Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) W. Kumari
Request for Comments: 7607 Google
Updates: 4271 R. Bush
Category: Standards Track Internet Initiative Japan
ISSN: 2070-1721 H. Schiller
Google
K. Patel
Cisco Systems
August 2015
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) W. Kumari
Request for Comments: 7607 Google
Updates: 4271 R. Bush
Category: Standards Track Internet Initiative Japan
ISSN: 2070-1721 H. Schiller
Google
K. Patel
Cisco Systems
August 2015
Codification of AS 0 Processing
AS 0处理的编码
Abstract
摘要
This document updates RFC 4271 and proscribes the use of Autonomous System (AS) 0 in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) OPEN, AS_PATH, AS4_PATH, AGGREGATOR, and AS4_AGGREGATOR attributes in the BGP UPDATE message.
本文档更新RFC 4271，并禁止在边界网关协议（BGP）中使用自治系统（AS）0，在BGP更新消息中使用开放的AS_路径、AS4_路径、聚合器和AS4_聚合器属性。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7607.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7607.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2015 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 Simplified 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许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Autonomous System 0 was listed in the IANA Autonomous System Number Registry as "Reserved - May be use [sic] to identify non-routed networks" ([IANA.AS_Numbers]).
IANA自治系统编号注册表中将自治系统0列为“保留-可使用[sic]标识非路由网络”（[IANA.as_编号]）。
[RFC6491] specifies that AS 0 in a Route Origin Attestation (ROA) is used to mark a prefix and all its more specific prefixes as not to be used in a routing context. This allows a resource holder to signal that a prefix (and the more specifics) should not be routed by publishing a ROA listing AS 0 as the only origin. To respond to this signal requires that BGP implementations not accept or propagate routes containing AS 0.
[RFC6491]指定路由来源证明（ROA）中的AS 0用于将前缀及其所有更具体的前缀标记为不在路由上下文中使用。这允许资源持有者通过将ROA列表发布为0作为唯一来源来发出不应路由前缀（以及更多细节）的信号。要响应此信号，要求BGP实现不接受或传播包含AS 0的路由。
No clear statement that AS 0 was proscribed could be found in any BGP specification. This document corrects this omission, most importantly in the case of the AS_PATH. This represents an update to the error handling procedures given in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of [RFC4271] by specifying the behavior in the presence of AS 0.
在任何BGP规范中都找不到禁止AS 0的明确声明。本文件纠正了这一遗漏，最重要的是在AS_路径的情况下。这表示对[RFC4271]第6.2节和第6.3节中给出的错误处理程序的更新，通过指定AS 0存在时的行为。
At least two implementations discard routes containing AS 0, and this document codifies this behavior.
至少有两个实现放弃包含为0的路由，本文档对该行为进行了编码。
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 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
A BGP speaker MUST NOT originate or propagate a route with an AS number of zero in the AS_PATH, AS4_PATH, AGGREGATOR, or AS4_AGGREGATOR attributes.
BGP扬声器不得在AS_路径、AS4_路径、聚合器或AS4_聚合器属性中发起或传播AS编号为零的路由。
An UPDATE message that contains the AS number of zero in the AS_PATH or AGGREGATOR attribute MUST be considered as malformed and be handled by the procedures specified in [RFC7606].
在AS_路径或聚合器属性中包含AS编号为零的更新消息必须视为格式错误，并由[RFC7606]中指定的过程处理。
An UPDATE message that contains the AS number of zero in the AS4_PATH or AS4_AGGREGATOR attribute MUST be considered as malformed and be handled by the procedures specified in [RFC6793].
AS4_路径或AS4_聚合器属性中包含AS编号为零的更新消息必须视为格式错误，并由[RFC6793]中指定的过程处理。
If a BGP speaker receives zero as the peer AS in an OPEN message, it MUST abort the connection and send a NOTIFICATION with Error Code "OPEN Message Error" and subcode "Bad Peer AS" (see Section 6 of [RFC4271]). A router MUST NOT initiate a connection claiming to be AS 0.
如果BGP扬声器在打开的消息中接收到零作为对等方as，则必须中止连接，并发送带有错误代码“OPEN message Error”和子代码“Bad peer as”的通知（参见[RFC4271]第6节）。路由器不得启动声称为0的连接。
Authors of future protocol extensions that carry the Autonomous System number are encouraged to keep in mind that AS 0 is reserved and to provide clear direction on how to handle AS 0.
鼓励携带自治系统号的未来协议扩展的作者记住AS 0是保留的，并就如何处理AS 0提供明确的方向。
The IANA has updated the registry for "16-bit Autonomous System Numbers" so that the entry for AS 0 is simply "Reserved".
IANA已经更新了“16位自治系统编号”的注册表，因此AS 0的条目仅为“保留”。
By allowing a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) resource holder to issue a ROA saying that AS 0 is the only valid origin for a route, we allow them to state that a particular address resource is not in use. By ensuring that all implementations that see AS 0 in a route ignore that route, we prevent a malicious party from announcing routes containing AS 0 in an attempt to hijack those resources.
通过允许资源公钥基础设施（RPKI）资源持有者发出ROA，说明0是路由的唯一有效来源，我们允许他们声明特定地址资源未被使用。通过确保所有在路由中显示为0的实现忽略该路由，我们可以防止恶意方宣布包含为0的路由以试图劫持这些资源。
In addition, by standardizing the behavior upon reception of an AS_PATH (or AS4_PATH) containing AS 0, this document makes the behavior better defined.
此外，通过标准化接收到包含AS 0的AS_路径（或AS4_路径）时的行为，本文档可以更好地定义该行为。
[IANA.AS_Numbers] IANA, "Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers>.
[IANA.AS_编号]IANA，“自主系统（AS）编号”<http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，DOI 10.17487/RFC2119，1997年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4271]Rekhter，Y.，Ed.，Li，T.，Ed.，和S.Hares，Ed.，“边境网关协议4（BGP-4）”，RFC 4271，DOI 10.17487/RFC4271，2006年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>.
[RFC6793]Vohra，Q.和E.Chen，“BGP对四个八位组自治系统（AS）数字空间的支持”，RFC 6793，DOI 10.17487/RFC6793，2012年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>.
[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
[RFC7606]Chen，E.，Ed.，Scudder，J.，Ed.，Mohapatra，P.，和K.Patel，“BGP更新消息的修订错误处理”，RFC 7606，DOI 10.17487/RFC7606，2015年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
[RFC6491] Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA", RFC 6491, DOI 10.17487/RFC6491, February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6491>.
[RFC6491]Manderson，T.，Vegoda，L.，和S.Kent，“IANA发布的资源公钥基础设施（RPKI）对象”，RFC 6491，DOI 10.17487/RFC64912012年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6491>.
Acknowledgements
致谢
The authors wish to thank Elwyn Davies, Enke Chen, Brian Dickson, Bruno Decraene, Robert Raszuk, Jakob Heitz, Danny McPherson, Chris Morrow, iLya, John Scudder, Jeff Tantsura, Daniel Ginsburg, and Susan Hares. Apologies to those we may have missed; it was not intentional.
作者希望感谢Elwyn Davies、Enke Chen、Brian Dickson、Bruno Decaene、Robert Raszuk、Jakob Heitz、Danny McPherson、Chris Morrow、iLya、John Scudder、Jeff Tantsura、Daniel Ginsburg和Susan Hares。向我们可能错过的人道歉；这不是故意的。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Warren Kumari Google 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 United States
沃伦·库马里谷歌1600圆形剧场公园道山景，加利福尼亚州94043
Email: warren@kumari.net
Email: warren@kumari.net
Randy Bush Internet Initiative Japan 5147 Crystal Springs Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 United States
兰迪·布什互联网倡议日本5147水晶泉班布里奇岛，华盛顿98110美国
Email: randy@psg.com
Email: randy@psg.com
Heather Schiller Google 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 United States
希瑟·席勒谷歌1600圆形剧场公园道山景，美国加利福尼亚州94043
Email: has@google.com
Email: has@google.com
Keyur Patel Cisco Systems 170 W. Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 United States
美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞塔斯曼大道西170号凯尔帕特尔思科系统公司，邮编95134
Email: keyupate@cisco.com
Email: keyupate@cisco.com