANA Allocation First Served
------------------ --------------------- ------------
Type Standard Action First Come
Early IANA Allocation First Served
------------------ --------------------- ------------
regular, transitive 0x90-0xbf 0x00-x3f
规则的、可传递的0x90-0xbf 0x00-x3f
regular, non-transitive 0xd0-0xff 0x40-0x7f
常规、非传递的0xd0-0xff 0x40-0x7f
extended, transitive 0x9000-0xbfff 0x0000-0x3fff
扩展的、可传递的0x9000-0xbfff 0x0000-0x3fff
extended, non-transitive 0xd000-0xffff 0x4000-0x7fff
扩展的非传递0xd000-0xffff 0x4000-0x7fff
Assignments consist of a name and the value.
赋值由名称和值组成。
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.
常规类型的类型值0x80-0x8f和0xc0-0xcf，扩展类型的类型值0x8000-0x8fff和0xc000-0xcfff用于RFC 3692中定义的实验用途。
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.
本文件将一类扩展社区定义为两个八位组作为特定扩展社区，IANA将为其创建并维护一个名为“两个八位组作为特定扩展社区”的注册表。此类中的所有社区都是扩展类型。未来的分配将使用[RFC2434]中定义的“先到先得”政策进行。作为特定扩展社区类的两个八位组的可传递社区的类型值为0x0000-0x00ff，该类的非可传递社区的类型值为0x4000-0x40ff。赋值由名称和值组成。
This document makes the following assignments for the two-octet AS specific extended community:
本文件将两个八位字节指定为特定的扩展社区：
Name Type Value
---- ----------
two-octet AS specific Route Target 0x0002
two-octet AS specific Route Origin 0x0003
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.
本文档定义了一类称为IPv4地址特定扩展社区的扩展社区，IANA将为其创建并维护一个名为“IPv4地址特定扩展社区”的注册表。此类中的所有社区都是扩展类型。未来的分配将使用[RFC2434]中定义的“先到先得”政策进行。作为特定扩展社区类的两个八位组的可传递社区的类型值为0x0100-0x01ff，该类的非可传递社区的类型值为0x4100-0x41ff。赋值由名称和值组成。
This document makes the following assignments for the IPv4 address specific extended community:
本文档为特定于IPv4地址的扩展社区进行以下分配：
Name Type Value
---- ----------
IPv4 address specific Route Target 0x0102
IPv4 address specific Route Origin 0x0103
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.
本文档定义了一类称为不透明扩展社区的扩展社区，IANA将为其创建并维护一个名为“不透明扩展社区”的注册表。此类中的所有社区都是扩展类型。未来的分配将使用[RFC2434]中定义的“先到先得”政策进行。不透明扩展社区类的可传递社区的类型值为0x0300-0x03ff，该类的非可传递社区的类型值为0x4300-0x43ff。赋值由名称和值组成。
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.
当从上面定义的多个注册表请求分配时，可以请求从这些注册表分配相同的类型值。如果可能，IANA应满足此类请求。
This extension to BGP has similar security implications as BGP Communities [RFC1997].
BGP的此扩展与BGP社区具有类似的安全含义[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的此扩展不会改变基础安全问题。具体而言，依赖BGP中携带的信息的操作员必须具有返回信息源的可传递信任关系。指定提供这种关系的机制超出了本文档的范围。
The authors would like to thank John Hawkinson, Jeffrey Haas, Bruno Rijsman, Bill Fenner, and Alex Zinin for their suggestions and feedback.
作者要感谢约翰·霍金森、杰弗里·哈斯、布鲁诺·里斯曼、比尔·芬纳和亚历克斯·齐宁的建议和反馈。
[BGP-4] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[BGP-4]Rekhter，Y.和T.Li，“边境网关协议4（BGP-4）”，RFC 42712006年1月。
[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.
[RFC1997]Chandra，R.，Traina，P.，和T.Li，“BGP社区属性”，RFC 1997，1996年8月。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[RFC2434]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 2434，1998年10月。
[RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005.
[RFC4020]Kompella，K.和A.Zinin，“早期IANA标准轨道代码点分配”，BCP 100，RFC 4020，2005年2月。
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4364]Rosen，E.和Y.Rekhter，“BGP/MPLS IP虚拟专用网络（VPN）”，RFC 4364，2006年2月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Srihari R. Sangli Cisco Systems, Inc.
Srihari R.Sangli思科系统公司。
EMail: rsrihari@cisco.com
EMail: rsrihari@cisco.com
Dan Tappan Cisco Systems, Inc. 250 Apollo Drive Chelmsford, MA 01824
Dan Tappan Cisco Systems，Inc.马萨诸塞州切姆斯福德阿波罗大道250号01824
EMail: tappan@cisco.com
EMail: tappan@cisco.com
Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks, Inc. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks，Inc.加利福尼亚州桑尼维尔市马蒂尔达大道北1194号，邮编94089
EMail: yakov@juniper.net
EMail: yakov@juniper.net
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
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.
本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
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.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
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.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和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.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为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 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
RFC编辑器功能的资金由IETF行政支持活动（IASA）提供。