Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       J. Snijders
Request for Comments: 8093                                           NTT
Category: Standards Track                                  February 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721
        
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       J. Snijders
Request for Comments: 8093                                           NTT
Category: Standards Track                                  February 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721

Deprecation of BGP Path Attribute Values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243

不推荐使用BGP路径属性值30、31、129、241、242和243

Abstract

摘要

This document requests IANA to mark BGP path attribute values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 as "Deprecated".

本文档要求IANA将BGP路径属性值30、31、129、241、242和243标记为“已弃用”。

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 7841.

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 7841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/rfc8093.

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/rfc8093.

Copyright Notice

版权公告

Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

版权所有（c）2017 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
   2.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
        
   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
1. Introduction
1. 介绍

It has been discovered that certain BGP Path Attribute values have been used in BGP implementations that have been deployed in the wild while not being assigned by IANA for such usage. Unregistered usage of BGP Path Attribute values can lead to deployment problems for new technologies.

已经发现，某些BGP路径属性值已在BGP实现中使用，这些BGP实现已在野外部署，但IANA未分配此类使用。未注册使用BGP路径属性值可能会导致新技术的部署问题。

The use of these unregistered values was noticed when the BGP Large Communities attribute [RFC8092] was initially assigned value 30 by IANA. It was subsequently discovered that a widely deployed BGP-4 [RFC4271] implementation had released code that used path attribute 30 and that applied a "Treat-as-withdraw" [RFC7606] strategy to routes containing a valid Large Community attribute, since it was expecting a different data structure. Because these routes were dropped, early adopters of Large Communities were unreachable from parts of the Internet. As a workaround, a new Early IANA Allocation was requested.

当IANA最初为BGP大型社区属性[RFC8092]赋值30时，注意到这些未注册值的使用。随后发现，广泛部署的BGP-4[RFC4271]实现发布了使用路径属性30的代码，并对包含有效大型社区属性的路由应用了“视为撤回”策略[RFC7606]，因为它需要不同的数据结构。由于这些路线被放弃，大型社区的早期使用者无法从互联网的某些部分接触到。作为一种解决办法，要求进行新的IANA早期分配。

The squatting of values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 has been confirmed by the involved vendors or through source code review.

值30、31、129、241、242和243的占用已由相关供应商或通过源代码审查确认。

2. IANA Considerations
2. IANA考虑

IANA has marked values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243 as "Deprecated" in the "BGP Path Attributes" subregistry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry. The marking "Deprecated" means "use is not recommended" ([IANA-GUIDELINES]).

IANA在“边界网关协议（BGP）参数”注册表下的“BGP路径属性”子区域中将值30、31、129、241、242和243标记为“已弃用”。标记“不推荐使用”表示“不推荐使用”（[IANA-GUIDELINES]）。

3. Security Considerations
3. 安全考虑

There are no meaningful security consequences arising from this registry update.

此注册表更新不会产生任何有意义的安全后果。

4. Informative References
4. 资料性引用

[IANA-GUIDELINES] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", Work in Progress, draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-18, September 2016.

[IANA-指南]Cotton，M.，Leiba，B.，和T.Narten，“在RFC中编写IANA考虑事项部分的指南”，正在进行的工作，草案-Leiba-Cotton-IANA-5226bis-18，2016年9月。

[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>.

[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, August 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8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.

[RFC8092] Heitz, J., Ed., Snijders, J., Ed., Patel, K., Bagdonas, I., and N. Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities Attribute", RFC 8092, DOI 10.17487/RFC8092, February 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8092>.

[RFC8092]Heitz，J.，Ed.，Snijders，J.，Ed.，Patel，K.，Bagdonas，I.，和N.Hilliard，“BGP大社区属性”，RFC 8092，DOI 10.17487/RFC8092，2017年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8092>.

Acknowledgements

致谢

The author would like to gratefully acknowledge Marlien Vijfhuizen who helped discover the squatting of value 30, and Nick Hilliard for editorial feedback.

作者要感谢Marlien Vijfhuizen，她帮助发现了价值30的价值观，并感谢Nick Hilliard的编辑反馈。

Author's Address

作者地址

Job Snijders NTT Communications Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 Amsterdam 1065 SZ The Netherlands

Job Snijders NTT Communications Theodorus Majofskistraat 100阿姆斯特丹1065 SZ荷兰 

   Email: job@ntt.net
        
   Email: job@ntt.net