--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-05.txt 2015-04-20 05:14:59.013428400 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-06.txt 2015-04-20 05:14:59.033428888 -0700 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ Inter-Domain Routing A. Retana Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track R. White -Expires: April 25, 2015 Ericsson - October 22, 2014 +Expires: October 22, 2015 Ericsson + April 20, 2015 BGP Custom Decision Process - draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-05 + draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-06 Abstract The BGP specification defines a Decision Process for installation of routes into the Loc-RIB. This process takes into account an extensive series of path attributes, which can be manipulated to indicate preference for specific paths. It is cumbersome (if at all possible) for the end user to define policies that will select, after partial comparison, a path based on subjective local (domain and/or node) criteria. @@ -31,25 +31,25 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2015. + This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2015. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 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 @@ -68,20 +68,21 @@ 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Cost Community Point of Insertion Registry . . . . . 7 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B.1. Changes between the -00 and -01 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 B.2. Changes between the -01 and -02 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 B.3. Changes between the -02 and -03 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 B.4. Changes between the -03 and -04 versions. . . . . . . . . 8 B.5. Changes between the -04 and -05 versions. . . . . . . . . 9 + B.6. Changes between the -05 and -06 versions. . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction There are a number of metrics available within the BGP decision process [RFC4271] which can be used to determine the exit point for traffic, but there is no metric, or combination of metrics, which can be used to break a tie among generally equal paths. o LOCAL_PREF: The LOCAL_PREF is an absolute tie breaker near the @@ -231,21 +232,21 @@ IANA is asked to assign the type values indicated in Section 3 to the Cost Community in the BGP Opaque Extended Community registry [BGP_EXT]. Section 3 also defines a series of values to be used to indicate steps in the best path selection process that do not map directly to a path attribute. IANA is expected to maintain a registry for the Cost Community Point of Insertion values. Values 1 through 127 are to be assigned using the "Standards Action" policy or the Early - Allocation process [RFC4020]. Values 128 through 191 are to be + Allocation process [RFC7120]. Values 128 through 191 are to be assigned using the "IETF Consensus" policy. Values 192 through 254 are to be assigned using the "First Come First Served" policy. Values 0 and 255 are reserved for future use and SHOULD NOT be used. All the policies mentioned are documented in [RFC5226]. Some of the values in this new registry match the values assigned in the BGP Path Attributes registry [BGP_PAR]. It is RECOMMENDED that an effort be made to assign the same values in both tables when applicable. The table in Appendix A shows the initial allocations for the new Cost Community Point of Insertion registry. @@ -257,30 +258,30 @@ like to thank all of them! We would like to also thank Dan Tappan for the Opaque Extended Community type. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of - Standards Track Code Points", RFC 4020, February 2005. - [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. + [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code + Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014. + 9.2. Informative References [BGP_EXT] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "BGP Extended Communities", 2010, . [BGP_PAR] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "BGP Parameters", 2010, . [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway @@ -348,20 +349,24 @@ o No changes; just a refresh. B.4. Changes between the -03 and -04 versions. o Updated authors' contact information. B.5. Changes between the -04 and -05 versions. o Updated authors' contact information. +B.6. Changes between the -05 and -06 versions. + + o Updated RFC 7120 reference (from RFC 4020). + Authors' Addresses Alvaro Retana Cisco Systems, Inc. 7025 Kit Creek Rd. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA Email: aretana@cisco.com