Network Working Group Y. Rekhter
Request for Comments: 5668 Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track S. Sangli
Cisco Systems
D. Tappan
Consultant
October 2009
Network Working Group Y. Rekhter
Request for Comments: 5668 Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track S. Sangli
Cisco Systems
D. Tappan
Consultant
October 2009
4-Octet AS Specific BGP Extended Community
4-八位组作为特定的BGP扩展社区
Abstract
摘要
This document defines a new type of a BGP extended community, which carries a 4-octet Autonomous System (AS) number.
本文档定义了一种新型的BGP扩展社区，该社区带有4个八位组的自治系统（AS）编号。
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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2009 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括《信托法律条款》第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可文本，并且提供BSD许可中所述的代码组件时不提供任何担保。
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
本文件可能包含2008年11月10日之前发布或公开的IETF文件或IETF贡献中的材料。控制某些材料版权的人员可能未授予IETF信托允许在IETF标准流程之外修改此类材料的权利。在未从控制此类材料版权的人员处获得充分许可的情况下，不得在IETF标准流程之外修改本文件，其衍生作品可能会
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
不得在IETF标准流程之外创建，除非将其格式化以RFC形式发布，或将其翻译成英语以外的语言。
This document defines a new type of BGP extended community [RFC4360]: a 4-octet AS specific extended community. This type of extended community is similar to the 2-octet AS specific extended community, except that it can carry a 4-octet Autonomous System number.
本文档定义了一种新类型的BGP扩展社区[RFC4360]：一个4-octet作为特定的扩展社区。这种类型的扩展社区类似于2-octet作为特定的扩展社区，只是它可以携带4-octet自治系统编号。
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。
This is an extended type with a Type field comprising 2 octets and a Value field comprising 6 octets.
这是一个扩展类型，类型字段包含2个八位字节，值字段包含6个八位字节。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x02 or 0x42 | 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x02 or 0x42 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Global Administrator (cont.) | Local Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The value of the high-order octet of this extended type is either 0x02 (for transitive communities) or 0x42 (for non-transitive communities). 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0x02（对于可传递社区）或0x42（对于不可传递社区）。此扩展类型的低阶八位组用于指示子类型。
The Value field consists of 2 sub-fields:
值字段由2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 a 4-octet Autonomous System number assigned by IANA.
此子字段包含IANA分配的4个八位组的自治系统编号。
Local Administrator sub-field: 2 octets
本地管理员子字段：2个八位字节
The organization identified by the 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。
As per [RFC4893], a 2-octet Autonomous System number can be converted into a 4-octet Autonomous System number by setting the 2 high-order octets of the 4-octet field to zero.
根据[RFC4893]，通过将4-八位组字段的2个高阶八位组设置为零，可以将2-八位组自治系统编号转换为4-八位组自治系统编号。
As a consequence, at least in principle, an Autonomous System that uses a 2-octet Autonomous System number could use either 2-octet or 4-octet AS specific extended communities. This is undesirable, as both communities would be treated as different, even if they had the same Sub-Type and Local Administrator values.
因此，至少在原则上，使用2-octet自治系统编号的自治系统可以使用2-octet或4-octet作为特定的扩展社区。这是不可取的，因为两个社区将被视为不同的，即使它们具有相同的子类型和本地管理员值。
Therefore, for backward compatibility with existing deployments and to avoid inconsistencies between 2-octet and 4-octet specific extended communities, Autonomous Systems that use 2-octet Autonomous System numbers SHOULD use 2-octet AS specific extended communities rather than 4-octet AS specific extended communities.
因此，为了与现有部署向后兼容并避免2-octet和4-octet特定扩展社区之间的不一致，使用2-octet自治系统编号的自治系统应将2-octet用作特定扩展社区，而不是将4-octet用作特定扩展社区。
This document defines a class of extended communities, called 4-octet AS specific extended communities, for which the IANA has created and will maintain a registry entitled Four-octet AS Specific Extended Community. All the communities in this class are of extended Types. Future assignments are to be made using the "First Come First Served" policy defined in [RFC5226]. The Type values for the transitive communities of the 4-octet AS specific extended community class are 0x0200-0x02ff; for the non-transitive communities of that class, they are 0x4200-0x42ff. Assignments consist of a name and the value.
本文件定义了一类扩展社区，称为4-octet作为特定扩展社区，IANA已为其创建并将维护一个名为4-octet的注册表作为特定扩展社区。此类中的所有社区都是扩展类型。未来的分配将使用[RFC5226]中定义的“先到先得”政策进行。作为特定扩展社区类的4-octet的可传递社区的类型值为0x0200-0x02ff；对于该类的非传递社区，它们是0x4200-0x42ff。赋值由名称和值组成。
This document makes the following assignments for the 4-octet AS specific extended community:
本文档将4-octet作为特定的扩展社区进行以下分配：
Name Type Value
---- ----------
four-octet AS specific Route Target 0x0202
four-octet AS specific Route Origin 0x0203
Name Type Value
---- ----------
four-octet AS specific Route Target 0x0202
four-octet AS specific Route Origin 0x0203
This document does not add new security issues. All the security considerations for BGP extended communities apply here. At the time that this document was written, there were significant efforts underway to improve the security properties of BGP. For examples of documents that have been produced up to this time of publication, see [RFC4593] and [SIDR].
本文档不添加新的安全问题。BGP扩展社区的所有安全注意事项均适用于此处。在编写本文档时，为改进BGP的安全属性正在进行大量的工作。有关截至本次出版的文件示例，请参见[RFC4593]和[SIDR]。
There is a potential serious issue if a malformed, optional transitive attribute is received. This issue and the steps to avoid it are discussed in [OPT_TRANS].
如果接收到格式错误的可选传递属性，则可能存在严重问题。[OPT_TRANS]中讨论了此问题以及避免此问题的步骤。
Thanks to Bruno Decraene for his contributions to this document.
感谢Bruno DeClaene对本文件的贡献。
[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。
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，2008年5月。
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
[RFC4360]Sangli，S.，Tappan，D.和Y.Rekhter，“BGP扩展社区属性”，RFC 4360，2006年2月。
[RFC4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space", RFC 4893, May 2007.
[RFC4893]Vohra，Q.和E.Chen，“BGP支持四个八位组作为数字空间”，RFC 4893，2007年5月。
[OPT_TRANS] Scudder, J., and E. Chen, "Error Handling for Optional Transitive BGP Attributes", Work in Progress, April 2009.
[OPT_TRANS]Scudder，J.和E.Chen，“可选可传递BGP属性的错误处理”，正在进行的工作，2009年4月。
[RFC4593] Barbir, A., Murphy, S., and Y. Yang, "Generic Threats to Routing Protocols", RFC 4593, October 2006.
[RFC4593]Barbir，A.，Murphy，S.，和Y.Yang，“路由协议的一般威胁”，RFC 4593，2006年10月。
[SIDR] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing", Work in Progress, July 2009.
[SIDR]Lepinski，M.和S.Kent，“支持安全互联网路由的基础设施”，正在进行的工作，2009年7月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks, Inc. EMail: yakov@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks，Inc.电子邮件：yakov@juniper.net
Srihari R. Sangli Cisco Systems, Inc. EMail: rsrihari@cisco.com
Srihari R.Sangli Cisco Systems，Inc.电子邮件：rsrihari@cisco.com
Dan Tappan Boxborough MA EMail: Dan.Tappan@Gmail.com
Dan Tappan Boxborough MA电子邮件：Dan。Tappan@Gmail.com