draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label-00.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label-01.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Scudder Internet Engineering Task Force J. Scudder
Internet-Draft K. Kompella Internet-Draft K. Kompella
Updates: 6790 (if approved) Juniper Networks Updates: 6790 (if approved) Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track June 23, 2014 Intended status: Standards Track July 23, 2014
Expires: December 25, 2014 Expires: January 24, 2015
Deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute Deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute
draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label-00 draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label-01
Abstract Abstract
RFC 6790 defines the BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute. RFC 6790 defines the BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute.
Regrettably, it has a bug: although RFC 6790 mandates that Entropy Regrettably, it has a bug: although RFC 6790 mandates that Entropy
Label-incapable routers must remove the attribute, in practice this Label-incapable routers must remove the attribute, in practice this
requirement can't be guaranteed to be fulfilled. This specification requirement can't be guaranteed to be fulfilled. This specification
deprecates the attribute. A forthcoming document will propose a deprecates the attribute. A forthcoming document will propose a
replacement. replacement.
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 25, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 24, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
This specification updates RFC 6790 by deprecating the version of This specification updates RFC 6790 by deprecating the version of
ELCA defined in Section 5.2 of that document. A forthcoming document ELCA defined in Section 5.2 of that document. A forthcoming document
will propose a replacement. will propose a replacement.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. IANA Considerations 2. Deprecation of ELCA
This document deprecates the ELCA path attribute. This means that
any implementation done subsequent to the publication of this
document MUST NOT generate the attribute. If received it MUST be
treated as any other unrecognized optional transitive attribute as
per [RFC4271], until and unless the code point is reused by some new
specification. (To the authors' best knowledge, there are no
implementations of ELCA at the time of writing.)
3. IANA Considerations
For the reasons given in Section 1, IANA is requested to mark For the reasons given in Section 1, IANA is requested to mark
attribute 28 in the "BGP Path Attributes" registry as "deprecated", attribute 28 in the "BGP Path Attributes" registry as "deprecated",
reference this RFC. reference this RFC.
3. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
ELCA as defined in [RFC6790] S. 5.2, has in common with other ELCA as defined in [RFC6790] S. 5.2, has in common with other
optional, transitive path attributes the property that it will be optional, transitive path attributes the property that it will be
"tunneled" through intervening routers that don't implement the "tunneled" through intervening routers that don't implement the
relevant specification. Unfortunately, as discussed elsewhere in relevant specification. Unfortunately, as discussed elsewhere in
this document, implementations of [RFC6790] S. 5.2 receiving such this document, implementations of [RFC6790] S. 5.2 receiving such
"tunneled" attributes could -- sometimes improperly -- rely on them. "tunneled" attributes could -- sometimes improperly -- rely on them.
The consequence of so doing could be a black hole in the forwarding The consequence of so doing could be a black hole in the forwarding
path for the affected routes. Whether this is a new security issue path for the affected routes. Whether this is a new security issue
or not is somewhat debatable, since to be exploited an attacker would or not is somewhat debatable, since to be exploited an attacker would
have to be part of the control plane path for the route in question, have to be part of the control plane path for the route in question,
and under those circumstances an attacker already has a panoply of and under those circumstances an attacker already has a panoply of
mischief-making tools available, as discussed in [RFC4272]. mischief-making tools available, as discussed in [RFC4272].
In any case, this document renders any real or imagined security In any case, this document renders any real or imagined security
issues with ELCA moot, by deprecating it. issues with ELCA moot, by deprecating it.
4. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Alia Atlas, Bruno Decraene, Martin Djernaes, John Drake, Thanks to Alia Atlas, Bruno Decraene, Martin Djernaes, John Drake,
Adrian Farrell, Keyur Patel, Ravi Singh and Kevin Wang for their Adrian Farrell, Keyur Patel, Ravi Singh and Kevin Wang for their
discussion of this issue. discussion of this issue.
5. References 6. References
5.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, November 2012. RFC 6790, November 2012.
5.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC
4272, January 2006. 4272, January 2006.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
John G. Scudder John G. Scudder
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/