Network Working Group Y. Rekhter
Request for Comments: 5701 Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track November 2009
Network Working Group Y. Rekhter
Request for Comments: 5701 Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track November 2009
IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended Community Attribute
IPv6地址特定的BGP扩展社区属性
Abstract
摘要
Current specifications of BGP Extended Communities (RFC 4360) support the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, but do not support an IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community. The lack of an IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community may be a problem when an application uses the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, and one wants to use this application in a pure IPv6 environment. This document defines a new BGP attribute, the IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community, that addresses this problem. The IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community is similar to the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, except that it carries an IPv6 address rather than an IPv4 address.
BGP扩展社区（RFC 4360）的当前规范支持IPv4地址特定的扩展社区，但不支持IPv6地址特定的扩展社区。当应用程序使用IPv4地址特定的扩展社区，并且希望在纯IPv6环境中使用此应用程序时，缺少IPv6地址特定的扩展社区可能是一个问题。本文档定义了一个新的BGP属性，即解决此问题的IPv6地址特定扩展社区。特定于IPv6地址的扩展社区与特定于IPv4地址的扩展社区类似，只是它携带的是IPv6地址而不是IPv4地址。
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
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可能没有授予IETF信托允许的权利
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 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.
在IETF标准过程之外修改此类材料。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，也不得在IETF标准流程之外创建其衍生作品，除了将其格式化以RFC形式发布或将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
Current specifications of BGP Extended Communities [RFC4360] support the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, but do not support an IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community. The lack of an IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community may be a problem when an application uses IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community and one wants to use this application in a pure IPv6 environment.
BGP扩展社区[RFC4360]的当前规范支持IPv4地址特定的扩展社区，但不支持IPv6地址特定的扩展社区。当应用程序使用IPv4地址特定的扩展社区并且希望在纯IPv6环境中使用此应用程序时，缺少IPv6地址特定的扩展社区可能是一个问题。
Because the BGP Extended Community attribute defines each BGP Extended Community as being 8 octets long, it is not possible to define the IPv6 Specific Extended Community using the existing BGP Extended Community attribute [RFC4360]. Therefore, this document defines a new BGP attribute, the IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community, that has a structure similar to the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, and thus could be used in a pure IPv6 environment as a replacement of the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community.
由于BGP扩展社区属性将每个BGP扩展社区定义为8个八位字节长，因此无法使用现有BGP扩展社区属性[RFC4360]定义特定于IPv6的扩展社区。因此，本文档定义了一个新的BGP属性，即IPv6地址特定扩展社区，其结构类似于IPv4地址特定扩展社区，因此可以在纯IPv6环境中用作IPv4地址特定扩展社区的替代品。
The IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community Attribute is a transitive, optional BGP attribute [BGP-4]. The attribute consists of a set of "IPv6 Address Specific extended communities". All routes with the IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community attribute belong to the communities listed in the attribute.
特定于IPv6地址的扩展社区属性是可传递的可选BGP属性[BGP-4]。该属性由一组“特定于IPv6地址的扩展社区”组成。具有IPv6地址特定扩展社区属性的所有路由都属于该属性中列出的社区。
Just like all other BGP Extended Communities, the IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community supports multiple sub-types.
与所有其他BGP扩展社区一样，特定于IPv6地址的扩展社区支持多种子类型。
Each IPv6 Address Specific extended community is encoded as a 20-octet quantity, as follows:
每个特定于IPv6地址的扩展社区编码为20个八位字节，如下所示：
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x00 or 0x40 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (cont.) | Local Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The first high-order octet indicates whether a particular sub-type of this community is transitive across Autonomous Systems (ASes) (0x00), or not (0x40). The second high-order octet of this extended type is used to indicate sub-types. The sub-types are the same as for the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community.
第一个高阶八位组表示该群体的特定子类型是否可跨自治系统（ASes）（0x00）传递（0x40）。此扩展类型的第二个高阶八位组用于指示子类型。子类型与IPv4地址特定扩展社区的子类型相同。
Global Administrator field: 16 octets
全局管理员字段：16个八位字节
This field contains an IPv6 unicast address assigned by one of the Internet registries.
此字段包含由一个Internet注册表分配的IPv6单播地址。
Local Administrator field: 2 octets
本地管理员字段：2个八位字节
The organization that has been assigned the IPv6 address in the Global Administrator field can encode any information in this field. The format and meaning of the value encoded in this field should be defined by the sub-type of the community.
已在全局管理员字段中分配IPv6地址的组织可以对该字段中的任何信息进行编码。此字段中编码的值的格式和含义应由社区的子类型定义。
This document defines a new BGP attribute, called the IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community (value 25).
本文档定义了一个新的BGP属性，称为IPv6地址特定扩展社区（值25）。
This document defines a class of extended communities, called the IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community, for which the IANA has created and will maintain a registry entitled "IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community". 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 IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community class are 0x0000-0x00ff; for the non-transitive communities of that class, they are 0x4000-0x40ff. Assignments consist of a name and the value.
本文档定义了一类扩展社区，称为IPv6地址特定扩展社区，IANA已为其创建并将维护一个名为“IPv6地址特定扩展社区”的注册表。未来的分配将使用[RFC5226]中定义的“先到先得”政策进行。IPv6地址特定扩展社区类的可传递社区的类型值为0x0000-0x00ff；对于该类的非传递社区，它们是0x4000-0x40ff。赋值由名称和值组成。
This document makes the following assignments for the IPv6 Address Specific extended community types:
本文档为特定于IPv6地址的扩展社区类型进行以下分配：
Name Type Value
---- --------------
IPv6 address specific Route Target 0x0002
IPv6 address specific Route Origin 0x0003
Name Type Value
---- --------------
IPv6 address specific Route Target 0x0002
IPv6 address specific Route Origin 0x0003
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可传递属性，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。
Many thanks to Michael Lundberg and Emre Ertekin for their review and comments.
非常感谢Michael Lundberg和Emre Ertekin的评论和评论。
[BGP-4] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[BGP-4]Rekhter，Y.，Ed.，Li，T.，Ed.，和S.Hares，Ed.，“边境网关协议4（BGP-4）”，RFC 42712006年1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。
[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。
Author's Address
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