One document matched: draft-blanchet-v6ops-routing-guidelines-01.txt
Differences from draft-blanchet-v6ops-routing-guidelines-00.txt
Network Working Group M. Blanchet
Internet-Draft Viagenie
Expires: September 6, 2006 March 5, 2006
IPv6 Routing Policies Guidelines
draft-blanchet-v6ops-routing-guidelines-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
Guidelines on how to handle IPv6 routes are needed for operators of
networks, either providers or enterprises. This document is a
followup on RFC2772 work but for the production IPv6 Internet.
RFC2772 becomes historic.
Blanchet Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Routing Policies Guidelines March 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Address Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Node-scoped Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Compatibility Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Link-scoped Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. Site-scoped Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.5. Global Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.5.1. Documentation Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5.2. 6to4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5.3. 6bone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.6. Default Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.8. Unknown addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RPSL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Document Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Blanchet Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Routing Policies Guidelines March 2006
1. Introduction
To maintain stability, efficiency and scalability of the IPv6
Internet, guidelines for routing policies are needed for operators
deploying IPv6 networks. Prior experience on IPv6 routing guidelines
on the 6bone[RFC2772], practical deployment of the IPv6 internet and
IPv6 specifications were used as input to this document.
This document first describes the different types of addresses and
then summarizes the suggested policies in RPSL.
2. Address Types
2.1. Node-scoped Unicast
The node-scoped unicast addresses[RFC3513] such as the loopback
(::1/128), the unspecified (::/128) must not be advertised in an IGP
or EGP and should be filtered out when received.
2.2. Compatibility Addresses
IPv4-mapped addresses (::FFFF:0:0/96)[RFC3513] must not be advertised
and should be filtered out.
2.3. Link-scoped Unicast
The link-scoped unicast[RFC3513] routes (fe80::/16) must not be
advertised in an IGP or EGP and should be filtered out when received.
2.4. Site-scoped Unicast
The site-scoped unicast routes (fc00::/7) may be advertised in an
IGP. It must not be advertised in an EGP connected to the global
Internet and should be filtered out when received. However, it may
be advertised in an EGP between two networks sharing a private
interconnect, but must not be advertised outside the scope of these
networks. When advertised in an EGP, these routes should be of
length /48.
2.5. Global Unicast
The global unicast routes (2000::/3)[RFC3513] may be advertised in an
IGP or EGP. A minimal EGP routing policy should filter out routes
that exceed a maximum length. Determining the maximum length of a
global Internet route is outside the scope of this document.
A finer EGP routing policy may use only the allocated address space
Blanchet Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Routing Policies Guidelines March 2006
from IANA to registry as specified in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.
This would result in better filtering since the non-allocated
prefixes will be filtered out.
An even finer EGP routing policy may use only the assigned address
space from registries to providers as available in the registry
databases. This would result in the best filtering since the non-
assigned prefixes will be filtered out. However, this requires the
synchronization of the filters with the registry databases.
2.5.1. Documentation Prefix
The 2001:0db8::/32 prefix[RFC3849] is used for documentation purposes
and must not be advertised in an IGP or EGP and should be filtered
out when received.
2.5.2. 6to4
The 6to4 prefix (2002::/16) may be advertised in an IGP or EGP, when
the site is running a 6to4 relay. However, the provider of this
service should be aware of the implications of running such
service[RFC3964], which includes some specific filtering rules for
6to4.
2.5.3. 6bone
The 6bone experimental network used some experimental allocations,
such as 5f00::/8[RFC1987] and 3ffe::/16[RFC2471] that were later
returned to IANA[RFC3701]. These prefixes should not be advertised
in an EGP unless IANA reallocates them subsequently.
2.6. Default Route
The default unicast route (::) may be advertised in an IGP. In an
EGP, it may be only advertised to the downstream but must not be
advertised in the core.
2.7. Multicast
Multicast addresses (ff00::/8)[RFC3513] have a scope in the address
field. In the multicast routing, the routes should be announced
according to the scope, similar to unicast routes. Multicast routes
must not appear in unicast routing tables.
2.8. Unknown addresses
Any non listed address above must not be advertised and should be
Blanchet Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Routing Policies Guidelines March 2006
filtered out.
3. RPSL
The Route Policy Specification Language(RPSL)[RFC4012] used in route
registries supports the policies described in this document and
should be considered to manage route policies.
The following RPSL code implements the policies described in this
document.
TBD: RPSL code to fill
4. Document Status
This document should be a BCP. This document should put RFC 2772 as
historic.
5. Security Considerations
TBD.
6. Acknowledgements
Florent Parent, Pekka Savola and Tim Chown have provided input and
suggestions to this document.
7. References
[RFC1987] Newman, P., Edwards, W., Hinden, R., Hoffman, E., Ching
Liaw, F., Lyon, T., and G. Minshall, "Ipsilon's General
Switch Management Protocol Specification Version 1.1",
RFC 1987, August 1996.
[RFC2471] Hinden, R., Fink, R., and J. Postel, "IPv6 Testing Address
Allocation", RFC 2471, December 1998.
[RFC2772] Rockell, R. and B. Fink, "6Bone Backbone Routing
Guidelines", RFC 2772, February 2000.
[RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
[RFC3701] Fink, R. and R. Hinden, "6bone (IPv6 Testing Address
Blanchet Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Routing Policies Guidelines March 2006
Allocation) Phaseout", RFC 3701, March 2004.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[RFC3964] Savola, P. and C. Patel, "Security Considerations for
6to4", RFC 3964, December 2004.
[RFC4012] Blunk, L., Damas, J., Parent, F., and A. Robachevsky,
"Routing Policy Specification Language next generation
(RPSLng)", RFC 4012, March 2005.
Blanchet Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Routing Policies Guidelines March 2006
Author's Address
Marc Blanchet
Viagenie
Email: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
Blanchet Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Routing Policies Guidelines March 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Blanchet Expires September 6, 2006 [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 02:23:39 |