From jyy at merit.edu Fri Jul 1 22:24:37 1994 From: jyy at merit.edu (Jessica Yu) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 1994 16:24:37 -0400 Subject: WE ARE ONE WEEK BEHIND SCHEDULE ALREADY FOR RIPE-81++ In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Jun 1994 15:26:47 +0200." <9406281326.AA09123@reif.ripe.net> Message-ID: <199407012024.QAA13122@merit.edu> I sent draft to merit internally that is why you have not seen it. sorry for the confusion. It will be out for you poeple to review soon. --Jessica Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 15:26:47 +0200 To: Laurent Joncheray cc: epg at merit.edu, rr-impl at ripe.net, jimi at cernvax.cern.ch, farrache at ccpnxt5.in2p3.fr From: Daniel Karrenberg Subject: Re: WE ARE ONE WEEK BEHIND SCHEDULE ALREADY FOR RIPE-81++ Return-Path: dfk at ripe.net In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 28 Jun 1994 09:10:24 EDT. <199406281310.JAA12810 at merit.edu> X-Organization: RIPE Network Coordination Centre X-Phone: +31 20 592 5065 Sender: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net > Laurent Joncheray writes: > I think Jessica sent it to you. If not i can resent it. She is on > vacation for 1 week so maybe we can wait until next week before > starting the game? > Laurent > I have seen nothing. If we want this agreed before the IETF we have to hurry! -------- Logged at Tue Jul 12 18:28:51 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Tue Jul 12 18:28:33 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 18:28:33 +0200 Subject: Latest draft of ripe-81++ Message-ID: <9407121628.AA02192@mature.ripe.net> Please find below the latest draft of ripe-81++. This has several changes which have been worked in, over the weeks following the RIPE meeting as agreed. There are still a couple of open issues for which we are waiting on input. However, these have been clearly separated (and marked) such that we can (and will) begin implementing the rest of ripe-81++. We would like to have this agreed by the next RIPE meeting at the very latest (if not sooner) to make sure implementation work can take place. If this is not done it may be next year before implementation work can begin on this. --Tony. Also note that both this and the postscript version are available from ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/drafts/ripe-81++.ps ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/drafts/ripe-81++.txt Representation of IP Routing Policies in a Routing Registry (ripe-81++) DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Tony Bates Elise Gerich Laurent Joncheray Jean-Michel Jouanigot Daniel Karrenberg Marten Terpstra Jessica Yu Document-ID: ripe-1nn Obsoletes: ripe-81 July, 1994 ABSTRACT This document is an update to the original `ripe- 81'[1] proposal for representing and storing routing polices within the RIPE database. It incorporates several extensions proposed by Merit Inc.[2] and gives details of a generalised IP routing policy representa- tion to be used by all Internet routing registries. It acts as both tutorial and provides details of database objects and attributes that use and make up a routing registry. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 2 - Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................ ? 2 Organisation of this Document ............................... ? 3 General Representation of Policy Information ................ ? 4 The Routing Registry and the RIPE Database .................. ? 5 The Route Object ............................................ ? 6 The Autonomous System Object ................................ ? 7 The AS Macro Object ......................................... ? 8 The Community Object ........................................ ? 9 Representation of Routing Policies .......................... ? 10 Future Extensions .......................................... ? 11 References ................................................. ? 12 Authors Addresses .......................................... ? Appendix A - Syntax for the "aut-num" object .................. ? Appendix B - Syntax for the "community" object ................ ? Appendix C - Syntax for the "as-macro" object ................. ? Appendix D - Syntax for the "route" object .................... ? Appendix E - List of reserved words ........................... ? Appendix F - Motivations for RIPE-81++ ........................ ? Appendix G - Transition strategy from RIPE-81 to RIPE-81++ .... ? ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 3 - 1. Introduction This document is a much revised version of the RIPE routing registry document known as ripe-81[1]. Since its inception in February, 1993 and the establishment of the RIPE routing registry, several addi- tions and clarifications have come to light which can be better presented in a single updated document rather than separate addenda. Some of the text remains the same the as the original ripe-81 docu- ment keeping its tutorial style mixed with details of the RIPE data- base objects relating to routing policy representation. However this document does not repeat the background and historical remarks in ripe-81. For these please refer to the original document. It should be noted that whilst this document specifically references the RIPE database and the RIPE routing registry one can easily read "Regional routing registry" in place of RIPE as this representation is certainly general and flexible enough to be used outside of the RIPE community incorporating many ideas and features from other routing registries in this update. As you can see this document has a new RIPE document identification number but can also be referred to as ripe-81++. Appendix F summar- ises the changes from ripe-81 plus the motivation for these changes. We would like to acknowledge many people for help with this docu- ment. Specifically, Peter Lothberg who was a co-author of the ori- ginal ripe-81 document for his many ideas and Gilles Farrache. We would also like to thank the RIPE routing working group for their review and comment. Finally, we like to thank Merit Inc. for many constructive comments and ideas and making the routing registry a worldwide Internet service. We would also like to acknowledge the funding provided by the PRIDE project run in conjunction with the RARE Technical Program, RIPE and the RIPE NCC without which this paper would not have been possible. 2. Organisation of this Paper This paper acts as both a basic tutorial for understanding routing policy and provides details of objects and attributes used within an Internet routing registry to store routing policies. Section 3 describes general issues about IP routing policies and their representation in routing registries. Experienced readers may wish to skip this section. Section 4 provides an overview of the RIPE database, its basic concepts, schema and objects which make up the database itself. It highlights the way in which the RIPE database splits routing information from allocation information. Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 detail all the objects associated with routing policy representation. Section 9 gives a fairly extensive "walk through" of how these objects are used for expressing routing policy and the general principles behind their use. Section 10 provides a list of references used throughout this document. Appendix A, B, C and D document the formal syntax for the database objects and attributes. Appendix F details the main changes from ripe-81 and motivations for these changes. Appendix G tackles the issues of transition from ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 4 - ripe-81 to ripe-81++. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 5 - 3. General Representation of Policy Information Networks, Network Operators and Autonomous Systems Throughout this document an effort is made to be consistent with terms so as not to confuse the reader. When we talk about "networks" we mean physical networks which have a unique classless IP network number: Layer 3 entities. We do not mean organisations. We call the organisations operating networks "network operators". For the sake of the examples we divide network operators into two categories: "service providers" and "customers". A "service pro- vider" is a network operator who operates a network to provide Internet services to different organisations, its "customers". The distinction between service providers and customers is not clear cut. A national research networking organisation frequently acts as a service provider to Universities and other academic organisations, but in most cases it buys international connectivity from another service provider. A University networking department is a customer of the research networking organisation but in turn may regard University departments as its customers. An Autonomous System (AS) is a group of IP networks having a single clearly defined routing policy which is run by one or more network operators. Inside ASes IP packets are routed using one or more Inte- rior Routing Protocols (IGPs). In most cases interior routing deci- sions are based on metrics derived from technical parameters like topology, link speeds and load(1). ASes exchange routing information with other ASes using Exterior Routing Protocols (EGPs). Exterior routing decisions are frequently based on policy based rules rather than purely on technical parame- ters. Tools are needed to configure complex policies and to commun- icate those policies between ASes while still ensuring proper opera- tion of the Internet as a whole. Some EGPs like BGP-3 [8] and BGP-4 [9] provide tools to filter routing information according to policy rules and more. None of them provides a mechanism to publish or com- municate the policies themselves. Yet this is critical for opera- tional coordination and fault isolation among network operators and thus for the operation of the global Internet as a whole. This document describes a "Routing Registry" providing this functional- ity. _________________________ (1) The entity we refer to as an AS is frequently and more generally called a routing domain with the AS just being an implementation vehicle. We have decided to use the term AS exclusively because it relates more direct- ly with the database objects and routing tools. By us- ing only one term we hope to reduce the number of con- cepts and to avoid confusion. The academically inclined reader may forgive us. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 6 - Routing Policies The exchange of routing information between ASes is subject to rout- ing policies. Consider the case of two ASes, X and Y exchanging routing information: NET1 ...... ASX <---> ASY ....... NET2 ASX knows how to reach a network called NET1. It does not matter whether NET1 is belonging to ASX or some other AS which exchanges routing information with ASX either directly or indirectly; we just assume that ASX knows how to direct packets towards NET1. Likewise ASY knows how to reach NET2. In order for traffic from NET2 to NET1 to flow between ASX and ASY, ASX has to announce NET1 to ASY using an external routing protocol. This states that ASX is willing to accept traffic directed to NET1 from ASY. Policy thus comes into play first in the decision of ASX to announce NET1 to ASY. In addition ASY has to accept this routing information and use it. It is ASY's privilege to either use or disregard the information that ASX is willing to accept traffic for NET1. ASY might decide not to use this information if it does not want to send traffic to NET1 at all or if it considers another route more appropriate to reach NET1. So in order for traffic in the direction of NET1 to flow between ASX and ASY, ASX must announce it to ASY and ASY must accept it from ASX: resulting packet flow towards NET1 <<=================================== | | announce NET1 | accept NET1 --------------> + -------------> | AS X | AS Y | <------------- + <-------------- accept NET2 | announce NET2 | | resulting packet flow towards NET2 ===================================>> Ideally, and seldom practically, the announcement and acceptance policies of ASX and ASY are identical. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 7 - In order for traffic towards NET2 to flow, announcement and accep- tance of NET2 must be in place the other way round. For almost all applications connectivity in just one direction is not useful at all. It is important to realise that with current destination based for- warding technology routing policies must eventually be expressed in these terms. It is relatively easy to formulate reasonable policies in very general terms which CANNOT be expressed in terms of announc- ing and accepting networks. With current technology such policies are almost always impossible to implement. Usually policies are not configured for each network separately but for groups of networks. In practise these groups are almost always defined by the networks forming one or more ASes. Routing Policy limitations The generic example of a reasonable but un-implementable routing is a split of already joined packet streams based on something other than destination address. Once traffic for the same destination network passes the same router, or the same AS at our level of abstraction, it will take exactly the same route to the destina- tion(2). In a concrete example AS Z might be connected to the outside world by two links. AS Z wishes to reserve these links for different kinds of traffic, let's call them black and white traffic. For this purpose the management of AS Z keeps two lists of ASes, the black and the white list. Together these lists comprise all ASes in the world reachable from AS Z. "W" <---> ... AS Z .... NET 3 <---> "B" It is quite possible to implement the policy for traffic originating in AS Z: AS Z will only accept announcements for networks in white ASes on the white link and will only accept announcements for net- works in black ASes on the black link. This causes traffic from networks within AS Z towards white ASes to use the white link and likewise traffic for black ASes to use the black link. Note that this way of implementing things makes it necessary to decide on the colour of each new AS which appears before traffic can be sent to it from AS Z. A way around this would be to accept only _________________________ (2) Disregarding special cases like "type of service" routing, load sharing and routing instabilities. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 8 - white announcements via the white link and to accept all but white announcements on the black link. That way traffic from new ASes would automatically be sent down the black link and AS Z management would only need to keep the list of white ASes rather than two lists. Now for the unimplementable part of the policy. This concerns traffic towards AS Z. Consider the following topology: B AS ---) "W" W AS ---) ---> B AS ---)>> AS A ---> ... AS Z .... NET 3 B AS ---) ---> W AS ---) "B" As seen from AS Z there are both black and white ASes "behind" AS A. Since ASes can make routing decisions based on destination only, AS A and all ASes between AS A and the two links connecting AS Z can only make the same decision for traffic directed at a network in AS Z, say NET 3. This means that traffic from both black and white ASes towards NET 3 will follow the same route once it passes through AS A. This will either be the black or the white route depending on the routing policies of AS A and all ASes between it and AS Z. The important thing to note is that unless routing and forwarding decisions can be made based on both source and destination addresses, policies like the "black and white" example cannot be implemented in general because "once joined means joined forever". Access Policies Access policies contrary to routing policies are not necessarily defined in terms of ASes. The very simplest type of access policy is to block packets from a specific network S from being forwarded to another network D. A common example is when some inappropriate use of resources on network D has been made from network S and the prob- lem has not been resolved yet. Other examples of access policies might be resources only accessible to networks belonging to a par- ticular disciplinary group or community of interest. While most of these policies are better implemented at the host or application level, network level access policies do exist and are a source of connectivity problems which are sometimes hard to diagnose. There- fore they should also be documented in the routing registry accord- ing to similar requirements as outlined above. Routing v Allocation information The RIPE database contains both routing registry and address space allocation registry information. In the past the database schema combined this information. Because RIPE was tasked with running both an allocation and routing registry it seemed natural to initially ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 9 - combine these functions. However, experience has shown that a clear separation of routing information from allocation is desirable. Often the maintainer of the routing information is not the same as the maintainer of the allocation information. Also, in other parts of the world there are different registries for each kind of infor- mation. Whilst the actual routing policy objects will be introduced in the next section it is worthy of note that a transition from the current objects will be required. This is described with in Appendix G. This split in information represents a significant change in the representational model of the RIPE database. Appendix F expands on the reasons for this a little more. Tools The network operators will need a series of tools for policy rout- ing. Some tools are already available to perform some of the tasks. Most notably, the PRIDE tools [3] from the PRIDE project started in September 1993 as well as others produced by Merit Inc [4] and CERN [5]. These tools will enable them to use the routing policy stored in the RIPE routing registry to perform such tasks as check actual routing against policies defined, ensure consistency of policies set by dif- ferent operators, and simulate the effects of policy changes. Work continues on producing more useful tools to service the Inter- net community. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 10 - 4. The Routing Registry and the RIPE Database One of the activities of RIPE is to maintain a database of Euro- pean IP networks, DNS domains and their contact persons along with various other kinds of network management information. The database content is public and can be queried using the whois protocol as well as retrieved as a whole. This supports NICs/NOCs all over Europe and beyond to perform their respective tasks. The RIPE database combines both allocation registry and routing registry functions. The RIPE allocation registry contains data about address space allocated to specific enterprises and/or delegated to local registries as well as data about the domain name space. The allocation registry is described in separate documents [6,7] and outside the scope of this document. Database Objects Each object in the database describes a single entity in the real world. This basic principle means that information about that entity should only be represented in the corresponding data- base object and not be repeated in other objects. The whois ser- vice can automatically display referenced objects where appropriate. The types of objects stored in the RIPE database are summarised in the table below: R Object Describes References ____________________________________________________________________ B person contact persons A inetnum IP address space person A domain DNS domain person R aut-num autonomous system person (aut-num,community) R as-macro a group of autonomous systems person, aut-num R community community person R route a route being announced aut-num, community R clns CLNS address space and routing person The first column indicates whether the object is part of the alloca- tion registry (A), the routing registry (R) or both (B). The last column indicates the types of objects referenced by the particular type of object. It can be seen that almost all objects reference contact persons. Objects are described by attributes value pairs, one per line. Objects are separated by empty lines. An attribute that consists ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 11 - of multiple lines should have the attribute name repeated on consecutive lines. The information stored about network 192.87.45.0 consists of three objects, one network object and two person objects and looks like this: inetnum: 192.87.45.0 netname: RIPE-NCC descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre descr: Amsterdam, Netherlands country: NL admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Marten Terpstra rev-srv: ns.ripe.net rev-srv: ns.eu.net notify: ops at ripe.net changed: tony at ripe.net 940110 source: RIPE person: Daniel Karrenberg address: RIPE Network Coordination Centre (NCC) address: Kruislaan 409 address: NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam address: Netherlands phone: +31 20 592 5065 fax-no: +31 20 592 5090 e-mail: dfk at ripe.net nic-hdl: DK58 changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920826 source: RIPE person: Marten Terpstra address: RIPE Network Coordination Centre (NCC) address: PRIDE Project address: Kruislaan 409 address: NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam address: Netherlands phone: +31 20 592 5064 fax-no: +31 20 592 5090 e-mail: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net nic-hdl: MT2 notify: marten at ripe.net changed: marten at ripe.net 931230 source: RIPE Objects are stored and retrieved in this tag/value format. The RIPE NCC does not provide differently formatted reports because any desired format can easily be produced from this generic one. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 12 - Routing Registry Objects The main objects comprising the routing registry are "aut-num" and "route", describing an autonomous system and a route respectively. It should be noted that routes not described in the routing registry should never be routed in the Internet itself. The autonomous system (aut-num) object provides contact information for the AS and describes the routing policy of that AS. The routing policy is described by enumerating all neighbouring ASes with which routing information is exchanged. For each neighbour the routing policy is described in terms of exactly what is being sent (announced) and allowed in (accepted). It is important to note that this is exactly the part of the global policy over which an AS has direct control. Thus each aut-num object describes what can indeed be implemented and enforced locally by the AS concerned. Combined together all the aut-num objects provide the global routing graph and permit to deduce the exact routing policy between any two ASes. While the aut-num objects describe how routing information is pro- pagated, the route object describes a single route injected into the external routing mesh. The route object references the AS injecting (originating) the route and thereby indirectly provides contact information for the originating AS. This reference also provides the primary way of grouping routes into larger collections. This is necessary because describing routing policy on the level of single routes would be awkward to impractical given the number of routes in the Internet which is about 20,000 at the time of this writing. Thus routing policy is most often defined for groups of routes by originating AS. This method of grouping is well supported by current exterior routing protocols. The route object also refer- ences community objects described below to provide another method of grouping routes. Modification of aut-num object itself and the referencing by route objects is strictly protected to provide net- work operators control over the routing policy description and the routes originated by their ASes. Sometimes even keeping track of groups of routes at the AS level is cumbersome. Consider the case of policies described at the transit provider level which apply transitively to all customers of the transit provider. Therefore another level of grouping is provided by the as-macro object which provides groups of ASes which can be referenced in routing policies just like single ASes. Membership of as-macro groups is also strictly controlled. Sometimes there is a need to group routes on different criteria than ASes for purposes like statistics or local access policies. This is provided by the community object. A community object is much like an AS but without a routing policy. It just describes a group of routes. This is not supported at all by exterior routing protocols and depending on aggregation of routes may not be generally usable to define routing policies. It is suitable for local policies and non-routing related purposes. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 13 - These routing related objects will be described in detail in the sections below. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 14 - 5. The Route Object As stated in the previous chapter routing and address space alloca- tion information are now clearly separated. This is performed with the introduction of the route object. The route object will contain all the information regarding a routing announcement. All routing related attributes are removed from the inetnum object. Some old attributes are obsoleted: connect, routpr-l, bdryg-l, nsf- in, nsf-out, gateway). The currently useful routing attributes are moved to the route object: aut-sys becomes origin, ias-int will be encoded as part of the "to be proposed" `border-router' object and comm-list simply moves. See [6] for detail of the "inetnum" object definition. The information in the old inetnum object inetnum: 192.87.45.0 netname: RIPE-NCC descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre descr: Amsterdam, Netherlands country: NL admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Marten Terpstra connect: RIPE NSF WCW aut-sys: AS3333 comm-list: SURFNET ias-int: 192.87.45.80 AS1104 ias-int: 192.87.45.6 AS2122 ias-int: 192.87.45.254 AS2600 rev-srv: ns.ripe.net rev-srv: ns.eu.net notify: ops at ripe.net changed: tony at ripe.net 940110 source: RIPE will be distributed over two objects: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 15 - inetnum: 192.87.45.0 netname: RIPE-NCC descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre descr: Amsterdam, Netherlands country: NL admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Marten Terpstra rev-srv: ns.ripe.net rev-srv: ns.eu.net notify: ops at ripe.net changed: tony at ripe.net 940110 source: RIPE route: 192.87.45.0/24 descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre origin: AS3333 comm-list: SURFNET changed: dfk at ripe.net 940427 source: RIPE The route object is used to represent a single route originated into the Internet routing mesh. The actual syntax is given in Appendix D. However, there are several important aspects of the attributes worthy of note. The value of the route attribute will be a classless address. It represents the exact route being injected into the routing mesh. The representation of classless addresses is described in [10]. The value of the origin attribute will be an AS reference of the form AS1234 referring to an aut-num object. It represents the AS injecting this route into the routing mesh. The "aut-num" object (see below) thus referenced provides all the contact information for this route. Special cases: There can only be a single originating AS in each route object. However in todays Internet sometimes a route is injected by more than one AS. This situation is potentially dangerous as it can create conflicting routing policies for that route and requires coordination between the originating ASes. In the routing registry this is represented by multiple route objects. This is a departure from the one route (net), one AS principle of the ripe-81 routing registry. The consequences for the different tools based in the routing registry will need to be evaluated and possibly additional consistency checking of the database is needed. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 16 - The examples below will illustrate the usage of the route object further. Suppose three chunks of address space of 2 different enterprises represented by the following inetnum objects: Examples inetnum: 193.0.1.0 netname: ENT-1 descr: Enterprise 1 ... inetnum: 193.0.8.0 netname: ENT-2 descr: Enterprise 2 ... inetnum: 193.0.9.0 netname: ENT-2-SPEC descr: Enterprise 2 ... Supposing that the Enterprises have their own AS numbers straight application of routing without aggregation would yield: route: 193.0.1.0/24 descr: Enterprise 1 origin: AS1 ... route: 193.0.8.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 ... route: 193.0.9.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 ... NB: This representation can be achieved by straight translation from the ripe-81 representation. See Appendix G for more details. Homogeneous Aggregation The two chunks of address space of Enterprise 2 can be represented by one aggregate route turning two route objects into one and poten- tially saving routing table space for one route. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 17 - route: 193.0.8.0/23 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 ... Note that AS2 can also decide to originate all routes mentioned so far, two 24-bit prefixes and one 23-bit prefix. This case would be represented by storing all three route objects in the database. In this particular example the additional routes will not add any func- tionality however and only increase the amount of routes announced unnecessarily. Heterogeneous Aggregation Consider the following case however: route: 193.0.8.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 ... route: 193.0.9.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 / Special origin: AS2 comm-list: SPECIAL ... Now the prefix 193.0.9.0/24 belongs to community SPECIAL (this com- munity may well not be relevant to routing) and the other prefix originated by AS2 does not. If AS2 aggregates these prefixes into the 193.0.8.0/23 prefix, routing policies based on the community value SPECIAL cannot be implemented in general, because there is no way to distinguish between the special and the not-so-special parts of AS2. If another AS has the policy to accept only routes to members of community SPECIAL it cannot implement it, because accept- ing the route to 193.0.8.0/23 would also route to 193.0.8.0/24 and not accepting this route would lose connectivity to the special part 193.0.9.0/24. We call aggregate routes consisting of components belonging to different communities or even different ASes "hetero- geneous aggregates". The problems introduced with heterogeneous aggregates are that once the homogeneous routes are withdrawn one cannot tell if a more specific part of the heterogeneous has a different policy. However, if can be counter argued that knowing this policy is of little use if you cannot implement a routing policy based on the less specific (and only route present) heterogeneous aggregate. In fact, this displays a facet of CIDR itself in that one may actually compromise slight variations on policy over announcing a larger (albeit ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 18 - heterogeneous in terms of policy) aggregate to save address space. However, it is still useful to be able to document these variations in policy especially when this homogeneous more specific route is just being withdrawn. For this one can use the "withdrawn" attri- bute. The withdrawn attribute can serve to both indicate that a less specific aggregate is in fact heterogeneous and also allow the gen- eral documenting of route withdrawal. So there has to be a way for AS2 to document this even if it does not originate the route to 193.0.9.0/24 any more. This can be done with the "withdrawn" attribute of the route object. The aggregate route to 193.0.8.0/23 is now be registered as: route: 193.0.8.0/23 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 ... With the two homogeneous routes marked as withdrawn from the Inter- net routing mesh but still preserving their original routing infor- mation. route: 193.0.8.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 withdrawn: 940701 ... route: 193.0.9.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 / Special origin: AS2 comm-list: SPECIAL withdrawn: 940701 ... It should be noted that the date value used in the withdrawn attri- bute can only be in the past. Proxy Aggregation The next step of aggregation are aggregates consisting of more than one AS. This generally means one AS is aggregating on behalf of another. It is called proxy aggregation. Proxy aggregation should be done with great care and always coordinates with other providers announcing the same route. Consider the following: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 19 - route: 193.0.0.0/20 descr: All routes known by AS1 in a single package origin: AS1 ... route: 193.0.1.0/24 descr: Foo origin: AS1 withdrawn: 940310 ... route: 193.0.8.0/24 descr: Bar origin: AS2 withdrawn: 940310 ... route: 193.0.9.0/24 descr: Bar-2 origin: AS2 withdrawn: 940310 comm-list: SPECIAL ... If AS1 announced no other routes to a single homed neighbouring AS, that neighbour can in general either take that route or leave it but not differentiate between AS1 and AS2. Note: If the neighbor was previously configured to accept routes originating in AS2 but not in AS1 they lose connectivity to AS2 as well. This means that proxy aggregation has to be done carefully and in a well coordinated fashion. The information in the withdrawn route object can help to achieve that. Aggregates with Holes If we assume that the world of our example still consists of only three chunks of address space the aggregate above contains what are called holes, parts of an aggregate that are not reachable via the originator of the route. From the routing information itself one cannot tell whether these are holes and what part of the route falls inside one. The only way to tell is to send a packet there and see ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 20 - whether it gets to the destination, or an ICMP message is received back, or there is silence. On the other hand announcing aggregates with holes is quite legitimate. Consider a 16-bit aggregate with only one 24-bit prefix unreachable. The savings in routing table size by far outweigh the hole problem. For operational reasons however it is very useful to register these holes in the routing registry. Consider the case where a remote net- work operator experiences connectivity problems to addresses inside an aggregate route. If the packets are getting to the AS announcing the aggregate and there are no more specific routes, the normal cause of action is to get in touch with the originating AS of the aggregate route and ask them to fix the problem. If the address falls into a hole this is futile. Therefore problem diagnosis can be sped up and unnecessary calls prevented by registering the holes in the routing registry. We do this by using the "hole" attribute. In our example the representation would be: route: 193.0.0.0/20 descr: All routes known by AS1 origin: AS1 hole: 193.0.0.0/24 hole: 193.0.2.0/23 hole: 193.0.4.0/22 hole: 193.0.10.0/23 hole: 193.0.12.0/22 ... Note: there would also be two routes with the withdrawn attribute as displayed above (i.e. 193.0.8.0/24 and 193.0.9.0/24) Multiple Proxy Aggregation Finally suppose that AS2 decides to announce the same aggregate, they would add the following route object to the registry: route: 193.0.0.0/20 descr: All routes known by AS2 origin: AS2 hole: 193.0.0.0/24 hole: 193.0.2.0/23 hole: 193.0.4.0/22 hole: 193.0.10.0/23 hole: 193.0.12.0/22 ... As per the update procedures below both AS1 and AS2 will be notified that there already is a route to the same prefix in the registry. This multiple proxy aggregation is very dangerous to do if the sub- ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 21 - aggregates of the route are not the same. It is still dangerous when the sub-aggregates are consistent but connectivity to the sub- aggregates varies widely between the originators. Route object update procedures Adding a route object will be have to be authorised by the guardian of the originating AS. The actual implementation of this is outside the scope of this document. This guarantees that an AS guardian has full control over the registration of the routes it announces. What is an Inter-AS network ? An inter-AS network(3) exists for the purpose of passing traffic and routing information between different autonomous systems. The most simple example of an inter-AS network is a point-to-point link, con- necting exactly two ASes. Each end of such a link is connected to an interface of router belonging to each of the autonomous systems. More complex examples are broadcast type networks with multiple interfaces connecting multiple ASes with the possibility of more than one connection per AS. Consider the following example of three routers 1, 2 and 3 with interfaces a through f connected by two inter-AS networks X and Y: X Y a1b --- c2d --- e3f Suppose that network X is registered in the routing registry as part of AS1 and net Y as part of AS3. If traffic passes from left to right prtraceroute will report the following sequence of interfaces and ASes: a in AS1 c in AS1 e in AS3 The traceroute algorithm enumerates only the receiving interfaces on the way to the destination. In the example this leads to the pas- sage of AS2 going unnoticed. This is confusing to the user and will also generate exceptions when the path found is checked against the routing registry. _________________________ (3) Inter-AS IP networks are those networks are currently called FIXes, IXFs, DMZs, NAPs, GIX and many other acronyms. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 22 - For operational monitoring tools such as prtraceroute it is neces- sary to know which interface on an inter-AS network belongs to which AS. If AS information is not known about interfaces on an inter-AS network, tools like prtraceroute cannot determine correctly which ASes are being traversed. All interfaces on inter-AS networks will be described in a separate object know as the `border-router' object. This is still to be defined. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 23 - 6. The Autonomous System Object Autonomous Systems An Autonomous System (AS) is a group of IP networks run by one or more network operators which has a single and clearly defined rout- ing policy. An AS has a unique number associated with it which is used both in exchange of exterior routing information and as an identifier of the AS itself. Exterior routing protocols such as BGP and EGP are used to exchange routing information between ASes. In routing terms an AS will normally use one or more interior gate- way protocols (IGPs) in conjunction with some sort of common agreed metrics when exchanging network information within its own AS. The term AS is often confused or even misused as a convenient way of grouping together a set of networks which belong under the same administrative umbrella even if within that group of networks there are various different routing policies. We provide the "community" concept for such use. ASes can strictly have only one single rout- ing policy. The creation of an AS should be done in a conscious and well coordi- nated manner to avoid creating ASes for the sake of it, perhaps resulting in the worst case scenario of one AS per routing announce- ment. It should be noted that there is a limited number of AS numbers available. Also creating an AS may well increase the number of AS paths modern EGPs will have to keep track of. This aggravates what is known as "the routing table growth problem". This may mean that by applying the general rules for the creation and allocation of an AS below, some re-engineering may well be needed. However, this may be the only way to actually implement the desired routing policy anyway. The creation and allocation of an AS should be done with the following recommendations in mind: o Creation of an AS is only required when exchanging routing information with other ASes. Some router implementations make use of an AS number as a form of tagging to identify the rout- ing process. However, it should be noted that this tag does not need to be unique unless routing information is indeed exchanged with other ASes. o For a simple case of customer networks connected to a single service provider, the IP network should normally be a member of the service providers AS. In terms of routing policy the IP network has exactly the same policy as the service provider and there is no need to make any distinction in routing informa- tion. This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it highlights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 24 - as a representation of routing policy as opposed to some form of administrative use. o If a network operator connects to more than one AS with dif- ferent routing policies then they need to create their own AS. In the case of multi-homed customer networks connected to two service providers there are at least two different routing pol- icies to a given customer network. At this point the customer networks will be part of a single AS and this AS would be dis- tinct from either of the service providers ASes. This allows the customer the ability of having a different representation of policy and preference to the different service providers. This is the ONLY case where a network operator should create its own AS number. o As a general rule one should always try to populate the AS with as many routes as possible, providing all routes conform to the same routing policy. Each AS is represented in the RIPE database by both an AS object and the route objects representing the routes originated by the AS. The AS object stores descriptive, administrative and contact information about the AS as well as the routing policies of the AS in relation to all neighbouring ASes. The origin attributes of the route objects define the set of routes originated by the AS. Each route object can have exactly one origin attribute. Route objects can only be created and updated by the "guardian" of the AS and not by those immediately responsible for the particular routes referenced therein. This ensures that opera- tors, especially service providers, remain in control of AS routing announcements. The AS object itself is used to represent a description of adminis- trative details and the routing policies of the AS itself. The AS object definition is depicted as follows. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 25 - Example: aut-num: AS1104 descr: NIKHEF-H Autonomous system as-in: from AS1213 100 accept AS1213 as-in: from AS1913 100 accept AS1913 as-in: from AS1755 150 accept ANY as-out: to AS1213 announce ANY as-out: to AS1913 announce ANY as-out: to AS1755 announce AS1104 AS1913 AS1213 tech-c: Rob Blokzijl admin-c: Eric Wassenaar guardian: as-guardian at nikhef.nl changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920910 source: RIPE See Appendix A for a complete syntax definition of the "aut-num" object. It should be noted that this representation provides two things: o a set of routes. o a description of administrative details and routing policies. The set of routes can be used to generate network list based confi- guration information as well as configuration information for exte- rior routing protocols knowing about ASes. This means an AS can be defined and is useful even if it does not use routing protocols which know about the AS concept. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 26 - Description of local connections between ASes - "interas- in/interas-out". Often two ASes will have more than one physical connection between them. In practice certain local policies my be placed on these inter-AS connections as agreed by the two ASes. If we look at the simple example below. Example: LINK1 +----------+ |a b| AS1------AS2 AS3-----AS4 |c d| +----------+ LINK2 It may be that AS2 prefers to get to AS3 on LINK1 (a and b being the interface addresses of this link) and to AS4 on LINK2 (c and d being the interface addresses of this link) with LINK2 as a backup for AS3. Whilst this is purely of local information and at the AS level will have no significance per se to any other ASes except AS2 and AS3 this may be useful to represent. The way this is done is by using the attributes "interas-in" and "interas-out". The exact syn- tax is given in Appendix A. However, if we follow this example through in terms of AS2 we would represent this policy as follows: Example: SYNTAX TO BE PROPOSED BY MERIT Here we see additional local link based information in terms of the IP addresses of the link (in this example represented by a and b and c and d respectively). It should be noted that the preference on interas-in attributes is only of relevance to other interas-in lines and not to as-in lines. Of course this type on inter-AS policy should always be bilaterally agreed to avoid asymmetry and in prac- tice there may need to be corresponding interas-in attributes in the policy representation of AS3. It should also be noted that there are no interas-out attributes defined. In this case the general policy is assumed. The key difference between interas-in/interas-out and as-in/as-in attributes is the former describes a local inter-AS policy and the latter the general inter-AS policy as seen by other ASes. The gen- eral policy should always be defined. The local inter-AS policy should only be defined when such a policy really exists and the ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 27 - implications of setting such policies is fully understood. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 28 - How to describe the exclusion policy of a certain AS - "as-exclude" Some ASes have a routing policy based on the exclusion of certain routes if for whatever reason a certain AS is used as transit. Whilst, this is in general not good practice as it makes implicit assumptions on topology with asymmetry a possible outcome if not coordinated, this case needs to be accommodated within the routing policy representation. The way this is achieved is by making use of the "as-exclude" attri- bute. The precise syntax of this attribute can be found in Appendix A along with the rest of the defined syntax for the "aut-num" object. However, some explanation of the use of this attribute is useful. If we have the following example topology. Example: AS4--------AS3 | | | | | | AS1--------AS2--------AS5 With a simple corresponding policy like so: Example: aut-num: AS1 as-in: from AS2 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 as-exclude: exclude AS4 to ANY .... We see an interesting policy. What this says in simple terms is AS1 doesn't want to reach anything if it transit AS4. This can be a per- fectly valid policy. However, it should be realised that for what- ever reason AS2 decides to route to AS3 via AS4 then immediately AS1 has no connectivity to AS3 or if AS1 is running default to AS2 pack- ets from AS1 will still flow via AS4. The important point about this is that whilst AS1 can advise its neighbours of its policy it has no direct control on how it can enforce this policy to neighbours upstream. Another interesting scenario to highlight the unexpected result of using such an "as-exclude" policy. If we assume in the above example AS2 preferred AS4 to reach AS3 and AS1 did not use default routing then as stated AS1 would have no connectivity to AS3. Now lets sup- pose that for example the link between AS2 and AS4 went down for some reason. Like so: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 29 - Example: AS4--------AS3 | | AS1--------AS2--------AS5 Suddenly AS1 now has connectivity to AS3. This unexpected behavior should be considered when created policies based on the "as-exclude" attribute. The second problem with this type of policy is the potential of asymmetry. In the original example we saw the correct policy from AS1's point of view but if ASes with connectivity through AS4 do not use a similar policy you have asymmetric traffic and policy. If an AS uses such a policy they must be aware of the consequences of its use. Namely that the specified routes which transit the AS (i.e. routing announcements with this AS in the AS path information) in question will be excluded. If not coordinated this can easily cause asymmetry or even worse loss of connectivity to unknown ASes behind (or in front for that matter) the transit AS in question. With this in mind this attribute can only be viewed as a form of advisory to other service providers. However, this does not preclude its use with policy based tools if the attribute exists. By having the ability to specify a route keyword based on any of the four notations given in the syntax it allows the receiving AS to specify what routes it wishes to exclude through a given transit AS to a network granularity. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 30 - 7. AS Macros It may be difficult to keep track of each and every new AS that is represented in the routing registry. A convenient way around this is to define an `AS Macro' which essentially is a convenient way to group ASes. This is done so that each and every AS guardian does not have to add a new AS to it's routing policy as described by the as- in and as-out attributes of it's AS object. However, it should be noted that this creates an implicit trust on the guardian of the AS-Macro. An AS-Macro can be used in for the "as-in" and "as-out" attributes in the aut-num object. The AS-Macro object is then used to derive the list or group of ASes. A simple example would be something like: Example: aut-num: AS786 as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS-EBONE AND NOT AS1104 as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS-EBONE AND NOT AS1104 as-out to AS1755 announce AS786 ..... Where the as-macro object for AS-EBONE is as follows: as-macro: AS-EBONE descr: ASes routed by EBONE as-list: AS2121 AS1104 AS2600 AS2122 as-list: AS1103 AS1755 AS2043 guardian: guardian at ebone.net ...... So the policy would be evaluated to: aut-num: AS786 as-in: from AS1755 100 accept (AS2121 OR AS1104 OR AS2600 OR AS2122 as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS1103 OR AS1755 OR AS2043) AND NOT AS1104 ...... It should be noted that the above examples incorporates the rule for line wrapping as defined in Appendix A for policy lines. See Appen- dix C for a definition on the AS-Macro syntax. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 31 - 8. The Community Object A community is a group of routes that cannot be represented by an AS or a group of ASes. It is in some circumstances useful to define a group of routes that have something in common. This could be a spe- cial access policy to a supercomputer centre, a group of routes used for a specific mission, or a disciplinary group that is scattered among several autonomous systems. Also these communities could be useful to group routes for the purpose of network statistics. Communities do not exchange routing information, since they do not represent an autonomous system. More specifically, communities do not define routing policies, but access or usage policies. However, they can de used as in conjunction with an ASes routing policy to define a set of routes the AS sets routing policy for. Communities should be defined in a strict manner, to avoid creating as many communities as there are routes, or even worse. Communities should be defined following the two rules below; o Communities must have a global meaning. Communities that have no global meaning, are used only in a local environment and should be avoided. o Communities must not be defined to express non-local policies. It should be avoided that a community is created because some other organisation forces a policy upon your organisation. Communities must only be defined to express a policy defined by your organisation. Community examples There are some clear examples of communities: BACKBONE - all customers of a given backbone service provider even though they can have various different routing policies and hence belong to different ASes. This would be extremely useful for statistics collection. HEPNET - the High Energy Physics community partly shares infrastructure with other organisations, and the institutes it consists of are scattered all over Europe, often being part of a non HEPNET autonomous system. To allow statistics, access or part of a routing policy , a community HEPNET, consisting of all routes that are part of HEPNET, conveniently groups all these routes. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 32 - NSFNET - the National Science Foundation Network imposes an acceptable use policy on routes that wish to make use of it. A community NSFNET could imply the set of routes that comply with this pol- icy. MULTI - a large multinational corporation that does not have its own internal infrastructure, but connects to the various parts of its organisations by using local service providers that connect them all together, may decide to define a community to restrict access to their networks, only by networks that are part of this community. This way a corporate network could be defined on shared infrastructure. Also, this community could be used by any of the service providers to do statistics for the whole of the corporation, for instance to do topology or bandwidth plan- ning. Similar to Autonomous systems, each community is represented in the RIPE database by both a community object and community tags on the route objects representing the routes belonging to the community. The community object stores descriptive, administrative and contact information about the community. The community tags on the route objects define the set of routes belonging to a community. A route can have multiple community tags. The community tags can only be created and updated by the "guardian" of the community and not by those directly responsible for the par- ticular network. This ensures that guardians remain in control of community membership. Here's an example of how this might be represented in terms of the community tags within the network object. We have an example where the route 192.16.199.0/24 has a single routing policy (i.e. that of AS 1104), but is part of several different communities of interest. We use the tag "comm-list" to represent the list of communities associated with this route. NIKHEF-H uses the service provider SURFNET (a service provider with customers with more than one rout- ing policy), is also part of the High Energy Physics community as well as having the ability to access the Supercomputer at CERN(4). _________________________ (4) The community `CERN-SUPER', is somewhat national, but is intended as an example of a possible use of an access policy constraint. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 33 - Example: route: 192.16.199.0/24 descr: Local Ethernet descr: NIKHEF section H origin: AS1104 comm-list: HEPNET CERN-SUPER SURFNET changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920604 source: RIPE In the above examples some communities have been defined. The com- munity object itself will take the following format: Example: community: SURFNET descr: Dutch academic research network authority: SURFnet B.V. guardian: comm-guardian at surfnet.nl admin-c: Erik-Jan Bos tech-c: Erik-Jan Bos changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920604 source: RIPE For a complete explanation of the syntax please refer to Appendix B. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 34 - 9. Representation of Routing Policies Routing policies of an AS are represented in the autonomous system object. Initially we show some examples, so the reader is familiar with the concept of how routing information is represented, used and derived. Refer to Appendix A, for the full syntax of the "aut-num" object. The topology of routing exchanges is represented by listing how routing information is exchanged with each neighbouring AS. This is done separately for both incoming and outgoing routing information. In order to provide backup and back door paths a relative cost is associated with incoming routing information. Example 1: AS1------AS2 This specifies a simple routing exchange of two presumably isolated ASes. Even if either of them has routing information about routes in ASes other than AS1 and AS2, none of that will be announced to the other. aut-num: AS1 as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 aut-num: AS2 as-out: to AS1 announce AS2 as-in: from AS1 100 accept AS1 The number 100 in the in-bound specifications is a relative cost, which is used for backup and back door routes. The absolute value is of no significance. The relation between different values within the same AS object is. A lower value means a lower cost. This is cons- ciously similar to the cost based preference scheme used with DNS MX RRs. Example 2: Now suppose that AS2 is connected to one more AS, besides AS1, and let's call that AS3: AS1------AS2------AS3 ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 35 - In this case there are two reasonable routing policies: a) AS2 just wants to exchange traffic with both AS1 and AS3 itself without passing traffic between AS1 and AS3. b) AS2 is willing to pass traffic between AS3 and AS1, thus acting as a transit AS Example 2a: In the first case AS1's representation in the routing registry will remain unchanged as will be the part of AS2's representation describing the routing exchange with AS1. A description of the addi- tional routing exchange with AS3 will be added to AS2's representa- tion: aut-num: AS1 as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 aut-num: AS2 as-out: to AS1 announce AS2 as-in: from AS1 100 accept AS1 as-out: to AS3 announce AS2 as-in: from AS3 100 accept AS3 aut-num: AS3 as-out: to AS2 announce AS3 as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 Note that in this example, AS2 keeps full control over its resources. Even if AS3 and AS1 were to allow each others routes in from AS2, the routing information would not flow because AS2 is not announcing it(5). Example 2b: If contrary to the previous case, AS1 and AS3 are supposed to have connectivity to each other via AS2, all AS objects have to change: _________________________ (5) Of course AS1 and AS3 could just send traffic to each other to AS2 even without AS2 announcing the routes, hoping that AS2 will forward it correctly. Such questionable practices however are beyond the scope of this document. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 36 - aut-num: AS1 as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 AS3 aut-num: AS2 as-out: to AS1 announce AS2 AS3 as-in: from AS1 100 accept AS1 as-out: to AS3 announce AS2 AS1 as-in: from AS3 100 accept AS3 aut-num: AS3 as-out: to AS2 announce AS3 as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS1 AS2 Note that the amount of routing information exchanged with a neigh- bour AS is defined in terms of routes belonging to ASes. In BGP terms this is the AS where the routing information originates and the originating AS information carried in BGP could be used to implement the desired policy. However, using BGP or the BGP AS-path information is not required to implement the policies thus speci- fied. Configurations based on route lists can easily be generated from the database. The AS path information, provided by BGP can then be used as an additional checking tool as desired. The specification understands one special expression and this can be expressed as a boolean expressions: ANY - means any routing information known. For output this means that all routes an AS knows about are announced. For input it means that anything is accepted from the neighbour AS. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 37 - Example 3: AS4 is a stub customer AS, which only talks to service provider AS123. | | -----AS123------AS4 | | aut-num: AS4 as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce ANY Since AS4 has no other way to reach the outside world than AS123 it is not strictly necessary for AS123 to send routing information to AS4. AS4 can simply send all traffic for which it has no explicit routing information to AS123 by default. This strategy is called default routing. It is expressed in the routing registry by adding one or more default tags to the autonomous system which uses this strategy. In the example above this would look like: aut-num: AS4 as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 default: AS123 100 aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 38 - Example 4: AS4 now connects to a different operator, AS5. AS5 uses AS123 for outside connectivity but has itself no direct connection to AS123. AS5 traffic to and from AS123 thus has to pass AS4. AS4 agrees to act as a transit AS for this traffic. | | -----AS123------AS4-------AS5 | | aut-num: AS4 as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 AS5 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS5 announce ANY as-in: from AS5 50 accept AS5 aut-num: AS5 as-in: from AS4 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS4 announce AS5 aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 AS5 as-out: to AS4 announce ANY Now AS4 has two sources of external routing information. AS5 which provides only information about its own routes and AS123 which pro- vides information about the external world. Note that AS4 accepts information about AS5 from both AS123 and AS5 although AS5 informa- tion cannot come from AS123 since AS5 is connected only via AS4 itself. The lower cost of 50 for the announcement from AS5 itself compared to 100 from AS123 ensures that AS5 is still believed even in case AS123 will unexpectedly announce AS5. In this example too, default routing can be used by AS5 much like in the previous example. AS4 can also use default routing towards AS123: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 39 - aut-num: AS4 as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 AS5 default: AS123 11 as-in: from AS5 50 accept AS5 Note no announcements to AS5, they default to us. aut-num: AS5 as-out: to AS4 announce AS5 default: AS4 100 aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 100 announce AS4 AS5 Note that the relative cost associated with default routing is totally separate from the relative cost associated with in-bound announcements. The default route will never be taken if an explicit route is known to the destination. Thus an explicit route can never have a higher cost than the default route. The relative cost asso- ciated with the default route is only useful in those cases where one wants to configure multiple default routes for redundancy. Note also that in this example the configuration using default routes has a subtly different behavior than the one with explicit routes: In case the AS4-AS5 link fails AS4 will send traffic to AS5 to AS123 when using the default configuration. Normally this makes not much difference as there will be no answer and thus little traffic. With certain datagram applications which do not require acknowledgments however, significant amounts of traffic may be use- lessly directed at AS123. Similarly default routing should not be used if there are stringent security policies which proscribe any traffic intended for AS5 to ever touch AS123. Generally it can be said that default routing should only be used in very simple topologies. Once the situation gets more complex using default routes can lead to unexpected results or even defeat the routing policies established when links fail. As an example consider how Example 5a) below could be implemented using default routing. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 40 - Example 5: In a different example AS4 has a private connection to AS6 which in turn is connected to the service provider AS123: | | -----AS123------AS4 | | | | | | AS6 ---------+ There are a number of policies worth examining in this case: a) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves exclusively via the private link between themselves; such traffic should never pass through the backbone (AS123). The link should never be used for transit traffic, i.e. traffic not both originating in and destined for AS4 and AS6. b) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves via the private link between themselves. Should the link fail, traffic between AS4 and AS6 should be routed via AS123. The link should never be used for transit traffic. c) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves via the private link between themselves. Should the link fail, traffic between AS4 and AS6 should be routed via AS123. Should the connection between AS4 and AS123 fail, traffic from AS4 to des- tinations behind AS123 can pass through the private link and AS6's connection to AS123. d) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves via the private link between themselves. Should the link fail, traffic between AS4 and AS6 should be routed via AS123. Should the backbone connection of either AS4 or AS6 fail, the traffic of the disconnected AS should flow via the other AS's backbone connection. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 41 - Example 5a: aut-num: AS4 as-in: from AS123 100 accept NOT AS6 as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 as-in: from AS6 50 accept AS6 as-out: to AS6 announce AS4 aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce ANY as-in: from AS6 100 accept AS6 as-out: to AS6 announce ANY aut-num: AS6 as-in: from AS123 100 accept NOT AS4 as-out: to AS123 announce AS6 as-in: from AS4 50 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce AS6 Note that here the configuration is slightly inconsistent. AS123 will announce AS6 to AS4 and AS4 to AS6. These announcements will be filtered out on the receiving end. This will implement the desired policy. Consistency checking tools might flag these cases however. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 42 - Example 5b: aut-num: AS4 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 as-in: from AS6 50 accept AS6 as-out: AS6 AS4 aut-num: AS123 as-in: AS4 100 AS4 as-out: AS4 ANY as-in: AS6 100 AS6 as-out: AS6 ANY aut-num: AS6 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS123 announce AS6 as-in: from AS4 50 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce AS6 The thing to note here is that in the ideal operational case, `all links working' AS4 will receive announcements for AS6 from both AS123 and AS6 itself. In this case the announcement from AS6 will be preferred because of its lower cost and thus the private link will be used as desired. AS6 is configured as a mirror image. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 43 - Example 5c: The new feature here is that should the connection between AS4 and AS123 fail, traffic from AS4 to destinations behind AS123 can pass through the private link and AS6's connection to AS123. aut-num: AS4 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 as-in: from AS6 50 accept AS6 as-in: from AS6 110 accept ANY as-out: to AS6 AS4 aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 1 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce ANY as-in: from AS6 1 accept AS6 as-in: from AS6 2 accept AS4 as-out: to AS6 announce ANY aut-num: AS6 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS123 AS6 announce AS4 as-in: from AS4 50 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce ANY Note that it is important to make sure to propagate routing informa- tion for both directions in backup situations like this. Connec- tivity in just one direction is not useful at all for almost all applications. Note also that in case the AS6-AS123 connection breaks, AS6 will only be able to talk to AS4. The symmetrical case (5d) is left as an exercise to the reader. 10. Future Extensions We envision that over time the requirements for describing routing policy will evolve. The routing protocols will evolve to support the requirements and the routing policy description syntax will need to evolve as well. For that purpose, a separate document will describe experimental syntax definitions for policy description. This docu- ment will be updated when new objects or attributes are proposed or modified. Two new attributes of the AS object which are proposed and supported by the Merit Routing Registry are as-transit and db-selector. as-transit describes the transit preferences of an AS. It allows an AS to describe its path preference in order to reach certain ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 44 - destinations. The AS(s) specified in the path preference may or may not be an immediate neighbor of the AS defined in the AS object. as-transit accommodates policy decisions involving AS path whereas as-in and as-out do not. It is not unusual for ASs to have routing policies which involve path selection based on AS. Emerging proto- cols like SDRP [13] will allow an AS to choose a path independent of a neighboring ASs path choice. as-transit permits descriptions based on AS path selection. The DataBase Selector (db-selector) function allows one to take advantage of information registered in other Registries. It permits the selection of networks in a database based on their attributes. It is proposed to be used within the as-in/as-out attribute family to make the description of policy concise. For example, if an AS has the policy of not accepting any routes from country XYZ, the AS can use the db-selector to check a database which has a network and country attribute and relate that information to the information in the routing registry. The advantage of referencing another database is that the routing registry will avoid duplicating the information maintained in other information registries. Detailed examples and syntax are described in document ???? [14]. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 45 - 11. References [1] Bates, T., Jouanigot, J-M., Karrenberg, D., Lothberg, P., Terpstra, M., "Representation of IP Routing Policies in the RIPE Database", RIPE-81, February 1993. [2] Merit Network Inc.,"Representation of Complex Routing Policies of an Autonomous System", DRAFT, March, 1994. [3] PRIDE Tools Release 1. See ftp.ripe.net:pride/tools/pride-tools-1.tar.Z. [4] Merit Inc. RRDB Tools. See rrdb.merit.edu:pub/meritrr/* [5] The Network List Compiler. See dxcoms.cern.ch:pub/ripe-routing-wg/nlc-2.2d.tar [6] Lord, A., Terpstra, M., "RIPE Database Template for Networks and Persons", DRAFT, May 1994. [7] Karrenberg, D., "RIPE Database Template for Domains", RIPE-49, April 1992. [8] Lougheed, K., Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP- 3)", RFC1267, October 1991. [9] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", INTERNET-DRAFT, draft-ietf-bgp-bgp4-10.txt, May 1994. [10] Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., Terpstra, M., "Support for Classless Internet Addresses in the RIPE Database", DRAFT, May 1994. [11] Karrenberg, D., "Authorisation and Notification of Changes in the RIPE Database", RIPE-96, October 1993. [12] Bates, T., "Support of Guarded fields within the RIPE Data- base", ripe-108, February 1994. [13] Estrin, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., Varadhan, K., "Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and Forwarding Specification (Version 1)", INTERNET-DRAFT, draft-ietf-sdr-sdrp-04.txt, March 1994. [14] ?????, "Experimental Objects and attributes for the Routing Registry, ???, ????. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 46 - 12. Author's Addresses Tony Bates RARE/PRIDE Project c/o RIPE Network Coordination Centre Kruislaan 409 NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam The Netherlands +31 20 592 5064 T.Bates at ripe.net Elise Gerich The University of Michigan Merit Computer Network 1075 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA +1 313 936 2120 epg at merit.edu Laurent Joncheray The University of Michigan Merit Computer Network 1075 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA +1 313 936 2065 lpj at merit.edu Jean-Michel Jouanigot CERN, European Laboratory for Particle Physics CH-1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland +41 22 767 4417 Jean-Michel.Jouanigot at cern.ch Daniel Karrenberg RIPE Network Coordination Centre Kruislaan 409 NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam The Netherlands +31 20 592 5065 D.Karrenberg at ripe.net ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 47 - Marten Terpstra PRIDE Project c/o RIPE Network Coordination Centre Kruislaan 409 NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam The Netherlands +31 20 592 5064 M.Terpstra at ripe.net Jessica Yu The University of Michigan Merit Computer Network 1075 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA +1 313 936 2655 jyy at merit.edu ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 48 - Appendix A - Syntax for the aut-num object. Here is a summary of the tags associated with aut-num object itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the aut-num object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. aut-num: [mandatory] [single] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] as-in: [optional] [multiple] as-out: [optional] [multiple] interas-in: [optional] [multiple] interas-out: [optional] [multiple] as-exclude: [optional] [multiple] default: [optional] [multiple] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] guardian: [mandatory] [single] remarks: [optional] [multiple] notify: [optional] [multiple] maintainer: [optional] [single] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] source: [mandatory] [single] Each attribute has the following syntax: aut-num: The autonomous system number. This must be a uniquely allo- cated autonomous system number from an AS registry (i.e. the RIPE NCC, the Inter-NIC, etc). Format: AS Example: aut-num: AS1104 Status: mandatory, only one line allowed descr: A short description of the Autonomous System. Format: free text Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed as-in: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 49 - Example: descr: NIKHEF section H descr: Science Park Watergraafsmeer descr: Amsterdam A description of accepted routing information between AS peers. Format: from accept The keywords from and accept are optional and can be omit- ted. refers to your AS neighbour. is a positive integer used to express a relative cost of routes learned. The lower the cost the more pre- ferred the route. can take the following for- mats. 1. A list of one or more ASes, AS Macros, Communities or Network Lists. A Network List is a list of network numbers in prefix length format, separated by commas, and surrounded by curly brackets. Examples: as-in: from AS1103 100 accept AS1103 as-in: from AS786 105 accept AS1103 as-in: from AS786 10 accept AS786 HEPNET as-in: from AS1755 110 accept AS1103 AS786 as-in: from AS3333 100 accept {192.87.45.0/16, 128.141.0.0/16} 2. A set of KEYWORDS. The following KEYWORD is currently defined: ANY this means anything the neighbour AS knows. 3. A logical expression of either 1 or 2 above The current logical operators are defined as: AND OR NOT ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 50 - NOTE: if no logical operator is given between ASes, AS-macros, Communities, Network Lists and KEYWORDS it is implicitly evaluated as an `OR' operation. The OR can be left out for conciseness. Rules are grouped together using parenthesis i.e "(" and ")". Example: as-in: from AS1755 100 accept ANY AND NOT (AS1234 OR AS513) as-in: from AS1755 150 accept AS1234 OR {35.0.0.0/8} A rule can be wrapped over lines providing the associated , values and from and accept keywords are repeated and occur on con- secutive lines. Example: as-in: from AS1755 100 accept ANY AND NOT (AS1234 AS513) and as-in: from AS1755 100 accept ANY AND NOT ( as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS1234 AS513) are evaluated to the same result. Please note that the ordering of these continuing lines matters. Status: optional, multiple lines allowed as-out: A description of generated routing information sent to other AS peers. Format: to announce refers to your AS neighbour. is explained in the as-in attribute definition above. Example: as-out: to AS1104 announce AS978 as-out: to AS1755 announce ANY as-out: to AS786 announce ANY AND NOT (AS978) Status: optional, multiple lines allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 51 - interas-in: STILL TO BE PROPOSED BY MERIT Status: optional, multiple lines allowed interas-out: STILL TO BE PROPOSED BY MERIT Status: optional, multiple lines allowed as-exclude: A list of transit ASes to ignore all routes from. Format: exclude to Keywords exclude and to are optional and can again be omitted. refers to the transit AS in question. an can be ONE of the following. 1. 2. AS macro 3. Community 4. ANY Examples: as-exclude: exclude AS690 to HEPNET This means exclude any HEPNET routes which have a route via AS690. as-exclude: exclude AS1800 to AS-EUNET This means exclude any AS-EUNET routes which have a route via AS1800. as-exclude: exclude AS1755 to AS1104 This means exclude any AS1104 route which have a route via AS1755. as-exclude: exclude AS1104 to ANY This means exclude all routes which have a route via ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 52 - AS1104. Status: optional, multiple lines allowed default: An indication of how default routing is done. Format: where is the AS peer you will default route to, and is the relative cost is a positive integer used to express a preference for default. There is no relationship to the cost used in the as-in tag. The AS peer with the lowest cost is used for default over ones with higher costs. is optional and provides information on how a default route is selected. It can take the fol- lowing formats: 1. static. This indicates that a default is statically configured to this AS peer. 2. A network list with the syntax as described in the as-in attribute. This indicates that this list of routes is used to generate a default route. A special but valid value in this is the special route used by some routing protocols to indicate default: 0.0.0.0/0 3. default. This is the same as {0.0.0.0/0}. This means that the routing protocol between these two peers generates a true default. Examples: default: AS1755 10 default: AS786 5 {140.222.0.0/16, 192.87.45.0/24} default: AS2043 15 default Status: optional, multiple lines allowed tech-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of a technical con- tact person. This is someone to be contacted for technical problems such as misconfiguration. Format: or Example: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 53 - tech-c: John E Doe tech-c: JED31 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed admin-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative contact person. In many cases this would be the name of the guardian. Format: or Example: admin-c: Joe T Bloggs admin-c: JTB1 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed guardian: Mailbox of the guardian of the Autonomous system. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain format wherever possible. Example: guardian: as1104-guardian at nikhef.nl Status: mandatory, only one line and e-mail address allowed remarks: Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. Format: free text Example: remarks: Multihomed AS talking to AS1755 and AS786 remarks: Will soon connect to AS1104 also. Status: optional, multiple lines allowed notify: The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- cations of changes to this object should be sent. See also [11]. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 54 - Format: The should be in RFC822 domain syntax wherever possible. Example: notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Status: optional, multiple lines allowed maintainer: The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. See also [11]. Format: Example: maintainer: RIPE-DBM Status: optional, multiple lines allowed changed: Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. Format: YYMMDD should be the address of the person who made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change was made. Example: changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed source: Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries the value is fixed to RIPE. Format: RIPE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 55 - Appendix B - Syntax details for the community object. Here is a summary of the tags associated with community object itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the commun- ity object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. community: [mandatory] [single] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] authority: [mandatory] [single] guardian: [mandatory] [single] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] remarks: [optional] [multiple] notify: [optional] [multiple] maintainer: [optional] [single] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] source: [mandatory] [single] Each attribute has the following syntax: community: Name of the community. The name of the community should be descriptive of the community it describes. Format: Upper case text string which cannot start with "AS" or any of the KEYWORDS. See Appendix A. Example: community: WCW Status: mandatory, only one line allowed descr: A short description of the community represented. Format: free text Example: descr: Science Park Watergraafsmeer descr: Amsterdam Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 56 - authority: The formal authority for this community. This could be an organisation, institute, committee, etc. Format: free text Example: authority: WCW LAN Committee Status: mandatory, only one line allowed guardian: Mailbox of the guardian of the community. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain format wherever possible. Example: guardian: wcw-guardian at nikhef.nl Status: mandatory, only one line and email address allowed tech-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an technical con- tact person for this community. Format: or Example: tech-c: John E Doe tech-c: JED31 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed admin-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative contact person. In many cases this would be the name of the guardian. Format: or Example: admin-c: Joe T Bloggs admin-c: JTB1 ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 57 - Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed remarks: Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. Format: free text Example: remarks: Temporary community remarks: Will be removed after split into ASes Status: optional, multiple lines allowed notify: The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- cations of changes to this object should be send. See also [11]. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain syntax wherever possible. Example: notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Status: optional, multiple lines allowed maintainer: The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. See also [11]. Format: Example: maintainer: RIPE-DBM Status: optional, multiple lines allowed changed: Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. Format: YYMMDD should be the address of the person who made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change was made. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 58 - Example: changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed source: Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries the value is fixed to RIPE. Format: RIPE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 59 - Appendix C - AS Macros syntax definition. Here is a summary of the tags associated with as-macro object itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the as-macro object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. as-macro: [mandatory] [single] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] as-list: [mandatory] [multiple] guardian: [mandatory] [single] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] remarks: [optional] [multiple] notify: [optional] [multiple] maintainer: [optional] [single] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] source: [mandatory] [single] Each attribute has the following syntax: as-macro: The name of a macro containing at least two Autonomous Systems grouped together for ease of administration. Format: AS- The should be in upper case and not contain any special characters. Example: as-macro: AS-EBONE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed descr: A short description of the Autonomous System Macro. Format: free text Example: descr: Macro for EBONE connected ASes Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 60 - as-list: The list of ASes that make up this macro. Format: ... See Appendix A for definition. Example: as-list: AS786 AS513 AS1104 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed guardian: Mailbox of the guardian of this AS macro. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain format wherever possible. Example: guardian: as-ebone-guardian at ebone.net Status: mandatory, only one line and e-mail address allowed tech-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of a technical con- tact person for this macro. This is someone to be contacted for technical problems such as misconfiguration. Format: or Examples: tech-c: John E Doe tech-c: JED31 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed admin-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative contact person. In many cases this would be the name of the guardian. Format: or Examples: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 61 - admin-c: Joe T Bloggs admin-c: JTB1 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed remarks: Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. Format: free text Example: remarks: AS321 will be removed from this Macro shortly Status: optional, multiple lines allowed notify: The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- cations of changes to this object should be send. See also [11]. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain syntax wherever possible. Example: notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Status: optional, multiple lines allowed maintainer: The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. See also [11]. Format: Example: maintainer: RIPE-DBM Status: optional, multiple lines allowed changed: Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. Format: YYMMDD ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 62 - should be the address of the person who made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change was made. Example: changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed source: Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries the value is fixed to RIPE. Format: RIPE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 63 - Appendix D - Syntax for the "route" object. There is a summary of the tags associated with community object itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the commun- ity object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. route: [mandatory] [single] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] origin: [mandatory] [single] hole: [optional] [multiple] withdrawn: [optional] [multiple] comm-list: [optional] [multiple] remarks: [optional] [multiple] notify: [optional] [multiple] maintainer: [optional] [single] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] source: [mandatory] [single] Each attribute has the following syntax: route: Route being announced. Format: Classless representation of a route with the RIPE database known as the "prefix length" representation. See [10] for more details on classless representations. Examples: route: 192.87.45.0/24 This represents addressable bits 192.87.45.0 to 192.87.45.255. route: 192.1.128.0/17 This represents addressable bits 192.1.128.0 to 192.1.255.255. Status: mandatory, only one line allowed origin: The autonomous system announcing this route. Format: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 64 - See appendix A for syntax. Example: origin: AS1104 Status: mandatory, only one line allowed hole: Denote the parts of the address space covered this route object to which the originator does not provide connectivity. Format: Classless representation of a route with the RIPE database known as the "prefix length" representation. See [10] for more details on classless representations. It should be noted that is sub-aggregate must be a component of that registered in the route object. Example: hole: 193.0.4.0/24 Status: optional, multiple lines allowed withdrawn: Used to denote the day this route has been withdrawn from the Internet routing mesh. It should be noted that this date cannot be in the future. Format: YYMMDD YYMMDD denotes the date this route was withdrawn. Example: withdrawn: 940711 Status: optional, multiple lines allowed comm-list: List of one or more communities this route is part of. Format: ... See Appendix B for definition. Example: comm-list: HEP LEP Status: optional, multiple lines allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 65 - remarks: Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. Format: free text Example: remarks: Multihomed AS talking to AS1755 and AS786 remarks: Will soon connect to AS1104 also. Status: optional, multiple lines allowed notify: The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- cations of changes to this object should be send. See also [11]. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain syntax wherever possible. Example: notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Status: optional, multiple lines allowed maintainer: The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. See also [11]. Format: Example: maintainer: RIPE-DBM Status: optional, multiple lines allowed changed: Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. Format: YYMMDD should be the address of the person who made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change was made. Example: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 66 - changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed source: Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries the value is fixed to RIPE. Format: RIPE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 67 - Appendix E - List of reserved words The following list of words are reserved for use within the attri- butes of the AS object. The use of these words is solely for the purpose of clarity. All keywords must be lower case. accept announce exclude from to transit Examples of the usage of the reserved words are: as-in: from neighborAS accept route as-out: to neighborAS announce route as-exclude: exclude ASpath to destination as-transit: transit ASpath to destination default: from neighborAS accept route default: to neighborAS announce route Note: that as-transit is an experimental attribute. See section 10. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 68 - Appendix F - Motivations for RIPE-81++ This appendix gives motivations for the major changes in this propo- sal from ripe-81. (It is not complete yet). The main goals of the routing registry rework are: SPLIT Separate the allocation and routing registry functions into different database objects. This will facilitate data manage- ment if the Internet registry and routing registry functions are separated (like in other parts of the world). It will also make more clear what is part of the routing registry and who has authority to change allocation vs. routing data. CIDR Add the possibility to specify classless routes in the routing registry. Classless routes are being used in Internet produc- tion now. Aggregation information in the routing registry is necessary for network layer troubleshooting. It is also neces- sary because aggregation influences routing policies directly. CALLOC Add the possibility to allocate address space on classless boundaries in the allocation registry. This is a way to preserve address space. CLEAN To clean up some of the obsolete and unused parts of the rout- ing registry. The major changes are now discussed in turn: Introduce Classless Addresses CIDR, CALLOC Introduce route object. SPLIT, CIDR and CALLOC. Delete obsolete attributes from inetnum. CLEAN. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 69 - Delete RIPE-DB and LOCAL from routing policy expressions. CLEAN Allow multiple ASes to originate the same route Because it is being done. CIDR. Made possible by SPLIT. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 70 - Appendix G - Transition strategy from RIPE-81 to RIPE-81++ Transition from the routing registry described by ripe-81 to the routing registry described in this document is a straightforward process once the new registry functions have been implemented in the database software and are understood by the most commonly used registry tools. The routing related attributes in the classful inet- num objects of ripe-81 can be directly translated into new routing objects. Then these attributes can be deleted from the inetnum object making that object conform to the new schema. Proposed transition steps: 1) Implement classless addresses and new object definition in the database software. 2) Make common tools understand the new schema and prefer it if both old and new are present. 3) Invite everyone to convert their data to the new format. This can be encouraged by doing conversions automatically and pro- posing them to maintainers. 4) At a flag day remove all remaining routing information from the inetnum objects. Before the flag day all usage of obsoleted inetnum attributes has to cease and all other routing registry functions have to be taken over by the new objects and attri- butes. The current estimate is that point three can be reached in the Sum- mer 1994 if the draft is accepted by mid-June. The flag day should be scheduled 3-4 months after this point. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 -------- Logged at Tue Jul 12 20:04:47 MET DST 1994 --------- From lpj at merit.edu Tue Jul 12 20:04:16 1994 From: lpj at merit.edu (Laurent Joncheray) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 14:04:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Latest draft of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: <9407121628.AA02192@mature.ripe.net> from "Tony Bates" at Jul 12, 94 06:28:33 pm Message-ID: <199407121804.OAA04216@merit.edu> A few things i'd like to propose: - A route/AS name attribute. You currently use the first line of the 'desc' attribute to generate a name (with prtraceroute for instance). Having a separate name attribute can make the query of the server (whois or whatever) easier since it doesn't require any parsing. - Include the time (hour, min, second) in the "changed" attribute. This is in case of several changes in the same day. Proposed syntax (compatible with the older one): changed: YYMMDD [hh:mm:ss] [+oo] If hh:mm:ss is missing we assume 00:00:00 +00 ??? +oo if the offset from GMT. (i know, we have to deal with the time difference :-) Laurent > > Please find below the latest draft of ripe-81++. This has several > changes which have been worked in, over the weeks following the RIPE > meeting as agreed. There are still a couple of open issues for which > we are waiting on input. However, these have been clearly separated > (and marked) such that we can (and will) begin implementing the rest > of ripe-81++. > We would like to have this agreed by the next RIPE meeting at the very > latest (if not sooner) to make sure implementation work can take > place. If this is not done it may be next year before implementation > work can begin on this. > > --Tony. > > Also note that both this and the postscript version are available from > > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/drafts/ripe-81++.ps > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/drafts/ripe-81++.txt > > > > > > > > > > Representation of IP Routing Policies > > in a Routing Registry > > (ripe-81++) > > DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT > > > Tony Bates > Elise Gerich > Laurent Joncheray > Jean-Michel Jouanigot > Daniel Karrenberg > Marten Terpstra > Jessica Yu > > > Document-ID: ripe-1nn > Obsoletes: ripe-81 > > July, 1994 > > > > ABSTRACT > > This document is an update to the original `ripe- > 81'[1] proposal for representing and storing routing > polices within the RIPE database. It incorporates > several extensions proposed by Merit Inc.[2] and gives > details of a generalised IP routing policy representa- > tion to be used by all Internet routing registries. It > acts as both tutorial and provides details of database > objects and attributes that use and make up a routing > registry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 2 - > > > > > > Table of Contents > > > > > 1 Introduction ................................................ ? > > 2 Organisation of this Document ............................... ? > > 3 General Representation of Policy Information ................ ? > > 4 The Routing Registry and the RIPE Database .................. ? > > 5 The Route Object ............................................ ? > > 6 The Autonomous System Object ................................ ? > > 7 The AS Macro Object ......................................... ? > > 8 The Community Object ........................................ ? > > 9 Representation of Routing Policies .......................... ? > > 10 Future Extensions .......................................... ? > > 11 References ................................................. ? > > 12 Authors Addresses .......................................... ? > > Appendix A - Syntax for the "aut-num" object .................. ? > > Appendix B - Syntax for the "community" object ................ ? > > Appendix C - Syntax for the "as-macro" object ................. ? > > Appendix D - Syntax for the "route" object .................... ? > > Appendix E - List of reserved words ........................... ? > > Appendix F - Motivations for RIPE-81++ ........................ ? > > Appendix G - Transition strategy from RIPE-81 to RIPE-81++ .... ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 3 - > > > 1. Introduction > > This document is a much revised version of the RIPE routing registry > document known as ripe-81[1]. Since its inception in February, 1993 > and the establishment of the RIPE routing registry, several addi- > tions and clarifications have come to light which can be better > presented in a single updated document rather than separate addenda. > > Some of the text remains the same the as the original ripe-81 docu- > ment keeping its tutorial style mixed with details of the RIPE data- > base objects relating to routing policy representation. However > this document does not repeat the background and historical remarks > in ripe-81. For these please refer to the original document. It > should be noted that whilst this document specifically references > the RIPE database and the RIPE routing registry one can easily read > "Regional routing registry" in place of RIPE as this representation > is certainly general and flexible enough to be used outside of the > RIPE community incorporating many ideas and features from other > routing registries in this update. > > As you can see this document has a new RIPE document identification > number but can also be referred to as ripe-81++. Appendix F summar- > ises the changes from ripe-81 plus the motivation for these changes. > > We would like to acknowledge many people for help with this docu- > ment. Specifically, Peter Lothberg who was a co-author of the ori- > ginal ripe-81 document for his many ideas and Gilles Farrache. We > would also like to thank the RIPE routing working group for their > review and comment. Finally, we like to thank Merit Inc. for many > constructive comments and ideas and making the routing registry a > worldwide Internet service. We would also like to acknowledge the > funding provided by the PRIDE project run in conjunction with the > RARE Technical Program, RIPE and the RIPE NCC without which this > paper would not have been possible. > > 2. Organisation of this Paper > > This paper acts as both a basic tutorial for understanding routing > policy and provides details of objects and attributes used within an > Internet routing registry to store routing policies. Section 3 > describes general issues about IP routing policies and their > representation in routing registries. Experienced readers may wish > to skip this section. Section 4 provides an overview of the RIPE > database, its basic concepts, schema and objects which make up the > database itself. It highlights the way in which the RIPE database > splits routing information from allocation information. Sections 5, > 6, 7 and 8 detail all the objects associated with routing policy > representation. Section 9 gives a fairly extensive "walk through" > of how these objects are used for expressing routing policy and the > general principles behind their use. Section 10 provides a list of > references used throughout this document. Appendix A, B, C and D > document the formal syntax for the database objects and attributes. > Appendix F details the main changes from ripe-81 and motivations for > these changes. Appendix G tackles the issues of transition from > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 4 - > > > ripe-81 to ripe-81++. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 5 - > > > 3. General Representation of Policy Information > > Networks, Network Operators and Autonomous Systems > > Throughout this document an effort is made to be consistent with > terms so as not to confuse the reader. > > When we talk about "networks" we mean physical networks which have a > unique classless IP network number: Layer 3 entities. We do not mean > organisations. > > We call the organisations operating networks "network operators". > For the sake of the examples we divide network operators into two > categories: "service providers" and "customers". A "service pro- > vider" is a network operator who operates a network to provide > Internet services to different organisations, its "customers". The > distinction between service providers and customers is not clear > cut. A national research networking organisation frequently acts as > a service provider to Universities and other academic organisations, > but in most cases it buys international connectivity from another > service provider. A University networking department is a customer > of the research networking organisation but in turn may regard > University departments as its customers. > > An Autonomous System (AS) is a group of IP networks having a single > clearly defined routing policy which is run by one or more network > operators. Inside ASes IP packets are routed using one or more Inte- > rior Routing Protocols (IGPs). In most cases interior routing deci- > sions are based on metrics derived from technical parameters like > topology, link speeds and load(1). > > ASes exchange routing information with other ASes using Exterior > Routing Protocols (EGPs). Exterior routing decisions are frequently > based on policy based rules rather than purely on technical parame- > ters. Tools are needed to configure complex policies and to commun- > icate those policies between ASes while still ensuring proper opera- > tion of the Internet as a whole. Some EGPs like BGP-3 [8] and BGP-4 > [9] provide tools to filter routing information according to policy > rules and more. None of them provides a mechanism to publish or com- > municate the policies themselves. Yet this is critical for opera- > tional coordination and fault isolation among network operators and > thus for the operation of the global Internet as a whole. This > document describes a "Routing Registry" providing this functional- > ity. > _________________________ > (1) The entity we refer to as an AS is frequently and > more generally called a routing domain with the AS just > being an implementation vehicle. We have decided to use > the term AS exclusively because it relates more direct- > ly with the database objects and routing tools. By us- > ing only one term we hope to reduce the number of con- > cepts and to avoid confusion. The academically inclined > reader may forgive us. > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 6 - > > > Routing Policies > > The exchange of routing information between ASes is subject to rout- > ing policies. Consider the case of two ASes, X and Y exchanging > routing information: > > > NET1 ...... ASX <---> ASY ....... NET2 > > > ASX knows how to reach a network called NET1. It does not matter > whether NET1 is belonging to ASX or some other AS which exchanges > routing information with ASX either directly or indirectly; we just > assume that ASX knows how to direct packets towards NET1. Likewise > ASY knows how to reach NET2. > > In order for traffic from NET2 to NET1 to flow between ASX and ASY, > ASX has to announce NET1 to ASY using an external routing protocol. > This states that ASX is willing to accept traffic directed to NET1 > from ASY. Policy thus comes into play first in the decision of ASX > to announce NET1 to ASY. > > In addition ASY has to accept this routing information and use it. > It is ASY's privilege to either use or disregard the information > that ASX is willing to accept traffic for NET1. ASY might decide not > to use this information if it does not want to send traffic to NET1 > at all or if it considers another route more appropriate to reach > NET1. > > So in order for traffic in the direction of NET1 to flow between ASX > and ASY, ASX must announce it to ASY and ASY must accept it from > ASX: > > > resulting packet flow towards NET1 > <<=================================== > | > | > announce NET1 | accept NET1 > --------------> + -------------> > | > AS X | AS Y > | > <------------- + <-------------- > accept NET2 | announce NET2 > | > | > resulting packet flow towards NET2 > ===================================>> > > > Ideally, and seldom practically, the announcement and acceptance > policies of ASX and ASY are identical. > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 7 - > > > In order for traffic towards NET2 to flow, announcement and accep- > tance of NET2 must be in place the other way round. For almost all > applications connectivity in just one direction is not useful at > all. > > It is important to realise that with current destination based for- > warding technology routing policies must eventually be expressed in > these terms. It is relatively easy to formulate reasonable policies > in very general terms which CANNOT be expressed in terms of announc- > ing and accepting networks. With current technology such policies > are almost always impossible to implement. > > Usually policies are not configured for each network separately but > for groups of networks. In practise these groups are almost always > defined by the networks forming one or more ASes. > > > > Routing Policy limitations > > The generic example of a reasonable but un-implementable routing is > a split of already joined packet streams based on something other > than destination address. Once traffic for the same destination > network passes the same router, or the same AS at our level of > abstraction, it will take exactly the same route to the destina- > tion(2). > > In a concrete example AS Z might be connected to the outside world > by two links. AS Z wishes to reserve these links for different > kinds of traffic, let's call them black and white traffic. For this > purpose the management of AS Z keeps two lists of ASes, the black > and the white list. Together these lists comprise all ASes in the > world reachable from AS Z. > > "W" > <---> > ... AS Z .... NET 3 > <---> > "B" > > It is quite possible to implement the policy for traffic originating > in AS Z: AS Z will only accept announcements for networks in white > ASes on the white link and will only accept announcements for net- > works in black ASes on the black link. This causes traffic from > networks within AS Z towards white ASes to use the white link and > likewise traffic for black ASes to use the black link. > > Note that this way of implementing things makes it necessary to > decide on the colour of each new AS which appears before traffic can > be sent to it from AS Z. A way around this would be to accept only > _________________________ > (2) Disregarding special cases like "type of service" > routing, load sharing and routing instabilities. > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 8 - > > > white announcements via the white link and to accept all but white > announcements on the black link. That way traffic from new ASes > would automatically be sent down the black link and AS Z management > would only need to keep the list of white ASes rather than two > lists. > > Now for the unimplementable part of the policy. This concerns > traffic towards AS Z. Consider the following topology: > > B AS ---) "W" > W AS ---) ---> > B AS ---)>> AS A ---> ... AS Z .... NET 3 > B AS ---) ---> > W AS ---) "B" > > As seen from AS Z there are both black and white ASes "behind" AS A. > Since ASes can make routing decisions based on destination only, AS > A and all ASes between AS A and the two links connecting AS Z can > only make the same decision for traffic directed at a network in AS > Z, say NET 3. This means that traffic from both black and white > ASes towards NET 3 will follow the same route once it passes through > AS A. This will either be the black or the white route depending on > the routing policies of AS A and all ASes between it and AS Z. > > The important thing to note is that unless routing and forwarding > decisions can be made based on both source and destination > addresses, policies like the "black and white" example cannot be > implemented in general because "once joined means joined forever". > > > Access Policies > > Access policies contrary to routing policies are not necessarily > defined in terms of ASes. The very simplest type of access policy is > to block packets from a specific network S from being forwarded to > another network D. A common example is when some inappropriate use > of resources on network D has been made from network S and the prob- > lem has not been resolved yet. Other examples of access policies > might be resources only accessible to networks belonging to a par- > ticular disciplinary group or community of interest. While most of > these policies are better implemented at the host or application > level, network level access policies do exist and are a source of > connectivity problems which are sometimes hard to diagnose. There- > fore they should also be documented in the routing registry accord- > ing to similar requirements as outlined above. > > > > Routing v Allocation information > > The RIPE database contains both routing registry and address space > allocation registry information. In the past the database schema > combined this information. Because RIPE was tasked with running both > an allocation and routing registry it seemed natural to initially > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 9 - > > > combine these functions. However, experience has shown that a clear > separation of routing information from allocation is desirable. > Often the maintainer of the routing information is not the same as > the maintainer of the allocation information. Also, in other parts > of the world there are different registries for each kind of infor- > mation. > > Whilst the actual routing policy objects will be introduced in the > next section it is worthy of note that a transition from the current > objects will be required. This is described with in Appendix G. > > This split in information represents a significant change in the > representational model of the RIPE database. Appendix F expands on > the reasons for this a little more. > > > > Tools > > The network operators will need a series of tools for policy rout- > ing. Some tools are already available to perform some of the tasks. > Most notably, the PRIDE tools [3] from the PRIDE project started in > September 1993 as well as others produced by Merit Inc [4] and CERN > [5]. > > These tools will enable them to use the routing policy stored in the > RIPE routing registry to perform such tasks as check actual routing > against policies defined, ensure consistency of policies set by dif- > ferent operators, and simulate the effects of policy changes. > > Work continues on producing more useful tools to service the Inter- > net community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 10 - > > > 4. The Routing Registry and the RIPE Database > > One of the activities of RIPE is to maintain a database of Euro- > pean IP networks, DNS domains and their contact persons along with > various other kinds of network management information. The database > content is public and can be queried using the whois protocol as > well as retrieved as a whole. This supports NICs/NOCs all over > Europe and beyond to perform their respective tasks. > > The RIPE database combines both allocation registry and routing > registry functions. The RIPE allocation registry contains data > about address space allocated to specific enterprises and/or > delegated to local registries as well as data about the domain name > space. The allocation registry is described in separate documents > [6,7] and outside the scope of this document. > > > Database Objects > > Each object in the database describes a single entity in the real > world. This basic principle means that information about that > entity should only be represented in the corresponding data- > base object and not be repeated in other objects. The whois ser- > vice can automatically display referenced objects where appropriate. > > The types of objects stored in the RIPE database are summarised in > the table below: > > > R Object Describes References > ____________________________________________________________________ > > B person contact persons > > A inetnum IP address space person > A domain DNS domain person > > R aut-num autonomous system person > (aut-num,community) > R as-macro a group of autonomous systems person, aut-num > R community community person > R route a route being announced aut-num, community > > R clns CLNS address space and routing person > > > The first column indicates whether the object is part of the alloca- > tion registry (A), the routing registry (R) or both (B). The last > column indicates the types of objects referenced by the particular > type of object. It can be seen that almost all objects reference > contact persons. > > Objects are described by attributes value pairs, one per line. > Objects are separated by empty lines. An attribute that consists > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 11 - > > > of multiple lines should have the attribute name repeated on > consecutive lines. The information stored about network 192.87.45.0 > consists of three objects, one network object and two person > objects and looks like this: > > > inetnum: 192.87.45.0 > netname: RIPE-NCC > descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre > descr: Amsterdam, Netherlands > country: NL > admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg > tech-c: Marten Terpstra > rev-srv: ns.ripe.net > rev-srv: ns.eu.net > notify: ops at ripe.net > changed: tony at ripe.net 940110 > source: RIPE > > person: Daniel Karrenberg > address: RIPE Network Coordination Centre (NCC) > address: Kruislaan 409 > address: NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam > address: Netherlands > phone: +31 20 592 5065 > fax-no: +31 20 592 5090 > e-mail: dfk at ripe.net > nic-hdl: DK58 > changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920826 > source: RIPE > > person: Marten Terpstra > address: RIPE Network Coordination Centre (NCC) > address: PRIDE Project > address: Kruislaan 409 > address: NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam > address: Netherlands > phone: +31 20 592 5064 > fax-no: +31 20 592 5090 > e-mail: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net > nic-hdl: MT2 > notify: marten at ripe.net > changed: marten at ripe.net 931230 > source: RIPE > > > > Objects are stored and retrieved in this tag/value format. The RIPE > NCC does not provide differently formatted reports because any > desired format can easily be produced from this generic one. > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 12 - > > > Routing Registry Objects > > The main objects comprising the routing registry are "aut-num" and > "route", describing an autonomous system and a route respectively. > It should be noted that routes not described in the routing registry > should never be routed in the Internet itself. > > The autonomous system (aut-num) object provides contact information > for the AS and describes the routing policy of that AS. The routing > policy is described by enumerating all neighbouring ASes with which > routing information is exchanged. For each neighbour the routing > policy is described in terms of exactly what is being sent > (announced) and allowed in (accepted). It is important to note that > this is exactly the part of the global policy over which an AS has > direct control. Thus each aut-num object describes what can indeed > be implemented and enforced locally by the AS concerned. Combined > together all the aut-num objects provide the global routing graph > and permit to deduce the exact routing policy between any two ASes. > > While the aut-num objects describe how routing information is pro- > pagated, the route object describes a single route injected into the > external routing mesh. The route object references the AS injecting > (originating) the route and thereby indirectly provides contact > information for the originating AS. This reference also provides the > primary way of grouping routes into larger collections. This is > necessary because describing routing policy on the level of single > routes would be awkward to impractical given the number of routes in > the Internet which is about 20,000 at the time of this writing. > Thus routing policy is most often defined for groups of routes by > originating AS. This method of grouping is well supported by > current exterior routing protocols. The route object also refer- > ences community objects described below to provide another method of > grouping routes. Modification of aut-num object itself and the > referencing by route objects is strictly protected to provide net- > work operators control over the routing policy description and the > routes originated by their ASes. > > Sometimes even keeping track of groups of routes at the AS level is > cumbersome. Consider the case of policies described at the transit > provider level which apply transitively to all customers of the > transit provider. Therefore another level of grouping is provided by > the as-macro object which provides groups of ASes which can be > referenced in routing policies just like single ASes. Membership of > as-macro groups is also strictly controlled. > > Sometimes there is a need to group routes on different criteria than > ASes for purposes like statistics or local access policies. This is > provided by the community object. A community object is much like > an AS but without a routing policy. It just describes a group of > routes. This is not supported at all by exterior routing protocols > and depending on aggregation of routes may not be generally usable > to define routing policies. It is suitable for local policies and > non-routing related purposes. > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 13 - > > > These routing related objects will be described in detail in the > sections below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 14 - > > > 5. The Route Object > > As stated in the previous chapter routing and address space alloca- > tion information are now clearly separated. This is performed with > the introduction of the route object. The route object will contain > all the information regarding a routing announcement. > > All routing related attributes are removed from the inetnum object. > Some old attributes are obsoleted: connect, routpr-l, bdryg-l, nsf- > in, nsf-out, gateway). The currently useful routing attributes are > moved to the route object: aut-sys becomes origin, ias-int will be > encoded as part of the "to be proposed" `border-router' object and > comm-list simply moves. See [6] for detail of the "inetnum" object > definition. > > > The information in the old inetnum object > > inetnum: 192.87.45.0 > netname: RIPE-NCC > descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre > descr: Amsterdam, Netherlands > country: NL > admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg > tech-c: Marten Terpstra > connect: RIPE NSF WCW > aut-sys: AS3333 > comm-list: SURFNET > ias-int: 192.87.45.80 AS1104 > ias-int: 192.87.45.6 AS2122 > ias-int: 192.87.45.254 AS2600 > rev-srv: ns.ripe.net > rev-srv: ns.eu.net > notify: ops at ripe.net > changed: tony at ripe.net 940110 > source: RIPE > > > will be distributed over two objects: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 15 - > > > > inetnum: 192.87.45.0 > netname: RIPE-NCC > descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre > descr: Amsterdam, Netherlands > country: NL > admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg > tech-c: Marten Terpstra > rev-srv: ns.ripe.net > rev-srv: ns.eu.net > notify: ops at ripe.net > changed: tony at ripe.net 940110 > source: RIPE > > route: 192.87.45.0/24 > descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre > origin: AS3333 > comm-list: SURFNET > changed: dfk at ripe.net 940427 > source: RIPE > > > > The route object is used to represent a single route originated into > the Internet routing mesh. The actual syntax is given in Appendix > D. However, there are several important aspects of the attributes > worthy of note. > > > The value of the route attribute will be a classless address. It > represents the exact route being injected into the routing mesh. > The representation of classless addresses is described in [10]. > > > The value of the origin attribute will be an AS reference of the > form AS1234 referring to an aut-num object. It represents the AS > injecting this route into the routing mesh. The "aut-num" object > (see below) thus referenced provides all the contact information for > this route. > > > Special cases: There can only be a single originating AS in each > route object. However in todays Internet sometimes a route is > injected by more than one AS. This situation is potentially > dangerous as it can create conflicting routing policies for that > route and requires coordination between the originating ASes. In > the routing registry this is represented by multiple route objects. > > This is a departure from the one route (net), one AS principle of > the ripe-81 routing registry. The consequences for the different > tools based in the routing registry will need to be evaluated and > possibly additional consistency checking of the database is needed. > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 16 - > > > The examples below will illustrate the usage of the route object > further. Suppose three chunks of address space of 2 different > enterprises represented by the following inetnum objects: > > > Examples > > > inetnum: 193.0.1.0 > netname: ENT-1 > descr: Enterprise 1 > ... > > inetnum: 193.0.8.0 > netname: ENT-2 > descr: Enterprise 2 > ... > > inetnum: 193.0.9.0 > netname: ENT-2-SPEC > descr: Enterprise 2 > ... > > > Supposing that the Enterprises have their own AS numbers straight > application of routing without aggregation would yield: > > > route: 193.0.1.0/24 > descr: Enterprise 1 > origin: AS1 > ... > > route: 193.0.8.0/24 > descr: Enterprise 2 > origin: AS2 > ... > > route: 193.0.9.0/24 > descr: Enterprise 2 > origin: AS2 > ... > > NB: This representation can be achieved by straight translation from > the ripe-81 representation. See Appendix G for more details. > > > Homogeneous Aggregation > > The two chunks of address space of Enterprise 2 can be represented > by one aggregate route turning two route objects into one and poten- > tially saving routing table space for one route. > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 17 - > > > > route: 193.0.8.0/23 > descr: Enterprise 2 > origin: AS2 > ... > > > Note that AS2 can also decide to originate all routes mentioned so > far, two 24-bit prefixes and one 23-bit prefix. This case would be > represented by storing all three route objects in the database. In > this particular example the additional routes will not add any func- > tionality however and only increase the amount of routes announced > unnecessarily. > > > Heterogeneous Aggregation > > Consider the following case however: > > > route: 193.0.8.0/24 > descr: Enterprise 2 > origin: AS2 > ... > > route: 193.0.9.0/24 > descr: Enterprise 2 / Special > origin: AS2 > comm-list: SPECIAL > ... > > > Now the prefix 193.0.9.0/24 belongs to community SPECIAL (this com- > munity may well not be relevant to routing) and the other prefix > originated by AS2 does not. If AS2 aggregates these prefixes into > the 193.0.8.0/23 prefix, routing policies based on the community > value SPECIAL cannot be implemented in general, because there is no > way to distinguish between the special and the not-so-special parts > of AS2. If another AS has the policy to accept only routes to > members of community SPECIAL it cannot implement it, because accept- > ing the route to 193.0.8.0/23 would also route to 193.0.8.0/24 and > not accepting this route would lose connectivity to the special part > 193.0.9.0/24. We call aggregate routes consisting of components > belonging to different communities or even different ASes "hetero- > geneous aggregates". > > The problems introduced with heterogeneous aggregates are that once > the homogeneous routes are withdrawn one cannot tell if a more > specific part of the heterogeneous has a different policy. However, > if can be counter argued that knowing this policy is of little use > if you cannot implement a routing policy based on the less specific > (and only route present) heterogeneous aggregate. In fact, this > displays a facet of CIDR itself in that one may actually compromise > slight variations on policy over announcing a larger (albeit > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 18 - > > > heterogeneous in terms of policy) aggregate to save address space. > > However, it is still useful to be able to document these variations > in policy especially when this homogeneous more specific route is > just being withdrawn. For this one can use the "withdrawn" attri- > bute. The withdrawn attribute can serve to both indicate that a less > specific aggregate is in fact heterogeneous and also allow the gen- > eral documenting of route withdrawal. > > So there has to be a way for AS2 to document this even if it does > not originate the route to 193.0.9.0/24 any more. This can be done > with the "withdrawn" attribute of the route object. The aggregate > route to 193.0.8.0/23 is now be registered as: > > > route: 193.0.8.0/23 > descr: Enterprise 2 > origin: AS2 > ... > > > With the two homogeneous routes marked as withdrawn from the Inter- > net routing mesh but still preserving their original routing infor- > mation. > > > route: 193.0.8.0/24 > descr: Enterprise 2 > origin: AS2 > withdrawn: 940701 > ... > > route: 193.0.9.0/24 > descr: Enterprise 2 / Special > origin: AS2 > comm-list: SPECIAL > withdrawn: 940701 > ... > > > It should be noted that the date value used in the withdrawn attri- > bute can only be in the past. > > > Proxy Aggregation > > The next step of aggregation are aggregates consisting of more than > one AS. This generally means one AS is aggregating on behalf of > another. It is called proxy aggregation. Proxy aggregation should be > done with great care and always coordinates with other providers > announcing the same route. > > Consider the following: > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 19 - > > > > route: 193.0.0.0/20 > descr: All routes known by AS1 in a single package > origin: AS1 > ... > > > > route: 193.0.1.0/24 > descr: Foo > origin: AS1 > withdrawn: 940310 > ... > > > > route: 193.0.8.0/24 > descr: Bar > origin: AS2 > withdrawn: 940310 > ... > > > > route: 193.0.9.0/24 > descr: Bar-2 > origin: AS2 > withdrawn: 940310 > comm-list: SPECIAL > ... > > > > > > If AS1 announced no other routes to a single homed neighbouring AS, > that neighbour can in general either take that route or leave it but > not differentiate between AS1 and AS2. > > Note: If the neighbor was previously configured to accept routes > originating in AS2 but not in AS1 they lose connectivity to AS2 as > well. This means that proxy aggregation has to be done carefully > and in a well coordinated fashion. The information in the withdrawn > route object can help to achieve that. > > > Aggregates with Holes > > If we assume that the world of our example still consists of only > three chunks of address space the aggregate above contains what are > called holes, parts of an aggregate that are not reachable via the > originator of the route. From the routing information itself one > cannot tell whether these are holes and what part of the route falls > inside one. The only way to tell is to send a packet there and see > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 20 - > > > whether it gets to the destination, or an ICMP message is received > back, or there is silence. On the other hand announcing aggregates > with holes is quite legitimate. Consider a 16-bit aggregate with > only one 24-bit prefix unreachable. The savings in routing table > size by far outweigh the hole problem. > > For operational reasons however it is very useful to register these > holes in the routing registry. Consider the case where a remote net- > work operator experiences connectivity problems to addresses inside > an aggregate route. If the packets are getting to the AS announcing > the aggregate and there are no more specific routes, the normal > cause of action is to get in touch with the originating AS of the > aggregate route and ask them to fix the problem. If the address > falls into a hole this is futile. Therefore problem diagnosis can be > sped up and unnecessary calls prevented by registering the holes in > the routing registry. We do this by using the "hole" attribute. In > our example the representation would be: > > > route: 193.0.0.0/20 > descr: All routes known by AS1 > origin: AS1 > hole: 193.0.0.0/24 > hole: 193.0.2.0/23 > hole: 193.0.4.0/22 > hole: 193.0.10.0/23 > hole: 193.0.12.0/22 > ... > > > Note: there would also be two routes with the withdrawn attribute as > displayed above (i.e. 193.0.8.0/24 and 193.0.9.0/24) > > Multiple Proxy Aggregation > > Finally suppose that AS2 decides to announce the same aggregate, > they would add the following route object to the registry: > > > route: 193.0.0.0/20 > descr: All routes known by AS2 > origin: AS2 > hole: 193.0.0.0/24 > hole: 193.0.2.0/23 > hole: 193.0.4.0/22 > hole: 193.0.10.0/23 > hole: 193.0.12.0/22 > ... > > > As per the update procedures below both AS1 and AS2 will be notified > that there already is a route to the same prefix in the registry. > > This multiple proxy aggregation is very dangerous to do if the sub- > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 21 - > > > aggregates of the route are not the same. It is still dangerous when > the sub-aggregates are consistent but connectivity to the sub- > aggregates varies widely between the originators. > > > > Route object update procedures > > Adding a route object will be have to be authorised by the guardian > of the originating AS. The actual implementation of this is outside > the scope of this document. This guarantees that an AS guardian has > full control over the registration of the routes it announces. > > > What is an Inter-AS network ? > > An inter-AS network(3) exists for the purpose of passing traffic and > routing information between different autonomous systems. The most > simple example of an inter-AS network is a point-to-point link, con- > necting exactly two ASes. Each end of such a link is connected to > an interface of router belonging to each of the autonomous systems. > More complex examples are broadcast type networks with multiple > interfaces connecting multiple ASes with the possibility of more > than one connection per AS. Consider the following example of three > routers 1, 2 and 3 with interfaces a through f connected by two > inter-AS networks X and Y: > > > X Y > a1b --- c2d --- e3f > > > > Suppose that network X is registered in the routing registry as part > of AS1 and net Y as part of AS3. If traffic passes from left to > right prtraceroute will report the following sequence of interfaces > and ASes: > > a in AS1 > c in AS1 > e in AS3 > > > The traceroute algorithm enumerates only the receiving interfaces on > the way to the destination. In the example this leads to the pas- > sage of AS2 going unnoticed. This is confusing to the user and will > also generate exceptions when the path found is checked against the > routing registry. > > _________________________ > (3) Inter-AS IP networks are those networks are > currently called FIXes, IXFs, DMZs, NAPs, GIX and many > other acronyms. > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 22 - > > > For operational monitoring tools such as prtraceroute it is neces- > sary to know which interface on an inter-AS network belongs to which > AS. If AS information is not known about interfaces on an inter-AS > network, tools like prtraceroute cannot determine correctly which > ASes are being traversed. > > > All interfaces on inter-AS networks will be described in a separate > object know as the `border-router' object. This is still to be > defined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 23 - > > > 6. The Autonomous System Object > > > Autonomous Systems > > An Autonomous System (AS) is a group of IP networks run by one or > more network operators which has a single and clearly defined rout- > ing policy. > > An AS has a unique number associated with it which is used both in > exchange of exterior routing information and as an identifier of the > AS itself. Exterior routing protocols such as BGP and EGP are used > to exchange routing information between ASes. > > In routing terms an AS will normally use one or more interior gate- > way protocols (IGPs) in conjunction with some sort of common agreed > metrics when exchanging network information within its own AS. > > The term AS is often confused or even misused as a convenient way of > grouping together a set of networks which belong under the same > administrative umbrella even if within that group of networks there > are various different routing policies. We provide the "community" > concept for such use. ASes can strictly have only one single rout- > ing policy. > > The creation of an AS should be done in a conscious and well coordi- > nated manner to avoid creating ASes for the sake of it, perhaps > resulting in the worst case scenario of one AS per routing announce- > ment. It should be noted that there is a limited number of AS > numbers available. Also creating an AS may well increase the number > of AS paths modern EGPs will have to keep track of. This aggravates > what is known as "the routing table growth problem". This may mean > that by applying the general rules for the creation and allocation > of an AS below, some re-engineering may well be needed. However, > this may be the only way to actually implement the desired routing > policy anyway. The creation and allocation of an AS should be done > with the following recommendations in mind: > > > o Creation of an AS is only required when exchanging routing > information with other ASes. Some router implementations make > use of an AS number as a form of tagging to identify the rout- > ing process. However, it should be noted that this tag does > not need to be unique unless routing information is indeed > exchanged with other ASes. > > > o For a simple case of customer networks connected to a single > service provider, the IP network should normally be a member of > the service providers AS. In terms of routing policy the IP > network has exactly the same policy as the service provider and > there is no need to make any distinction in routing informa- > tion. This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but > it highlights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 24 - > > > as a representation of routing policy as opposed to some form > of administrative use. > > > o If a network operator connects to more than one AS with dif- > ferent routing policies then they need to create their own AS. > In the case of multi-homed customer networks connected to two > service providers there are at least two different routing pol- > icies to a given customer network. At this point the customer > networks will be part of a single AS and this AS would be dis- > tinct from either of the service providers ASes. This allows > the customer the ability of having a different representation > of policy and preference to the different service providers. > This is the ONLY case where a network operator should create > its own AS number. > > > o As a general rule one should always try to populate the AS with > as many routes as possible, providing all routes conform to the > same routing policy. > > > Each AS is represented in the RIPE database by both an AS object and > the route objects representing the routes originated by the AS. The > AS object stores descriptive, administrative and contact information > about the AS as well as the routing policies of the AS in relation > to all neighbouring ASes. > > The origin attributes of the route objects define the set of routes > originated by the AS. Each route object can have exactly one origin > attribute. Route objects can only be created and updated by the > "guardian" of the AS and not by those immediately responsible for > the particular routes referenced therein. This ensures that opera- > tors, especially service providers, remain in control of AS routing > announcements. > > > The AS object itself is used to represent a description of adminis- > trative details and the routing policies of the AS itself. The AS > object definition is depicted as follows. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 25 - > > > > Example: > > aut-num: AS1104 > descr: NIKHEF-H Autonomous system > as-in: from AS1213 100 accept AS1213 > as-in: from AS1913 100 accept AS1913 > as-in: from AS1755 150 accept ANY > as-out: to AS1213 announce ANY > as-out: to AS1913 announce ANY > as-out: to AS1755 announce AS1104 AS1913 AS1213 > tech-c: Rob Blokzijl > admin-c: Eric Wassenaar > guardian: as-guardian at nikhef.nl > changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920910 > source: RIPE > > > > See Appendix A for a complete syntax definition of the "aut-num" > object. > > > It should be noted that this representation provides two things: > > o a set of routes. > > o a description of administrative details and routing policies. > > The set of routes can be used to generate network list based confi- > guration information as well as configuration information for exte- > rior routing protocols knowing about ASes. This means an AS can be > defined and is useful even if it does not use routing protocols > which know about the AS concept. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 26 - > > > Description of local connections between ASes - "interas- > in/interas-out". > > Often two ASes will have more than one physical connection between > them. In practice certain local policies my be placed on these > inter-AS connections as agreed by the two ASes. If we look at the > simple example below. > > Example: > > > LINK1 > +----------+ > |a b| > AS1------AS2 AS3-----AS4 > |c d| > +----------+ > LINK2 > > > It may be that AS2 prefers to get to AS3 on LINK1 (a and b being the > interface addresses of this link) and to AS4 on LINK2 (c and d being > the interface addresses of this link) with LINK2 as a backup for > AS3. Whilst this is purely of local information and at the AS level > will have no significance per se to any other ASes except AS2 and > AS3 this may be useful to represent. The way this is done is by > using the attributes "interas-in" and "interas-out". The exact syn- > tax is given in Appendix A. However, if we follow this example > through in terms of AS2 we would represent this policy as follows: > > > Example: > > > SYNTAX TO BE PROPOSED BY MERIT > > > > Here we see additional local link based information in terms of the > IP addresses of the link (in this example represented by a and b and > c and d respectively). It should be noted that the preference on > interas-in attributes is only of relevance to other interas-in lines > and not to as-in lines. Of course this type on inter-AS policy > should always be bilaterally agreed to avoid asymmetry and in prac- > tice there may need to be corresponding interas-in attributes in the > policy representation of AS3. It should also be noted that there are > no interas-out attributes defined. In this case the general policy > is assumed. > > The key difference between interas-in/interas-out and as-in/as-in > attributes is the former describes a local inter-AS policy and the > latter the general inter-AS policy as seen by other ASes. The gen- > eral policy should always be defined. The local inter-AS policy > should only be defined when such a policy really exists and the > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 27 - > > > implications of setting such policies is fully understood. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 28 - > > > How to describe the exclusion policy of a certain AS - "as-exclude" > > Some ASes have a routing policy based on the exclusion of certain > routes if for whatever reason a certain AS is used as transit. > Whilst, this is in general not good practice as it makes implicit > assumptions on topology with asymmetry a possible outcome if not > coordinated, this case needs to be accommodated within the routing > policy representation. > > The way this is achieved is by making use of the "as-exclude" attri- > bute. The precise syntax of this attribute can be found in Appendix > A along with the rest of the defined syntax for the "aut-num" > object. However, some explanation of the use of this attribute is > useful. If we have the following example topology. > > Example: > > > AS4--------AS3 > | | | > | | | > AS1--------AS2--------AS5 > > > With a simple corresponding policy like so: > > > Example: > > aut-num: AS1 > as-in: from AS2 100 accept ANY > as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 > as-exclude: exclude AS4 to ANY > .... > > > We see an interesting policy. What this says in simple terms is AS1 > doesn't want to reach anything if it transit AS4. This can be a per- > fectly valid policy. However, it should be realised that for what- > ever reason AS2 decides to route to AS3 via AS4 then immediately AS1 > has no connectivity to AS3 or if AS1 is running default to AS2 pack- > ets from AS1 will still flow via AS4. The important point about this > is that whilst AS1 can advise its neighbours of its policy it has no > direct control on how it can enforce this policy to neighbours > upstream. > > Another interesting scenario to highlight the unexpected result of > using such an "as-exclude" policy. If we assume in the above example > AS2 preferred AS4 to reach AS3 and AS1 did not use default routing > then as stated AS1 would have no connectivity to AS3. Now lets sup- > pose that for example the link between AS2 and AS4 went down for > some reason. Like so: > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 29 - > > > > Example: > > > > AS4--------AS3 > | > | > AS1--------AS2--------AS5 > > > Suddenly AS1 now has connectivity to AS3. This unexpected behavior > should be considered when created policies based on the "as-exclude" > attribute. > > The second problem with this type of policy is the potential of > asymmetry. In the original example we saw the correct policy from > AS1's point of view but if ASes with connectivity through AS4 do not > use a similar policy you have asymmetric traffic and policy. If an > AS uses such a policy they must be aware of the consequences of its > use. Namely that the specified routes which transit the AS (i.e. > routing announcements with this AS in the AS path information) in > question will be excluded. If not coordinated this can easily cause > asymmetry or even worse loss of connectivity to unknown ASes behind > (or in front for that matter) the transit AS in question. With this > in mind this attribute can only be viewed as a form of advisory to > other service providers. However, this does not preclude its use > with policy based tools if the attribute exists. > > By having the ability to specify a route keyword based on any of the > four notations given in the syntax it allows the receiving AS to > specify what routes it wishes to exclude through a given transit AS > to a network granularity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 30 - > > > 7. AS Macros > > It may be difficult to keep track of each and every new AS that is > represented in the routing registry. A convenient way around this > is to define an `AS Macro' which essentially is a convenient way to > group ASes. This is done so that each and every AS guardian does not > have to add a new AS to it's routing policy as described by the as- > in and as-out attributes of it's AS object. > > However, it should be noted that this creates an implicit trust on > the guardian of the AS-Macro. > > An AS-Macro can be used in for the > "as-in" and "as-out" attributes in the aut-num object. The AS-Macro > object is then used to derive the list or group of ASes. > > A simple example would be something like: > > > Example: > > aut-num: AS786 > as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS-EBONE AND NOT AS1104 > as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS-EBONE AND NOT AS1104 > as-out to AS1755 announce AS786 > ..... > > > Where the as-macro object for AS-EBONE is as follows: > > > as-macro: AS-EBONE > descr: ASes routed by EBONE > as-list: AS2121 AS1104 AS2600 AS2122 > as-list: AS1103 AS1755 AS2043 > guardian: guardian at ebone.net > ...... > > > So the policy would be evaluated to: > > > aut-num: AS786 > as-in: from AS1755 100 accept (AS2121 OR AS1104 OR AS2600 OR AS2122 > as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS1103 OR AS1755 OR AS2043) AND NOT AS1104 > ...... > > > It should be noted that the above examples incorporates the rule for > line wrapping as defined in Appendix A for policy lines. See Appen- > dix C for a definition on the AS-Macro syntax. > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 31 - > > > 8. The Community Object > > A community is a group of routes that cannot be represented by an AS > or a group of ASes. It is in some circumstances useful to define a > group of routes that have something in common. This could be a spe- > cial access policy to a supercomputer centre, a group of routes used > for a specific mission, or a disciplinary group that is scattered > among several autonomous systems. Also these communities could be > useful to group routes for the purpose of network statistics. > > Communities do not exchange routing information, since they do not > represent an autonomous system. More specifically, communities do > not define routing policies, but access or usage policies. However, > they can de used as in conjunction with an ASes routing policy to > define a set of routes the AS sets routing policy for. > > Communities should be defined in a strict manner, to avoid creating > as many communities as there are routes, or even worse. Communities > should be defined following the two rules below; > > > o Communities must have a global meaning. Communities that have > no global meaning, are used only in a local environment and > should be avoided. > > > o Communities must not be defined to express non-local policies. > It should be avoided that a community is created because some > other organisation forces a policy upon your organisation. > Communities must only be defined to express a policy defined by > your organisation. > > > > Community examples > > There are some clear examples of communities: > > > BACKBONE - > all customers of a given backbone service provider even though > they can have various different routing policies and hence > belong to different ASes. This would be extremely useful for > statistics collection. > > > HEPNET - > the High Energy Physics community partly shares infrastructure > with other organisations, and the institutes it consists of are > scattered all over Europe, often being part of a non HEPNET > autonomous system. To allow statistics, access or part of a > routing policy , a community HEPNET, consisting of all routes > that are part of HEPNET, conveniently groups all these routes. > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 32 - > > > NSFNET - > the National Science Foundation Network imposes an acceptable > use policy on routes that wish to make use of it. A community > NSFNET could imply the set of routes that comply with this pol- > icy. > > > MULTI - > a large multinational corporation that does not have its own > internal infrastructure, but connects to the various parts of > its organisations by using local service providers that connect > them all together, may decide to define a community to restrict > access to their networks, only by networks that are part of > this community. This way a corporate network could be defined > on shared infrastructure. Also, this community could be used by > any of the service providers to do statistics for the whole of > the corporation, for instance to do topology or bandwidth plan- > ning. > > > Similar to Autonomous systems, each community is represented in the > RIPE database by both a community object and community tags on the > route objects representing the routes belonging to the community. > The community object stores descriptive, administrative and contact > information about the community. > > The community tags on the route objects define the set of routes > belonging to a community. A route can have multiple community tags. > The community tags can only be created and updated by the "guardian" > of the community and not by those directly responsible for the par- > ticular network. This ensures that guardians remain in control of > community membership. > > Here's an example of how this might be represented in terms of the > community tags within the network object. We have an example where > the route 192.16.199.0/24 has a single routing policy (i.e. that of > AS 1104), but is part of several different communities of interest. > We use the tag "comm-list" to represent the list of communities > associated with this route. NIKHEF-H uses the service provider > SURFNET (a service provider with customers with more than one rout- > ing policy), is also part of the High Energy Physics community as > well as having the ability to access the Supercomputer at CERN(4). > > > > > > > > _________________________ > (4) The community `CERN-SUPER', is somewhat national, > but is intended as an example of a possible use of an > access policy constraint. > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 33 - > > > > Example: > > route: 192.16.199.0/24 > descr: Local Ethernet > descr: NIKHEF section H > origin: AS1104 > comm-list: HEPNET CERN-SUPER SURFNET > changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920604 > source: RIPE > > > > In the above examples some communities have been defined. The com- > munity object itself will take the following format: > > > Example: > > community: SURFNET > descr: Dutch academic research network > authority: SURFnet B.V. > guardian: comm-guardian at surfnet.nl > admin-c: Erik-Jan Bos > tech-c: Erik-Jan Bos > changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920604 > source: RIPE > > For a complete explanation of the syntax please refer to Appendix B. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 34 - > > > 9. Representation of Routing Policies > > > Routing policies of an AS are represented in the autonomous system > object. Initially we show some examples, so the reader is familiar > with the concept of how routing information is represented, used and > derived. Refer to Appendix A, for the full syntax of the "aut-num" > object. > > The topology of routing exchanges is represented by listing how > routing information is exchanged with each neighbouring AS. This is > done separately for both incoming and outgoing routing information. > In order to provide backup and back door paths a relative cost is > associated with incoming routing information. > > > Example 1: > > > AS1------AS2 > > > This specifies a simple routing exchange of two presumably isolated > ASes. Even if either of them has routing information about routes > in ASes other than AS1 and AS2, none of that will be announced to > the other. > > aut-num: AS1 > as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 > as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 > > aut-num: AS2 > as-out: to AS1 announce AS2 > as-in: from AS1 100 accept AS1 > > > The number 100 in the in-bound specifications is a relative cost, > which is used for backup and back door routes. The absolute value is > of no significance. The relation between different values within the > same AS object is. A lower value means a lower cost. This is cons- > ciously similar to the cost based preference scheme used with DNS MX > RRs. > > > Example 2: > > Now suppose that AS2 is connected to one more AS, besides AS1, and > let's call that AS3: > > > > AS1------AS2------AS3 > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 35 - > > > In this case there are two reasonable routing policies: > > a) AS2 just wants to exchange traffic with both AS1 and AS3 itself > without passing traffic between AS1 and AS3. > > b) AS2 is willing to pass traffic between AS3 and AS1, thus acting > as a transit AS > > > Example 2a: > > In the first case AS1's representation in the routing registry will > remain unchanged as will be the part of AS2's representation > describing the routing exchange with AS1. A description of the addi- > tional routing exchange with AS3 will be added to AS2's representa- > tion: > > > aut-num: AS1 > as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 > as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 > > aut-num: AS2 > as-out: to AS1 announce AS2 > as-in: from AS1 100 accept AS1 > as-out: to AS3 announce AS2 > as-in: from AS3 100 accept AS3 > > aut-num: AS3 > as-out: to AS2 announce AS3 > as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 > > > Note that in this example, AS2 keeps full control over its > resources. Even if AS3 and AS1 were to allow each others routes in > from AS2, the routing information would not flow because AS2 is not > announcing it(5). > > > Example 2b: > > If contrary to the previous case, AS1 and AS3 are supposed to have > connectivity to each other via AS2, all AS objects have to change: > > > > > _________________________ > (5) Of course AS1 and AS3 could just send traffic to > each other to AS2 even without AS2 announcing the > routes, hoping that AS2 will forward it correctly. Such > questionable practices however are beyond the scope of > this document. > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 36 - > > > > aut-num: AS1 > as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 > as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 AS3 > > aut-num: AS2 > as-out: to AS1 announce AS2 AS3 > as-in: from AS1 100 accept AS1 > as-out: to AS3 announce AS2 AS1 > as-in: from AS3 100 accept AS3 > > aut-num: AS3 > as-out: to AS2 announce AS3 > as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS1 AS2 > > > > Note that the amount of routing information exchanged with a neigh- > bour AS is defined in terms of routes belonging to ASes. In BGP > terms this is the AS where the routing information originates and > the originating AS information carried in BGP could be used to > implement the desired policy. However, using BGP or the BGP AS-path > information is not required to implement the policies thus speci- > fied. Configurations based on route lists can easily be generated > from the database. The AS path information, provided by BGP can > then be used as an additional checking tool as desired. > > The specification understands one special expression and this can be > expressed as a boolean expressions: > > > ANY - means any routing information known. For output this means > that all routes an AS knows about are announced. For input it > means that anything is accepted from the neighbour AS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 37 - > > > Example 3: > > AS4 is a stub customer AS, which only talks to service provider > AS123. > > > | > | > -----AS123------AS4 > | > | > > > > aut-num: AS4 > as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 > as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY > > aut-num: AS123 > as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 > as-out: to AS4 announce ANY > > > > > Since AS4 has no other way to reach the outside world than AS123 it > is not strictly necessary for AS123 to send routing information to > AS4. AS4 can simply send all traffic for which it has no explicit > routing information to AS123 by default. This strategy is called > default routing. It is expressed in the routing registry by adding > one or more default tags to the autonomous system which uses this > strategy. In the example above this would look like: > > > aut-num: AS4 > as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 > default: AS123 100 > > aut-num: AS123 > as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 38 - > > > Example 4: > > AS4 now connects to a different operator, AS5. AS5 uses AS123 for > outside connectivity but has itself no direct connection to AS123. > AS5 traffic to and from AS123 thus has to pass AS4. AS4 agrees to > act as a transit AS for this traffic. > > > | > | > -----AS123------AS4-------AS5 > | > | > > > > aut-num: AS4 > as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 AS5 > as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY > as-out: to AS5 announce ANY > as-in: from AS5 50 accept AS5 > > aut-num: AS5 > as-in: from AS4 100 accept ANY > as-out: to AS4 announce AS5 > > aut-num: AS123 > as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 AS5 > as-out: to AS4 announce ANY > > > > > Now AS4 has two sources of external routing information. AS5 which > provides only information about its own routes and AS123 which pro- > vides information about the external world. Note that AS4 accepts > information about AS5 from both AS123 and AS5 although AS5 informa- > tion cannot come from AS123 since AS5 is connected only via AS4 > itself. The lower cost of 50 for the announcement from AS5 itself > compared to 100 from AS123 ensures that AS5 is still believed even > in case AS123 will unexpectedly announce AS5. > > In this example too, default routing can be used by AS5 much like in > the previous example. AS4 can also use default routing towards > AS123: > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 39 - > > > > aut-num: AS4 > as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 AS5 > default: AS123 11 > as-in: from AS5 50 accept AS5 > > Note no announcements to AS5, they default to us. > > aut-num: AS5 > as-out: to AS4 announce AS5 > default: AS4 100 > > aut-num: AS123 > as-in: from AS4 100 announce AS4 AS5 > > > > Note that the relative cost associated with default routing is > totally separate from the relative cost associated with in-bound > announcements. The default route will never be taken if an explicit > route is known to the destination. Thus an explicit route can never > have a higher cost than the default route. The relative cost asso- > ciated with the default route is only useful in those cases where > one wants to configure multiple default routes for redundancy. > > Note also that in this example the configuration using default > routes has a subtly different behavior than the one with explicit > routes: In case the AS4-AS5 link fails AS4 will send traffic to AS5 > to AS123 when using the default configuration. Normally this makes > not much difference as there will be no answer and thus little > traffic. With certain datagram applications which do not require > acknowledgments however, significant amounts of traffic may be use- > lessly directed at AS123. Similarly default routing should not be > used if there are stringent security policies which proscribe any > traffic intended for AS5 to ever touch AS123. > > Generally it can be said that default routing should only be used in > very simple topologies. Once the situation gets more complex using > default routes can lead to unexpected results or even defeat the > routing policies established when links fail. As an example consider > how Example 5a) below could be implemented using default routing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 40 - > > > Example 5: > > In a different example AS4 has a private connection to AS6 which in > turn is connected to the service provider AS123: > > > | > | > -----AS123------AS4 > | | > | | > | | > AS6 ---------+ > > > There are a number of policies worth examining in this case: > > > a) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves > exclusively via the private link between themselves; such > traffic should never pass through the backbone (AS123). The > link should never be used for transit traffic, i.e. traffic not > both originating in and destined for AS4 and AS6. > > > b) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves via the > private link between themselves. Should the link fail, traffic > between AS4 and AS6 should be routed via AS123. The link > should never be used for transit traffic. > > > c) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves via the > private link between themselves. Should the link fail, traffic > between AS4 and AS6 should be routed via AS123. Should the > connection between AS4 and AS123 fail, traffic from AS4 to des- > tinations behind AS123 can pass through the private link and > AS6's connection to AS123. > > > d) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves via the > private link between themselves. Should the link fail, traffic > between AS4 and AS6 should be routed via AS123. Should the > backbone connection of either AS4 or AS6 fail, the traffic of > the disconnected AS should flow via the other AS's backbone > connection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 41 - > > > Example 5a: > > > > aut-num: AS4 > as-in: from AS123 100 accept NOT AS6 > as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 > as-in: from AS6 50 accept AS6 > as-out: to AS6 announce AS4 > > aut-num: AS123 > as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 > as-out: to AS4 announce ANY > as-in: from AS6 100 accept AS6 > as-out: to AS6 announce ANY > > > aut-num: AS6 > as-in: from AS123 100 accept NOT AS4 > as-out: to AS123 announce AS6 > as-in: from AS4 50 accept AS4 > as-out: to AS4 announce AS6 > > > > Note that here the configuration is slightly inconsistent. AS123 > will announce AS6 to AS4 and AS4 to AS6. These announcements will be > filtered out on the receiving end. This will implement the desired > policy. Consistency checking tools might flag these cases however. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 42 - > > > Example 5b: > > > > aut-num: AS4 > as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY > as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 > as-in: from AS6 50 accept AS6 > as-out: AS6 AS4 > > aut-num: AS123 > as-in: AS4 100 AS4 > as-out: AS4 ANY > as-in: AS6 100 AS6 > as-out: AS6 ANY > > > aut-num: AS6 > as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY > as-out: to AS123 announce AS6 > as-in: from AS4 50 accept AS4 > as-out: to AS4 announce AS6 > > > > The thing to note here is that in the ideal operational case, `all > links working' AS4 will receive announcements for AS6 from both > AS123 and AS6 itself. In this case the announcement from AS6 will > be preferred because of its lower cost and thus the private link > will be used as desired. AS6 is configured as a mirror image. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 43 - > > > Example 5c: > > The new feature here is that should the connection between AS4 and > AS123 fail, traffic from AS4 to destinations behind AS123 can pass > through the private link and AS6's connection to AS123. > > > aut-num: AS4 > as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY > as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 > as-in: from AS6 50 accept AS6 > as-in: from AS6 110 accept ANY > as-out: to AS6 AS4 > > aut-num: AS123 > as-in: from AS4 1 accept AS4 > as-out: to AS4 announce ANY > as-in: from AS6 1 accept AS6 > as-in: from AS6 2 accept AS4 > as-out: to AS6 announce ANY > > > aut-num: AS6 > as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY > as-out: to AS123 AS6 announce AS4 > as-in: from AS4 50 accept AS4 > as-out: to AS4 announce ANY > > > > Note that it is important to make sure to propagate routing informa- > tion for both directions in backup situations like this. Connec- > tivity in just one direction is not useful at all for almost all > applications. > > Note also that in case the AS6-AS123 connection breaks, AS6 will > only be able to talk to AS4. The symmetrical case (5d) is left as an > exercise to the reader. > > 10. Future Extensions > > We envision that over time the requirements for describing routing > policy will evolve. The routing protocols will evolve to support the > requirements and the routing policy description syntax will need to > evolve as well. For that purpose, a separate document will describe > experimental syntax definitions for policy description. This docu- > ment will be updated when new objects or attributes are proposed or > modified. > > Two new attributes of the AS object which are proposed and supported > by the Merit Routing Registry are as-transit and db-selector. > > as-transit describes the transit preferences of an AS. It allows an > AS to describe its path preference in order to reach certain > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 44 - > > > destinations. The AS(s) specified in the path preference may or may > not be an immediate neighbor of the AS defined in the AS object. > as-transit accommodates policy decisions involving AS path whereas > as-in and as-out do not. It is not unusual for ASs to have routing > policies which involve path selection based on AS. Emerging proto- > cols like SDRP [13] will allow an AS to choose a path independent of > a neighboring ASs path choice. as-transit permits descriptions based > on AS path selection. > > The DataBase Selector (db-selector) function allows one to take > advantage of information registered in other Registries. It permits > the selection of networks in a database based on their attributes. > It is proposed to be used within the as-in/as-out attribute family > to make the description of policy concise. For example, if an AS > has the policy of not accepting any routes from country XYZ, the AS > can use the db-selector to check a database which has a network and > country attribute and relate that information to the information in > the routing registry. The advantage of referencing another database > is that the routing registry will avoid duplicating the information > maintained in other information registries. > > Detailed examples and syntax are described in document ???? [14]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 45 - > > > 11. References > > [1] Bates, T., Jouanigot, J-M., Karrenberg, D., Lothberg, P., > Terpstra, M., "Representation of IP Routing Policies in the > RIPE Database", RIPE-81, February 1993. > > [2] Merit Network Inc.,"Representation of Complex Routing Policies > of an Autonomous System", DRAFT, March, 1994. > > [3] PRIDE Tools Release 1. > See ftp.ripe.net:pride/tools/pride-tools-1.tar.Z. > > [4] Merit Inc. RRDB Tools. > See rrdb.merit.edu:pub/meritrr/* > > [5] The Network List Compiler. > See dxcoms.cern.ch:pub/ripe-routing-wg/nlc-2.2d.tar > > [6] Lord, A., Terpstra, M., "RIPE Database Template for Networks > and Persons", DRAFT, May 1994. > > [7] Karrenberg, D., "RIPE Database Template for Domains", RIPE-49, > April 1992. > > [8] Lougheed, K., Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP- > 3)", RFC1267, October 1991. > > [9] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", > INTERNET-DRAFT, draft-ietf-bgp-bgp4-10.txt, May 1994. > > [10] Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., Terpstra, M., "Support for Classless > Internet Addresses in the RIPE Database", DRAFT, May 1994. > > [11] Karrenberg, D., "Authorisation and Notification of Changes in > the RIPE Database", RIPE-96, October 1993. > > [12] Bates, T., "Support of Guarded fields within the RIPE Data- > base", ripe-108, February 1994. > > [13] Estrin, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., Varadhan, K., "Source Demand > Routing: Packet Format and Forwarding Specification (Version > 1)", INTERNET-DRAFT, draft-ietf-sdr-sdrp-04.txt, March 1994. > > [14] ?????, "Experimental Objects and attributes for the Routing > Registry, ???, ????. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 46 - > > > 12. Author's Addresses > > > Tony Bates > RARE/PRIDE Project > c/o RIPE Network Coordination Centre > Kruislaan 409 > NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam > The Netherlands > +31 20 592 5064 > T.Bates at ripe.net > > > Elise Gerich > The University of Michigan > Merit Computer Network > 1075 Beal Avenue > Ann Arbor, MI 48109 > USA > +1 313 936 2120 > epg at merit.edu > > > Laurent Joncheray > The University of Michigan > Merit Computer Network > 1075 Beal Avenue > Ann Arbor, MI 48109 > USA > +1 313 936 2065 > lpj at merit.edu > > > Jean-Michel Jouanigot > CERN, European Laboratory for Particle Physics > CH-1211 Geneva 23 > Switzerland > +41 22 767 4417 > Jean-Michel.Jouanigot at cern.ch > > > Daniel Karrenberg > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > Kruislaan 409 > NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam > The Netherlands > +31 20 592 5065 > D.Karrenberg at ripe.net > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 47 - > > > > Marten Terpstra > PRIDE Project > c/o RIPE Network Coordination Centre > Kruislaan 409 > NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam > The Netherlands > +31 20 592 5064 > M.Terpstra at ripe.net > > > Jessica Yu > The University of Michigan > Merit Computer Network > 1075 Beal Avenue > Ann Arbor, MI 48109 > USA > +1 313 936 2655 > jyy at merit.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 48 - > > > Appendix A - Syntax for the aut-num object. > > Here is a summary of the tags associated with aut-num object itself > and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the > second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the aut-num > object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can > occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. > When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name > must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. > > > aut-num: [mandatory] [single] > descr: [mandatory] [multiple] > as-in: [optional] [multiple] > as-out: [optional] [multiple] > interas-in: [optional] [multiple] > interas-out: [optional] [multiple] > as-exclude: [optional] [multiple] > default: [optional] [multiple] > tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] > admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] > guardian: [mandatory] [single] > remarks: [optional] [multiple] > notify: [optional] [multiple] > maintainer: [optional] [single] > changed: [mandatory] [multiple] > source: [mandatory] [single] > > > Each attribute has the following syntax: > > > aut-num: > The autonomous system number. This must be a uniquely allo- > cated autonomous system number from an AS registry (i.e. the > RIPE NCC, the Inter-NIC, etc). > > Format: > AS > > Example: > > aut-num: AS1104 > > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > descr: > A short description of the Autonomous System. > > Format: > free text > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > as-in: > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 49 - > > > > Example: > > descr: NIKHEF section H > descr: Science Park Watergraafsmeer > descr: Amsterdam > > A description of accepted routing information between AS peers. > > Format: > from accept > > The keywords from and accept are optional and can be omit- > ted. > > refers to your AS neighbour. > > is a positive integer used to express a relative > cost of routes learned. The lower the cost the more pre- > ferred the route. > > can take the following for- > mats. > > 1. A list of one or more ASes, AS Macros, Communities or > Network Lists. > > A Network List is a list of network numbers in prefix > length format, separated by commas, and surrounded by > curly brackets. > > > Examples: > > as-in: from AS1103 100 accept AS1103 > as-in: from AS786 105 accept AS1103 > as-in: from AS786 10 accept AS786 HEPNET > as-in: from AS1755 110 accept AS1103 AS786 > as-in: from AS3333 100 accept {192.87.45.0/16, 128.141.0.0/16} > > > 2. A set of KEYWORDS. The following KEYWORD is > currently defined: > > > ANY this means anything the neighbour AS knows. > > 3. A logical expression of either 1 or 2 above The > current logical operators are defined as: > > AND > OR > NOT > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 50 - > > > NOTE: if no logical operator is given between ASes, > AS-macros, Communities, Network Lists and KEYWORDS it > is implicitly evaluated as an `OR' operation. The OR > can be left out for conciseness. > Rules are grouped together using parenthesis i.e "(" > and ")". > > Example: > > as-in: from AS1755 100 accept ANY AND NOT (AS1234 OR AS513) > as-in: from AS1755 150 accept AS1234 OR {35.0.0.0/8} > > A rule can be wrapped over lines providing the > associated , values and from and > accept keywords are repeated and occur on con- > secutive lines. > > Example: > > as-in: from AS1755 100 accept ANY AND NOT (AS1234 AS513) > > and > > as-in: from AS1755 100 accept ANY AND NOT ( > as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS1234 AS513) > > are evaluated to the same result. Please note > that the ordering of these continuing lines > matters. > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > as-out: > A description of generated routing information sent to other AS > peers. > > Format: > to announce > The to and announce keywords are optional and can be omit- > ted. > > refers to your AS neighbour. > > is explained in the as-in > attribute definition above. > > Example: > > as-out: to AS1104 announce AS978 > as-out: to AS1755 announce ANY > as-out: to AS786 announce ANY AND NOT (AS978) > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 51 - > > > interas-in: > > STILL TO BE PROPOSED BY MERIT > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > interas-out: > > STILL TO BE PROPOSED BY MERIT > > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > as-exclude: > A list of transit ASes to ignore all routes from. > > Format: > exclude to > > Keywords exclude and to are optional and can again be > omitted. > > refers to the transit AS in question. > > an can be ONE of the following. > > 1. > > 2. AS macro > > 3. Community > > 4. ANY > > Examples: > > as-exclude: exclude AS690 to HEPNET > > This means exclude any HEPNET routes which have a route > via AS690. > > as-exclude: exclude AS1800 to AS-EUNET > > This means exclude any AS-EUNET routes which have a route > via AS1800. > > as-exclude: exclude AS1755 to AS1104 > > This means exclude any AS1104 route which have a route via > AS1755. > > as-exclude: exclude AS1104 to ANY > > This means exclude all routes which have a route via > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 52 - > > > AS1104. > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > default: > An indication of how default routing is done. > > Format: > > > where is the AS peer you will default route to, > > and is the relative cost is a positive > integer used to express a preference for default. There is > no relationship to the cost used in the as-in tag. The AS > peer with the lowest cost is used for default over ones > with higher costs. > > is optional and provides information > on how a default route is selected. It can take the fol- > lowing formats: > > 1. static. This indicates that a default is statically > configured to this AS peer. > > 2. A network list with the syntax as described in the > as-in attribute. This indicates that this list of > routes is used to generate a default route. A special > but valid value in this is the special route used by > some routing protocols to indicate default: 0.0.0.0/0 > > 3. default. This is the same as {0.0.0.0/0}. This means > that the routing protocol between these two peers > generates a true default. > > Examples: > > default: AS1755 10 > default: AS786 5 {140.222.0.0/16, 192.87.45.0/24} > default: AS2043 15 default > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > tech-c: > Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of a technical con- > tact person. This is someone to be contacted for technical > problems such as misconfiguration. > > Format: > or > > Example: > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 53 - > > > > tech-c: John E Doe > tech-c: JED31 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > admin-c: > Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative > contact person. In many cases this would be the name of the > guardian. > > Format: > or > > Example: > > admin-c: Joe T Bloggs > admin-c: JTB1 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > guardian: > Mailbox of the guardian of the Autonomous system. > > Format: > > > The should be in RFC822 domain format > wherever possible. > > Example: > > guardian: as1104-guardian at nikhef.nl > > Status: mandatory, only one line and e-mail address allowed > > remarks: > Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. > > Format: > free text > > Example: > > remarks: Multihomed AS talking to AS1755 and AS786 > remarks: Will soon connect to AS1104 also. > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > notify: > The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- > cations of changes to this object should be sent. See also > [11]. > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 54 - > > > Format: > > > The should be in RFC822 domain syntax > wherever possible. > > Example: > > notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > maintainer: > The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. > See also [11]. > > Format: > > > Example: > > maintainer: RIPE-DBM > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > changed: > Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. > > Format: > YYMMDD > > should be the address of the person who > made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change > was made. > > Example: > > changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > source: > Source of the information. > > This is used to separate information from different sources > kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries > the value is fixed to RIPE. > > Format: > RIPE > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 55 - > > > Appendix B - Syntax details for the community object. > > Here is a summary of the tags associated with community object > itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, > the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the commun- > ity object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can > occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. > When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name > must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. > > > community: [mandatory] [single] > descr: [mandatory] [multiple] > authority: [mandatory] [single] > guardian: [mandatory] [single] > tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] > admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] > remarks: [optional] [multiple] > notify: [optional] [multiple] > maintainer: [optional] [single] > changed: [mandatory] [multiple] > source: [mandatory] [single] > > > Each attribute has the following syntax: > > > community: > Name of the community. The name of the community should be > descriptive of the community it describes. > > Format: > Upper case text string which cannot start with "AS" or any > of the KEYWORDS. See Appendix > A. > > Example: > > community: WCW > > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > descr: > A short description of the community represented. > > Format: > free text > > Example: > > descr: Science Park Watergraafsmeer > descr: Amsterdam > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 56 - > > > authority: > The formal authority for this community. This could be an > organisation, institute, committee, etc. > > Format: > free text > > Example: > > authority: WCW LAN Committee > > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > guardian: > Mailbox of the guardian of the community. > > Format: > > > The should be in RFC822 domain format > wherever possible. > > Example: > > guardian: wcw-guardian at nikhef.nl > > Status: mandatory, only one line and email address allowed > > tech-c: > Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an technical con- > tact person for this community. > > Format: > or > > Example: > > tech-c: John E Doe > tech-c: JED31 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > admin-c: > Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative > contact person. In many cases this would be the name of the > guardian. > > Format: > or > > Example: > > admin-c: Joe T Bloggs > admin-c: JTB1 > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 57 - > > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > remarks: > Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. > > Format: > free text > > Example: > > remarks: Temporary community > remarks: Will be removed after split into ASes > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > notify: > The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- > cations of changes to this object should be send. See also > [11]. > > Format: > > > The should be in RFC822 domain syntax > wherever possible. > > Example: > > notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > maintainer: > The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. > See also [11]. > > Format: > > > Example: > > maintainer: RIPE-DBM > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > changed: > Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. > > Format: > YYMMDD > > should be the address of the person who > made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change > was made. > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 58 - > > > Example: > > changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > source: > Source of the information. > > This is used to separate information from different sources > kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries > the value is fixed to RIPE. > > Format: > RIPE > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 59 - > > > Appendix C - AS Macros syntax definition. > > Here is a summary of the tags associated with as-macro object itself > and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the > second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the as-macro > object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can > occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. > When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name > must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. > > > as-macro: [mandatory] [single] > descr: [mandatory] [multiple] > as-list: [mandatory] [multiple] > guardian: [mandatory] [single] > tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] > admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] > remarks: [optional] [multiple] > notify: [optional] [multiple] > maintainer: [optional] [single] > changed: [mandatory] [multiple] > source: [mandatory] [single] > > > Each attribute has the following syntax: > > > as-macro: > The name of a macro containing at least two Autonomous Systems > grouped together for ease of administration. > > Format: > AS- > > The should be in upper case and not contain any > special characters. > > Example: > > as-macro: AS-EBONE > > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > descr: > A short description of the Autonomous System Macro. > > Format: > free text > > Example: > > descr: Macro for EBONE connected ASes > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 60 - > > > as-list: > The list of ASes that make up this macro. > > Format: > ... > > See Appendix A for definition. > > Example: > > as-list: AS786 AS513 AS1104 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > guardian: > Mailbox of the guardian of this AS macro. > > Format: > > > The should be in RFC822 domain format > wherever possible. > > Example: > > guardian: as-ebone-guardian at ebone.net > > Status: mandatory, only one line and e-mail address allowed > > tech-c: > Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of a technical con- > tact person for this macro. This is someone to be contacted for > technical problems such as misconfiguration. > > Format: > or > > Examples: > > tech-c: John E Doe > tech-c: JED31 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > admin-c: > Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative > contact person. In many cases this would be the name of the > guardian. > > Format: > or > > Examples: > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 61 - > > > > admin-c: Joe T Bloggs > admin-c: JTB1 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > remarks: > Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. > > Format: > free text > > Example: > > remarks: AS321 will be removed from this Macro shortly > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > notify: > The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- > cations of changes to this object should be send. See also > [11]. > > Format: > > > The should be in RFC822 domain syntax > wherever possible. > > Example: > > notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > maintainer: > The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. > See also [11]. > > Format: > > > Example: > > maintainer: RIPE-DBM > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > changed: > Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. > > Format: > YYMMDD > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 62 - > > > should be the address of the person who > made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change > was made. > > Example: > > changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > source: > Source of the information. > > This is used to separate information from different sources > kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries > the value is fixed to RIPE. > > Format: > RIPE > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 63 - > > > Appendix D - Syntax for the "route" object. > > There is a summary of the tags associated with community object > itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, > the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the commun- > ity object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can > occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. > When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name > must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. > > > route: [mandatory] [single] > descr: [mandatory] [multiple] > origin: [mandatory] [single] > hole: [optional] [multiple] > withdrawn: [optional] [multiple] > comm-list: [optional] [multiple] > remarks: [optional] [multiple] > notify: [optional] [multiple] > maintainer: [optional] [single] > changed: [mandatory] [multiple] > source: [mandatory] [single] > > > Each attribute has the following syntax: > > > route: > Route being announced. > > Format: > Classless representation of a route with the RIPE database > known as the "prefix length" representation. See [10] for > more details on classless representations. > > Examples: > > route: 192.87.45.0/24 > > This represents addressable bits 192.87.45.0 to > 192.87.45.255. > > route: 192.1.128.0/17 > > This represents addressable bits 192.1.128.0 to > 192.1.255.255. > > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > origin: > The autonomous system announcing this route. > > Format: > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 64 - > > > See appendix A for syntax. > > Example: > > origin: AS1104 > > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > hole: > Denote the parts of the address space covered this route object > to which the originator does not provide connectivity. > > Format: > Classless representation of a route with the RIPE database > known as the "prefix length" representation. See [10] for > more details on classless representations. It should be > noted that is sub-aggregate must be a component of that > registered in the route object. > > Example: > > hole: 193.0.4.0/24 > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > withdrawn: > Used to denote the day this route has been withdrawn from the > Internet routing mesh. It should be noted that this date cannot > be in the future. > > Format: > YYMMDD > > YYMMDD denotes the date this route was withdrawn. > > Example: > > withdrawn: 940711 > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > comm-list: > List of one or more communities this route is part of. > > Format: > ... > > See Appendix B for definition. > > Example: > > comm-list: HEP LEP > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 65 - > > > remarks: > Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. > > Format: > free text > > Example: > > remarks: Multihomed AS talking to AS1755 and AS786 > remarks: Will soon connect to AS1104 also. > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > notify: > The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- > cations of changes to this object should be send. See also > [11]. > > Format: > > > The should be in RFC822 domain syntax > wherever possible. > > Example: > > notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > maintainer: > The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. > See also [11]. > > Format: > > > Example: > > maintainer: RIPE-DBM > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > changed: > Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. > > Format: > YYMMDD > > should be the address of the person who > made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change > was made. > > Example: > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 66 - > > > > changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > source: > Source of the information. > > This is used to separate information from different sources > kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries > the value is fixed to RIPE. > > Format: > RIPE > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 67 - > > > Appendix E - List of reserved words > > The following list of words are reserved for use within the attri- > butes of the AS object. The use of these words is solely for the > purpose of clarity. All keywords must be lower case. > > > accept > announce > exclude > from > to > transit > > > Examples of the usage of the reserved words are: > > as-in: from neighborAS accept route > > as-out: to neighborAS announce route > > as-exclude: exclude ASpath to destination > > as-transit: transit ASpath to destination > > default: from neighborAS accept route > > default: to neighborAS announce route > > > Note: that as-transit is an experimental attribute. See section 10. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 68 - > > > Appendix F - Motivations for RIPE-81++ > > This appendix gives motivations for the major changes in this propo- > sal from ripe-81. (It is not complete yet). > > The main goals of the routing registry rework are: > > > SPLIT > Separate the allocation and routing registry functions into > different database objects. This will facilitate data manage- > ment if the Internet registry and routing registry functions > are separated (like in other parts of the world). It will also > make more clear what is part of the routing registry and who > has authority to change allocation vs. routing data. > > > CIDR > Add the possibility to specify classless routes in the routing > registry. Classless routes are being used in Internet produc- > tion now. Aggregation information in the routing registry is > necessary for network layer troubleshooting. It is also neces- > sary because aggregation influences routing policies directly. > > > CALLOC > Add the possibility to allocate address space on classless > boundaries in the allocation registry. This is a way to > preserve address space. > > > CLEAN > To clean up some of the obsolete and unused parts of the rout- > ing registry. > > > The major changes are now discussed in turn: > > > Introduce Classless Addresses > > CIDR, CALLOC > > > Introduce route object. > > SPLIT, CIDR and CALLOC. > > > Delete obsolete attributes from inetnum. > > CLEAN. > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 69 - > > > Delete RIPE-DB and LOCAL from routing policy expressions. > > CLEAN > > > Allow multiple ASes to originate the same route > > Because it is being done. CIDR. Made possible by SPLIT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > - 70 - > > > Appendix G - Transition strategy from RIPE-81 to RIPE-81++ > > Transition from the routing registry described by ripe-81 to the > routing registry described in this document is a straightforward > process once the new registry functions have been implemented in the > database software and are understood by the most commonly used > registry tools. The routing related attributes in the classful inet- > num objects of ripe-81 can be directly translated into new routing > objects. Then these attributes can be deleted from the inetnum > object making that object conform to the new schema. > > Proposed transition steps: > > > 1) Implement classless addresses and new object definition in the > database software. > > > 2) Make common tools understand the new schema and prefer it if > both old and new are present. > > > 3) Invite everyone to convert their data to the new format. This > can be encouraged by doing conversions automatically and pro- > posing them to maintainers. > > > 4) At a flag day remove all remaining routing information from the > inetnum objects. Before the flag day all usage of obsoleted > inetnum attributes has to cease and all other routing registry > functions have to be taken over by the new objects and attri- > butes. > > > The current estimate is that point three can be reached in the Sum- > mer 1994 if the draft is accepted by mid-June. The flag day should > be scheduled 3-4 months after this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 > -- Laurent Joncheray, E-Mail: lpj at merit.edu Merit Network Inc, 1071 Beal Avenue, Phone: +1 (313) 936 2065 Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Fax: +1 (313) 747 3745 "This is the end, Beautiful friend. This is the end, My only friend, the end" JM -------- Logged at Wed Jul 13 22:56:15 MET DST 1994 --------- From epg at merit.edu Wed Jul 13 22:56:00 1994 From: epg at merit.edu (epg at merit.edu) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 16:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ (fwd) Message-ID: <9407132056.AA01233@pepper.merit.edu> Jessica prepared this several weeks ago, and it got stuck in my mail queue. My apologies to RIPE and Jessica for holding this up. --Elise Forwarded message: > ------------------- > > interas-in and interas-out preference definition > > 1. interas-in > > interas-in: [from] neighborAS preference [accept] route > > where 'preference' here is defined as: > > = [,=] > > has the following: > > pref: the pre-configured preference for incoming routes same as > defined in as-in attribute. It's value is numeric number. > The lower the value, the higher preference. > > med-in: the usage of Multi_Exit_Discriminator metric from its > neighbor's routing advertisement. The value is yes or no. > Omission of the entry implies no usage of MED from its > neighbor AS. > > 2. interas-out > > interas-out: [TO] neighborAS preference [ANNOUNCE] route > > where 'preference' is defined as: > > = [,=] > > has the following: > > pref: the pre-configured preference for outgoing routes same as > defined in interas-in attribute. It's value is numeric > number. The lower the value, the higher preference. > > med-out: the value of Multi_Exit_Discriminator metric to advertise > routes to neighborAS. If IGP metric is used to convert to > MED, the value is 'IGP'. Otherwise, the value is a numeric > number. Omission of the entry implies no usage of MED when > advertising routes to its neighbor AS. > > 3. Examples: > > aut-num: AS237 > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=IGP announce AS237 > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=IGP announce AS237 > > aut-num: AS266 > interas-out: to AS690 pref=1 announce {35/8, 128.14/16} > interas-out: to AS690 pref=2 announce {35/8, 128.14/16} > > aut-num: AS701 > > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=2 announce {15/8,192.35.1/24} > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=4 announce {15/8,192.35.1/24, 193.1.1/24} > > aut-num: AS690 > interas-in: from AS237 med-in=yes accept AS237 > > interas-in: from AS266 pref=1 accept {35/8, 128.146/16} > interas-in: from AS266 pref=2 accept {35/8, 128.146/16} > > interas-in: from AS701 med-in=yes accept ANY > > 4. Expansion > > The preference field by this design could be easily expanded in the future > when other metrics be used for policy decisions without changes to the already > defined ones. For example, when tos/qos is widely used, one could just add > another field in the pref-type: tos=value. > > > -------- Logged at Wed Jul 13 23:26:03 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Wed Jul 13 23:25:55 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 23:25:55 +0200 Subject: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 13 Jul 1994 16:56:00 EDT. <9407132056.AA01233@pepper.merit.edu> Message-ID: <9407132125.AA06744@mature.ripe.net> epg at merit.edu writes: * Okay, initial thoughts is this looks good and in line with what we discussed at Merit. However, somewhere we have lost the local linkid part which is what the interas attributes are for. I think just an oversight ?. But if I assume this is added in like I think (?) we agreed as just the two ends of the link (perhaps ? host addresses) then I have just a couple of questions. If you could clarify this for me I think for me at least we could wrap this into ripe-81++. --Tony. * > ------------------- * > * > interas-in and interas-out preference definition * > * > 1. interas-in * > * > interas-in: [from] neighborAS preference [accept] route * > * > where 'preference' here is defined as: * > * > = [,=] * > Just so I usderstand this means we could have something like this. I use addr just as a psuedo representation for the linkid bit. interas-in: from AS333 addr1 addr2 med-in=yes,pref=2 accept AS1104 interas-in: from AS333 addr1 addr3 med-in=yes,pref=1 accept AS1104 Presumably this is okay. No idea if the inbound AS can implement this but you could use this to show what you do in case of equal med metrics from both links. Or is the intention only to allow one or the other, although the definition doesn't seem to show this. * > has the following: * > * > pref: the pre-configured preference for incoming routes same as * > defined in as-in attribute. It's value is numeric number. * > The lower the value, the higher preference. * > * > med-in: the usage of Multi_Exit_Discriminator metric from its * > neighbor's routing advertisement. The value is yes or no. * > Omission of the entry implies no usage of MED from its * > neighbor AS. * > * > 2. interas-out * > * > interas-out: [TO] neighborAS preference [ANNOUNCE] route Slight correction ^^ ^^^^^^^^ to announce * > * > where 'preference' is defined as: * > * > = [,=] * > * > has the following: * > * > pref: the pre-configured preference for outgoing routes same as * * > defined in interas-in attribute. It's value is numeric * > number. The lower the value, the higher preference. * > * > med-out: the value of Multi_Exit_Discriminator metric to advertis * e * > routes to neighborAS. If IGP metric is used to convert to * > MED, the value is 'IGP'. Otherwise, the value is a numeric * > number. Omission of the entry implies no usage of MED when * > advertising routes to its neighbor AS. * > * > 3. Examples: * > * > aut-num: AS237 * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=IGP announce AS237 * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=IGP announce AS237 * > I sort of assume the enss bit is the link stuff ? * > aut-num: AS266 * > interas-out: to AS690 pref=1 announce {35/8, 128.14/16} * > interas-out: to AS690 pref=2 announce {35/8, 128.14/16} * > Only question here is - is this not just as MED - can it be anything else ? * > aut-num: AS701 * > * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=2 announce {15/8,192.35.1/24} * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=4 announce {15/8,192.35.1/24, 193 * .1.1/24} * > * > aut-num: AS690 * > interas-in: from AS237 med-in=yes accept AS237 * > * > interas-in: from AS266 pref=1 accept {35/8, 128.146/16} * > interas-in: from AS266 pref=2 accept {35/8, 128.146/16} * > * > interas-in: from AS701 med-in=yes accept ANY * > * > 4. Expansion * > * > The preference field by this design could be easily expanded in the futur * e * > when other metrics be used for policy decisions without changes to the al * ready * > defined ones. For example, when tos/qos is widely used, one could just a * dd * > another field in the pref-type: tos=value. * > -------- Logged at Wed Jul 13 23:40:15 MET DST 1994 --------- From lpj at merit.edu Wed Jul 13 23:40:08 1994 From: lpj at merit.edu (Laurent Joncheray) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 17:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ (fwd) In-Reply-To: <9407132125.AA06744@mature.ripe.net> from "Tony Bates" at Jul 13, 94 11:25:55 pm Message-ID: <199407132140.RAA09324@merit.edu> Two points: - The = list is enclosed between parentheses. - ASxxx:ddd is equivalent to ASxxx (pref = ddd) Laurent Point 1 because it is easier to parse Point 2 because it is shorter > > > epg at merit.edu writes: > * > Okay, initial thoughts is this looks good and in line with what we discussed > at Merit. However, somewhere we have lost the local linkid part which is > what the interas attributes are for. I think just an oversight ?. > But if I assume this is added in like I think (?) > we agreed as just the two ends of the link (perhaps ? host addresses) then > I have just a couple of questions. If you could clarify this for me I think > for me at least we could wrap this into ripe-81++. > > --Tony. > > > * > ------------------- > * > > * > interas-in and interas-out preference definition > * > > * > 1. interas-in > * > > * > interas-in: [from] neighborAS preference [accept] route > * > > * > where 'preference' here is defined as: > * > > * > = [,=] > * > > Just so I usderstand this means we could have something like this. I use > addr just as a psuedo representation for the linkid bit. > > interas-in: from AS333 addr1 addr2 med-in=yes,pref=2 accept AS1104 > interas-in: from AS333 addr1 addr3 med-in=yes,pref=1 accept AS1104 > > Presumably this is okay. No idea if the inbound AS can implement this > but you could use this to show what you do in case of equal med metrics > from both links. Or is the intention only to allow one or the other, although > the definition doesn't seem to show this. > > * > has the following: > * > > * > pref: the pre-configured preference for incoming routes same as > * > defined in as-in attribute. It's value is numeric number. > * > The lower the value, the higher preference. > * > > * > med-in: the usage of Multi_Exit_Discriminator metric from its > * > neighbor's routing advertisement. The value is yes or no. > * > Omission of the entry implies no usage of MED from its > * > neighbor AS. > * > > * > 2. interas-out > * > > * > interas-out: [TO] neighborAS preference [ANNOUNCE] route > Slight correction ^^ ^^^^^^^^ > to announce > * > > * > where 'preference' is defined as: > * > > * > = [,=] > * > > * > has the following: > * > > * > pref: the pre-configured preference for outgoing routes same as > * > * > defined in interas-in attribute. It's value is numeric > * > number. The lower the value, the higher preference. > * > > * > med-out: the value of Multi_Exit_Discriminator metric to advertis > * e > * > routes to neighborAS. If IGP metric is used to convert to > * > MED, the value is 'IGP'. Otherwise, the value is a numeric > * > number. Omission of the entry implies no usage of MED when > * > advertising routes to its neighbor AS. > * > > * > 3. Examples: > * > > * > aut-num: AS237 > * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=IGP announce AS237 > * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=IGP announce AS237 > * > > I sort of assume the enss bit is the link stuff ? > > * > aut-num: AS266 > * > interas-out: to AS690 pref=1 announce {35/8, 128.14/16} > * > interas-out: to AS690 pref=2 announce {35/8, 128.14/16} > * > > Only question here is - is this not just as MED - can it be anything else ? > > * > aut-num: AS701 > * > > * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=2 announce {15/8,192.35.1/24} > * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=4 announce {15/8,192.35.1/24, 193 > * .1.1/24} > * > > * > aut-num: AS690 > * > interas-in: from AS237 med-in=yes accept AS237 > * > > * > interas-in: from AS266 pref=1 accept {35/8, 128.146/16} > * > interas-in: from AS266 pref=2 accept {35/8, 128.146/16} > * > > * > interas-in: from AS701 med-in=yes accept ANY > * > > * > 4. Expansion > * > > * > The preference field by this design could be easily expanded in the futur > * e > * > when other metrics be used for policy decisions without changes to the al > * ready > * > defined ones. For example, when tos/qos is widely used, one could just a > * dd > * > another field in the pref-type: tos=value. > * > > -- Laurent Joncheray, E-Mail: lpj at merit.edu Merit Network Inc, 1071 Beal Avenue, Phone: +1 (313) 936 2065 Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Fax: +1 (313) 747 3745 "This is the end, Beautiful friend. This is the end, My only friend, the end" JM -------- Logged at Thu Jul 14 00:08:34 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Thu Jul 14 00:08:26 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 00:08:26 +0200 Subject: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 13 Jul 1994 17:40:08 EDT. <199407132140.RAA09324@merit.edu> Message-ID: <9407132208.AA01964@ncc.ripe.net> Laurent Joncheray writes: * Two points: Well I guess this is more directed to Jessica or Elise as they made the proposal rather then me. However. * - The = list is enclosed between parentheses. * - ASxxx:ddd is equivalent to ASxxx (pref = ddd) * Laurent * * Point 1 because it is easier to parse Well if this is so - not sure why right now as pref and med* seem to make it unique enough to be parseable although the whitespace is a pain I admit I could live with the paranthesis. So agreed. * Point 2 because it is shorter Shorter yes, but not clearer at all for me at least. Esp in the context of pref multiple values which was one of my questions. --Tony. -------- Logged at Thu Jul 14 00:21:35 MET DST 1994 --------- From jyy at merit.edu Thu Jul 14 00:21:29 1994 From: jyy at merit.edu (Jessica Yu) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 18:21:29 -0400 Subject: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ (fwd) Message-ID: <199407132221.SAA12746@merit.edu> Tony, You raised two issues with the proposal: a. where is the linkid (as you called, I more think of it a neighbor border router id) in interas-in/out & b. If multiple preferences type are listed, how to interpret them. I will address a. now and leave b for tomorrow. The linkid, it is still there. We did not put in the definition (it is in the example as you can see), because the syntax is not settled. I recall that there are at least two options on the table: interas-in: [from] ASxxx .... or interas-in: [from] ASxxx Same applies to interas-out. If my memory serves me, someone (jimi?) needs to pick one and get done with it. And as soon as it gets picked, we will just put it in the relevant part of the text. --Jessica ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: tony at ripe.net Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [192.87.45.2]) by merit.edu (8.6.8.1/merit-1.0) with SMTP id RAA08004; Wed, 13 Jul 1994 17:26:05 -0400 Received: from mature.ripe.net by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA01660 (5.65a/NCC-2.3); Wed, 13 Jul 1994 23:25:57 +0200 Received: from localhost.ripe.net by mature.ripe.net with SMTP id AA06744 (5.65a/NCC-2.1); Wed, 13 Jul 1994 23:25:56 +0200 Message-Id: <9407132125.AA06744 at mature.ripe.net> To: epg at merit.edu Cc: rr-impl at ripe.net, jimi at dxcoms.cern.ch, farrache at ccpnxt5.in2p3.fr Subject: Re: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 13 Jul 1994 16:56:00 EDT. <9407132056.AA01233 at pepper.merit.edu> From: Tony Bates X-Phone: +31 20 592 5064 Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 23:25:55 +0200 Sender: Tony.Bates at ripe.net epg at merit.edu writes: * Okay, initial thoughts is this looks good and in line with what we discussed at Merit. However, somewhere we have lost the local linkid part which is what the interas attributes are for. I think just an oversight ?. But if I assume this is added in like I think (?) we agreed as just the two ends of the link (perhaps ? host addresses) then I have just a couple of questions. If you could clarify this for me I think for me at least we could wrap this into ripe-81++. --Tony. * > ------------------- * > * > interas-in and interas-out preference definition * > * > 1. interas-in * > * > interas-in: [from] neighborAS preference [accept] route * > * > where 'preference' here is defined as: * > * > = [,=] * > Just so I usderstand this means we could have something like this. I use addr just as a psuedo representation for the linkid bit. interas-in: from AS333 addr1 addr2 med-in=yes,pref=2 accept AS1104 interas-in: from AS333 addr1 addr3 med-in=yes,pref=1 accept AS1104 Presumably this is okay. No idea if the inbound AS can implement this but you could use this to show what you do in case of equal med metrics from both links. Or is the intention only to allow one or the other, although the definition doesn't seem to show this. * > has the following: * > * > pref: the pre-configured preference for incoming routes same as * > defined in as-in attribute. It's value is numeric number. * > The lower the value, the higher preference. * > * > med-in: the usage of Multi_Exit_Discriminator metric from its * > neighbor's routing advertisement. The value is yes or no. * > Omission of the entry implies no usage of MED from its * > neighbor AS. * > * > 2. interas-out * > * > interas-out: [TO] neighborAS preference [ANNOUNCE] route Slight correction ^^ ^^^^^^^^ to announce * > * > where 'preference' is defined as: * > * > = [,=] * > * > has the following: * > * > pref: the pre-configured preference for outgoing routes same as * * > defined in interas-in attribute. It's value is numeric * > number. The lower the value, the higher preference. * > * > med-out: the value of Multi_Exit_Discriminator metric to advertis * e * > routes to neighborAS. If IGP metric is used to convert to * > MED, the value is 'IGP'. Otherwise, the value is a numeric * > number. Omission of the entry implies no usage of MED when * > advertising routes to its neighbor AS. * > * > 3. Examples: * > * > aut-num: AS237 * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=IGP announce AS237 * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=IGP announce AS237 * > I sort of assume the enss bit is the link stuff ? * > aut-num: AS266 * > interas-out: to AS690 pref=1 announce {35/8, 128.14/16} * > interas-out: to AS690 pref=2 announce {35/8, 128.14/16} * > Only question here is - is this not just as MED - can it be anything else ? * > aut-num: AS701 * > * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=2 announce {15/8,192.35.1/24} * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=4 announce {15/8,192.35.1/24, 193 * .1.1/24} * > * > aut-num: AS690 * > interas-in: from AS237 med-in=yes accept AS237 * > * > interas-in: from AS266 pref=1 accept {35/8, 128.146/16} * > interas-in: from AS266 pref=2 accept {35/8, 128.146/16} * > * > interas-in: from AS701 med-in=yes accept ANY * > * > 4. Expansion * > * > The preference field by this design could be easily expanded in the futur * e * > when other metrics be used for policy decisions without changes to the al * ready * > defined ones. For example, when tos/qos is widely used, one could just a * dd * > another field in the pref-type: tos=value. * > ------- End of Forwarded Message -------- Logged at Thu Jul 14 00:27:40 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Thu Jul 14 00:27:31 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 00:27:31 +0200 Subject: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 13 Jul 1994 18:21:29 EDT. <199407132221.SAA12746@merit.edu> Message-ID: <9407132227.AA07023@mature.ripe.net> Jessica Yu writes: * Tony, * * I will address a. now and leave b for tomorrow. * Okay ;-) * The linkid, it is still there. We did not put in the definition (it is * in the example as you can see), because the syntax is not settled. I recal * l * that there are at least two options on the table: * * interas-in: [from] ASxxx .... or * interas-in: [from] ASxxx Okay, I definately favour this one (above) as it is consistent with the more general as-in/out lines * Same applies to interas-out. * Sure. * If my memory serves me, someone (jimi?) needs to pick one and get done with * it. And as soon as it gets picked, we will just put it in the relevant par * t * of the text. * That's right - it is down to Jimi if we are deadlocked. Are we ? * --Jessica * --Tony. * * ------- Forwarded Message * * Return-Path: tony at ripe.net * Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [192.87.45.2]) by merit.edu (8.6. * 8.1/merit-1.0) with SMTP id RAA08004; Wed, 13 Jul 1994 17:26:05 -0400 * Received: from mature.ripe.net by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP * id AA01660 (5.65a/NCC-2.3); Wed, 13 Jul 1994 23:25:57 +0200 * Received: from localhost.ripe.net by mature.ripe.net with SMTP * id AA06744 (5.65a/NCC-2.1); Wed, 13 Jul 1994 23:25:56 +0200 * Message-Id: <9407132125.AA06744 at mature.ripe.net> * To: epg at merit.edu * Cc: rr-impl at ripe.net, jimi at dxcoms.cern.ch, farrache at ccpnxt5.in2p3.fr * Subject: Re: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ (fwd) * In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 13 Jul 1994 16:56:00 EDT. * <9407132056.AA01233 at pepper.merit.edu> * From: Tony Bates * X-Phone: +31 20 592 5064 * Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 23:25:55 +0200 * Sender: Tony.Bates at ripe.net * * * epg at merit.edu writes: * * * Okay, initial thoughts is this looks good and in line with what we discusse * d * at Merit. However, somewhere we have lost the local linkid part which is * what the interas attributes are for. I think just an oversight ?. * But if I assume this is added in like I think (?) * we agreed as just the two ends of the link (perhaps ? host addresses) then * I have just a couple of questions. If you could clarify this for me I think * * for me at least we could wrap this into ripe-81++. * * --Tony. * * * * > ------------------- * * > * * > interas-in and interas-out preference definition * * > * * > 1. interas-in * * > * * > interas-in: [from] neighborAS preference [accept] route * * > * * > where 'preference' here is defined as: * * > * * > = [,=] * * > * Just so I usderstand this means we could have something like this. I use * addr just as a psuedo representation for the linkid bit. * * interas-in: from AS333 addr1 addr2 med-in=yes,pref=2 accept AS1104 * interas-in: from AS333 addr1 addr3 med-in=yes,pref=1 accept AS1104 * * Presumably this is okay. No idea if the inbound AS can implement this * but you could use this to show what you do in case of equal med metrics * from both links. Or is the intention only to allow one or the other, althou * gh * the definition doesn't seem to show this. * * * > has the following: * * > * * > pref: the pre-configured preference for incoming routes same * as * * > defined in as-in attribute. It's value is numeric numb * er. * * > The lower the value, the higher preference. * * > * * > med-in: the usage of Multi_Exit_Discriminator metric from its * * > neighbor's routing advertisement. The value is yes or * no. * * > Omission of the entry implies no usage of MED from its * * > neighbor AS. * * > * * > 2. interas-out * * > * * > interas-out: [TO] neighborAS preference [ANNOUNCE] route * Slight correction ^^ ^^^^^^^^ * to announce * * > * * > where 'preference' is defined as: * * > * * > = [,=] * * > * * > has the following: * * > * * > pref: the pre-configured preference for outgoing routes sam * e as * * * * > defined in interas-in attribute. It's value is numeric * * * > number. The lower the value, the higher preference. * * > * * > med-out: the value of Multi_Exit_Discriminator metric to adve * rtis * * e * * > routes to neighborAS. If IGP metric is used to convert * to * * > MED, the value is 'IGP'. Otherwise, the value is a num * eric * * > number. Omission of the entry implies no usage of MED * when * * > advertising routes to its neighbor AS. * * > * * > 3. Examples: * * > * * > aut-num: AS237 * * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=IGP announce AS237 * * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=IGP announce AS237 * * > * I sort of assume the enss bit is the link stuff ? * * * > aut-num: AS266 * * > interas-out: to AS690 pref=1 announce {35/8, 128.14/16} * * > interas-out: to AS690 pref=2 announce {35/8, 128.14/16} * * > * Only question here is - is this not just as MED - can it be anything else ? * * * > aut-num: AS701 * * > * * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=2 announce {15/8,192.35.1/24} * * > interas-out: to AS690 med-out=4 announce {15/8,192.35.1/24, * 193 * * .1.1/24} * * > * * > aut-num: AS690 * * > interas-in: from AS237 med-in=yes accept AS237 * * > * * > interas-in: from AS266 pref=1 accept {35/8, 128.146/16} * * > interas-in: from AS266 pref=2 accept {35/8, 128.146/16} * * > * * > interas-in: from AS701 med-in=yes accept ANY * * > * * > 4. Expansion * * > * * > The preference field by this design could be easily expanded in the f * utur * * e * * > when other metrics be used for policy decisions without changes to th * e al * * ready * * > defined ones. For example, when tos/qos is widely used, one could ju * st a * * dd * * > another field in the pref-type: tos=value. * * > * * ------- End of Forwarded Message * -------- Logged at Thu Jul 14 23:33:25 MET DST 1994 --------- From jyy at merit.edu Thu Jul 14 23:33:15 1994 From: jyy at merit.edu (Jessica Yu) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 17:33:15 -0400 Subject: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ Message-ID: <199407142133.RAA21313@merit.edu> Folks, Below is a new version to beat at. The changes are: a. no multiple 'preference' b. '( )' being added to preference (per Laurent's request) c. changes to the pref in (pretty major change, please read) Note, again, the place for is not defined here because it is not settled (re my yeaterday's message). This is just to present the idea so the text is not polished). --Jessica ------------------------------------ interas-in and interas-out preference definition 1. interas-in interas-in: [from] neighborAS (preference) [accept] route where 'preference' here is defined as: = The currently supported is "pref". The associated value is = | MED When the value is numeric value, the lower the value, the higher the preference. When the value is "MED", that means the AS will use the MED value from its neighbor. The pref-type could be others such as tos/qos or other type of metric and will be defined when real application exist. 2. interas-out interas-out: [to] neighborAS (metric) [announce] route where 'metric' is defined as: = The currently supported is "metric_out". The associated value is = numeric | IGP When the value is a numeric value, that is a pre-configured metric for outbound routes. The lower the value, the higher the preference. In the case of value equal IGP, that means the meric here reflects the the AS's internal topology cost. The topology is reflected here by using MED which is a function of IGP metric. 3. Examples: aut-num: AS237 interas-out: to AS690 (metric_out=IGP) announce AS237 interas-out: to AS690 (metric_out=IGP) announce AS237 aut-num: AS266 interas-out: to AS690 (pref=1) announce {35/8, 128.14/16} interas-out: to AS690 (pref=2) announce {35/8, 128.14/16} aut-num: AS701 interas-out: to AS690 (metric_out=2) announce {15/8,192.35.1/24} interas-out: to AS690 (metric_out=4) announce {15/8,192.35.1/24, 193.1.1/24} aut-num: AS690 interas-in: from AS266 (pref = 1) accept {35/8, 128.146/16} interas-in: from AS266 (pref = 2) accept {35/8, 128.146/16} interas-in: from AS701 (pref = MED) accept ANY 4. Future Expansion The preference field by this design could be easily expanded in the future when other metrics be used for policy decisions without changes to the already defined ones. For example, when tos/qos is widely used, one could just add another keyword for the . -------- Logged at Fri Jul 15 20:09:29 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Fri Jul 15 20:09:18 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 20:09:18 +0200 Subject: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 14 Jul 1994 17:33:15 EDT. <199407142133.RAA21313@merit.edu> Message-ID: <9407151809.AA08814@ncc.ripe.net> Jessica Yu writes: * a. no multiple 'preference' * b. '( )' being added to preference (per Laurent's request) * c. changes to the pref in (pretty major change, please read) * * Note, again, the place for is not defined here because it is not * settled (re my yeaterday's message). This is just to present the idea * so the text is not polished). Okay, these changes basically clear up the questions I had. Obviously we should probably re-visit the multi-preference stuff and the pref in general with either IDRP or TOS/QOS. However, if this is to go into RIPE-81++ I think we'd need a better explanation in the main text - especially for the pref part. As to the routerid I fear Jimi is not here as he is on vacation. I really want and need to get the FINAL version of RIPE-81++ out so we give enough time before the next RIPE meeting. We are already way behind. Can we not just accept ours (perhaps in exchange for the parenthesis perhpas) This is even the one you are using in almost all of your examples. I again stress my motives for our format is purely for clarity and alignment with the more general as-in/out format. What say you guys ? Would it be possible to produce a little more descriptive text that can be folded into the relevant section. Cheers, --Tony. P.S. If we can agree this the only ? in the text is the router object document. As far as I can see the object definition Laurent has done is fine with just a little clarification in the text. I'll try to send some comments on this in a seperate message. -------- Logged at Fri Jul 15 20:22:18 MET DST 1994 --------- From lpj at merit.edu Fri Jul 15 20:22:12 1994 From: lpj at merit.edu (Laurent Joncheray) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 14:22:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ In-Reply-To: <9407151809.AA08814@ncc.ripe.net> from "Tony Bates" at Jul 15, 94 08:09:18 pm Message-ID: <199407151822.OAA11342@merit.edu> You mean *ours*? :) We have *running* code (parser, etc...). Changing a few lines in a document is easier than in a yacc source code. Have you tryed 'yacc -v -d RIPE-81++' :) Laurent > meeting. We are already way behind. Can we not just accept ours > (perhaps in exchange for the parenthesis perhpas) This is > even the one you are using in almost all of your examples. I again > stress my motives for our format is purely for clarity and alignment > with the more general as-in/out format. What say you guys ? -- Laurent Joncheray, E-Mail: lpj at merit.edu Merit Network Inc, 1071 Beal Avenue, Phone: +1 (313) 936 2065 Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Fax: +1 (313) 747 3745 "This is the end, Beautiful friend. This is the end, My only friend, the end" JM -------- Logged at Fri Jul 15 20:32:12 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Fri Jul 15 20:32:10 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 20:32:10 +0200 Subject: Thoughts on router object In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 14 Jul 1994 17:33:15 EDT. <199407142133.RAA21313@merit.edu> Message-ID: <9407151832.AA09106@ncc.ripe.net> Firstly, let me say this looks very nice and very clear. A general question is could we drop the db_reference part per se and perhaps mention its use in the same way as in the ripe-81++ text as an possible experimental use. > router: MANDATORY, UNIQUE > The domain of the router. > SYNTAX: Full qulified domain name without trailing "." > EXAMPLE: router: t3-0.enss132.t3.ans.net > Merit extension > Everything fine - only thing we might want to do is change the actual name to avoid typo clahses with route. How aboot border-rtr: or something so that it is clear it is meant to describle border routers as well. > localas: MANDATORY, UNIQUE if no db_reference > The AS the router belongs to. It can be overwritten in the interface > attribute to specify any other local AS > SYNTAX: ASdddd > EXAMPLE: AS183 > Merit extension > > ifaddr: MANDATORY, MULTIPLE if no db_reference > The interface addresses for this router. A local AS for this > interface can by specified (). By default this interface > use the AS number defined with the 'localas' attribute > SYNTAX: [] > EXAMPLE: 35.1.1.42 > Merit extension > > peer: OPTIONAL, MULTIPLE > The peers of this router. ????????? > SYNTAX: > EXAMPLE: 35.1.1.42 BGPv4 The only other comment I had is we sould clearly define the part. i.e. EGP2 BGP2 BGP3 BGP4 IBGP OTHER or something like that. Not sure if I understand the ????? part. This is supposed to describe the routers' peers right ?. Should we also add the remote AS for good measure or did I get something wrong. Other than that, looks like we could get something out as a document very quickly which would be great. --Tony -------- Logged at Fri Jul 15 20:45:33 MET DST 1994 --------- From jyy at merit.edu Fri Jul 15 20:45:24 1994 From: jyy at merit.edu (Jessica Yu) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 14:45:24 -0400 Subject: pref syntax for RIPE-81++ In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Jul 1994 20:09:18 +0200." <9407151809.AA08814@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <199407151845.OAA13871@merit.edu> >Okay, these changes basically clear up the questions I had. Obviously >we should probably re-visit the multi-preference stuff and the pref in >general with either IDRP or TOS/QOS. In terms of IDRP, the metric siutiation is the same as that of BGP4. So it is ok. Yes, we also think that we need to re-visit the need for multiple preference in the future. The parenthesis is there for the purpose :-) >However, if this is to go into >RIPE-81++ I think we'd need a better explanation in the main text - >especially for the pref part. What exactly are you looking for? The explaination of why the pref in interas-in/out define the way as is? If that is the case, we can give you a paragraph and you can edit it and make it fit in the doc. --jessica -------- Logged at Fri Jul 15 20:46:33 MET DST 1994 --------- From lpj at merit.edu Fri Jul 15 20:46:29 1994 From: lpj at merit.edu (Laurent Joncheray) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 14:46:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Thoughts on router object In-Reply-To: <9407151832.AA09106@ncc.ripe.net> from "Tony Bates" at Jul 15, 94 08:32:10 pm Message-ID: <199407151846.OAA14019@merit.edu> I do not care about the name. As long as it can represent border *and* internal routers. Routers will be looked up by their ip addresses, so the definition of the name is kind of loose. A router can have several DNS names. I 'd like to change the syntax to: SYNTAX: text string > > router: MANDATORY, UNIQUE > > The domain of the router. > > SYNTAX: Full qulified domain name without trailing "." > > EXAMPLE: router: t3-0.enss132.t3.ans.net > > Merit extension > > You can forget about the db_reference stuff. It is useless. As for the 'peer' definition', we (ala and rlr) are working with some NSP in order to include any attributes needed to generate a *full* cisco config file. The definition of the peer is still pending so maybe we can ignore it until we find out more about what information we need. Laurent PS: I didn't write this document :) Just the ?????? -- Laurent Joncheray, E-Mail: lpj at merit.edu Merit Network Inc, 1071 Beal Avenue, Phone: +1 (313) 936 2065 Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Fax: +1 (313) 747 3745 "This is the end, Beautiful friend. This is the end, My only friend, the end" JM -------- Logged at Fri Jul 15 20:52:52 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Fri Jul 15 20:52:50 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 20:52:50 +0200 Subject: Thoughts on router object In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 15 Jul 1994 14:46:29 EDT. <199407151846.OAA14019@merit.edu> Message-ID: <9407151852.AA09359@ncc.ripe.net> Laurent Joncheray writes: * I do not care about the name. As long as it can represent * border *and* internal routers. Routers will be looked up by their ip addres * ses, Okay - fine. [...rest deleted....] * PS: I didn't write this document :) Just the ?????? Does this mean we actually agree on something for once ;-). What say we turn this into a document we can send out at the same time or just after the RIPE-81++ doc ? -T -------- Logged at Mon Jul 18 17:27:44 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Mon Jul 18 17:27:38 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 17:27:38 +0200 Subject: The router object Message-ID: <9407181527.AA23623@mature.ripe.net> Please find below a draft of a proposal for a router object known as ``inet-rtr''. This is the missing link of the current ripe-81++ specifically for the ias-int information which was rightly removed along with the component attribute iself. This proposal is really a modification of a similar proposal made by Merit with just one or two clarifications and all credit belongs to them. This object could very quickly added to the Database. Please let me have comments asap. --Tony. Please note: a postscript version is available as ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/drafts/inet-rtr.ps Specifying an `Internet Router' in the Routing Registry Tony Bates DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT Document ID: ripe-xy ABSTRACT This paper describes a simple specification for defining an Internet router within a routing registry. 1. Introduction It has become apparent as routing registries are evolving that there is a need to register some details of an Internet router (1) within the routing registry. By adding this kind of detailed information it adds functionality to information based on routing policies [1] facilitating the ability to build operational tools [2],[3] such as configuration generators and diagnostic tools within increased local information. It also provides a direct method to find a contact for an important component of the Internet infrastructure. This can be extremely useful when resolving operational problems. 2. Acknowledgments This specification is based on a similar specification by Merit Inc. for a `route' object (2). All credit should go to them. This paper acts purely to clarify the original ideas set out in the Merit paper. _________________________ (1) Here an Internet router means any IP [4] node ca- pable of running an IP routing protocol. Be that RIP, BGP or any other of the current IP based routing proto- cols found in the Internet today. This definition is intentionally looser than what might be found in the "Router requirements" Internet draft [5]. (2) This specification does not use `router' as the object name to avoid possible clashes with the `route' object which already exists within the routing regis- try. ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 2 - 3. Router Representation The representation must be capable of representing both ``interior'' and ``border'' routers within ones own autonomous system. Each object is uniquely identified by its object name. Here is a simple example of a router object: inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net localas: AS3333 ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 ifaddr: 192.87.4.28 ifaddr: 193.0.0.222 peer: 192.87.45.6 AS2122 BGP4 peer: 193.0.0.219 AS2122 BGP peer: 193.0.0.221 AS1104 BGP peer: 192.87.4.18 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.24 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.20 AS286 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.5 AS3333 IBGP4 admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Tony Bates tech-c: Marten Terpstra notify: ops at ripe.net remarks: The router for the RIPE NCC changed: tony at ripe.net 940720 source: RIPE This object provides several key pieces of information. The exact syntax for each attribute is discussed in the next section. However, some general remarks about this example are worthy of note. From this you can see immediately that this router "Amsterdam.ripe.net" is in the autonomous system 3333 and has three configured inter- faces. You also see that it has several exterior peers and one inte- rior peer (192.87.45.6). Details of the actual routing protocol are given. This can be extremely useful. For example a BGP3 router is not CIDR [6] capable whereas a BGP4 capable router is. A tool could use this information when examining routing policy to see if a peer can make use of aggregation. Finally, we also see who we can con- tact when problems occur with this router. ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 3 - 4. `inet-rtr' Syntax Definition Here is a summary of the tags associated with inet-rtr object itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the inet-rtr object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can occur only once per object [single], or one or more [multiple]. When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be repeated. inet-rtr: [mandatory] [single] localas: [mandatory] [single] ifaddr: [mandatory] [multiple] peer: [optional] [multiple] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] remarks: [optional] [multiple] notify: [optional] [multiple] maintainer: [optional] [single] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] source: [mandatory] [single] Each attribute has the following syntax: inet-rtr: The fully qualified domain name of the router. Format: Fully qualified domain name without trailing "." (dot). This must be registered in the DNS. For routers with more than one DNS you should pick the one that seems most suit- able. It should be noted that it is commonly general prac- tice for a router to have single uniquely defined domain name. Example: inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net Status: mandatory, only one line allowed localas: The autonomous system in which this router belongs. Format: AS Example: localas: AS3333 Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 4 - ifaddr: An interface address within the router. Format: [Local AS] must be a "dotted-quad" represented host address. It should be noted that at ONE ifaddr must be configured for the inet-rtr object to be valid. This facilitates the registering of route servers which may only have one interface address and are purely routing engines. [Local AS] is an optional piece of information which allows this interface to be configured as being in a DIF- FERENT autonomous system. This is useful only when a router is configured to `fake' that it is another AS. The format of [Local AS] is AS. Examples: ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 ifaddr: 192.87.4.99 AS1755 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed peer: Details of any router peerings. These can be both interior or exterior. Format: is the interface address of the remote peer. This is same format as that used in the ``ifaddr'' attribute above. is the autonomous system number of the peer. Its format is AS. It should be noted that even interior peers should have their detailed. represents the routing protocol running between the router and the peer. This can be any one of the following reserved routing protocol keywords: EGP The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, EGP [7]. BGP The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP conforming to [8]. This can mean either BGP ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 5 - version 2 or BGP version 3. BGP4 The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP conforming to BGP version 4 [9]. IBGP The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP as an interior routing protocol conforming to [8]. This can mean either BGP version 2 or BGP ver- sion 3. IBGP4 The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP as an interior routing protocol conforming to BGP version 4 [9]. IDRP The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, IDRP conforming to [10]. IGP This is an interior peering using a standard interior gateway protocol (i.e. RIP, OSPF, etc.). OTHER This peering is using a protocol not in one of the categories above. Example: peer: 192.87.45.6 AS2122 BGP4 peer: 193.0.0.219 AS2122 BGP peer: 193.0.0.221 AS1104 BGP peer: 192.87.4.18 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.24 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.20 AS286 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.5 AS3333 IBGP4 Status: optional, multiple lines allowed admin-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative contact person. Format: or Examples: admin-c: Joe T Bloggs admin-c: JTB1 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 6 - tech-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of a technical con- tact person for this macro. This is someone to be contacted for technical problems such as misconfiguration. Format: or Examples: tech-c: John E Doe tech-c: JED31 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed notify: The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- cations of changes to this object should be send. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain syntax wherever possible. Example: notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Status: optional, multiple lines allowed maintainer: The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. Format: Example: maintainer: RIPE-DBM Status: optional, multiple lines allowed remarks: Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. Format: free text Example: remarks: This is a router ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 7 - Status: optional, multiple lines allowed changed: Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. Format: YYMMDD should be the address of the person who made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change was made. Example: changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed source: Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries the value is fixed to RIPE. Format: RIPE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 8 - 5. References [1] Bates, T., Gerich, E., Joncheray, L., Joanigot, J-M, Karren- berg, D., Terpstra, M, Yu, J., ripe-81++, July 1994. WORK IN PROGRESS [2] PRIDE Tools Release 1. See ftp.ripe.net:pride/tools/pride-tools-1.tar.Z. [3] Merit Inc. RRDB Tools. See rrdb.merit.edu:pub/meritrr/* [4] J. Postel, "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, January 1981. [5] Kastenholz, F., draft-ietf-rreq-iprouters-require-01.txt, April, 1994, INTERNET DRAFT [6] V. Fuller, T. Li, J. Yu, K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Stra- tegy", RFC1519, Sep., 1993. [7] Mills, D., "Exterior Gateway Protocol formal specification", RFC904, April 1984. [8] K. Lougheed, Y. Rekhter, "A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)", RFC1267, October 1991. [9] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", , INTERNET DRAFT, May, 1994. [10] C. Kunzinger, "ISO/IEC 10747 - Protocol for the Exchange of Inter-Domain Routing Information among Intermediate Systems to Support Forwarding of ISO 8473 PDUs", , INTERNET DRAFT, April 1994. ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 -------- Logged at Mon Jul 18 18:03:35 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Mon Jul 18 18:03:29 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 18:03:29 +0200 Subject: The router object In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 18 Jul 1994 17:27:38 MDT. <9407181527.AA23623@mature.ripe.net> Message-ID: <9407181603.AA23706@mature.ripe.net> Tony Bates writes: * Okay, one immediate change that comes to mind is that the OPTIONAL [Local AS] information in the ifaddr attrbiute should be moved . It should in fact move out of ifaddr into peer information as I think the only time this will be used is actually at the routing/policy level rather than the interface level. Here is an updated draft with the modified syntax. --Tony. Specifying an `Internet Router' in the Routing Registry Tony Bates DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT Document ID: ripe-xy ABSTRACT This paper describes a simple specification for defining an Internet router within a routing registry. 1. Introduction It has become apparent as routing registries are evolving that there is a need to register some details of an Internet router (1) within the routing registry. By adding this kind of detailed information it adds functionality to information based on routing policies [1] facilitating the ability to build operational tools [2],[3] such as configuration generators and diagnostic tools within increased local information. It also provides a direct method to find a contact for an important component of the Internet infrastructure. This can be extremely useful when resolving operational problems. 2. Acknowledgments This specification is based on a similar specification by Merit Inc. for a `route' object (2). All credit should go to them. This paper acts purely to clarify the original ideas set out in the Merit paper. _________________________ (1) Here an Internet router means any IP [4] node ca- pable of running an IP routing protocol. Be that RIP, BGP or any other of the current IP based routing proto- cols found in the Internet today. This definition is intentionally looser than what might be found in the "Router requirements" Internet draft [5]. (2) This specification does not use `router' as the object name to avoid possible clashes with the `route' object which already exists within the routing regis- try. ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 2 - 3. Router Representation The representation must be capable of representing both ``interior'' and ``border'' routers within ones own autonomous system. Each object is uniquely identified by its object name. Here is a simple example of a router object: inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net localas: AS3333 ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 ifaddr: 192.87.4.28 ifaddr: 193.0.0.222 peer: 192.87.45.6 AS2122 BGP4 peer: 193.0.0.219 AS2122 BGP peer: 193.0.0.221 AS1104 BGP peer: 192.87.4.18 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.24 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.20 AS286 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.5 AS3333 IBGP4 admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Tony Bates tech-c: Marten Terpstra notify: ops at ripe.net remarks: The router for the RIPE NCC changed: tony at ripe.net 940720 source: RIPE This object provides several key pieces of information. The exact syntax for each attribute is discussed in the next section. However, some general remarks about this example are worthy of note. From this you can see immediately that this router "Amsterdam.ripe.net" is in the autonomous system 3333 and has three configured inter- faces. You also see that it has several exterior peers and one inte- rior peer (192.87.45.6). Details of the actual routing protocol are given. This can be extremely useful. For example a BGP3 router is not CIDR [6] capable whereas a BGP4 capable router is. A tool could use this information when examining routing policy to see if a peer can make use of aggregation. Finally, we also see who we can con- tact when problems occur with this router. ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 3 - 4. `inet-rtr' Syntax Definition Here is a summary of the tags associated with inet-rtr object itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the inet-rtr object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can occur only once per object [single], or one or more [multiple]. When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be repeated. inet-rtr: [mandatory] [single] localas: [mandatory] [single] ifaddr: [mandatory] [multiple] peer: [optional] [multiple] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] remarks: [optional] [multiple] notify: [optional] [multiple] maintainer: [optional] [single] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] source: [mandatory] [single] Each attribute has the following syntax: inet-rtr: The fully qualified domain name of the router. Format: Fully qualified domain name without trailing "." (dot). This must be registered in the DNS. For routers with more than one DNS you should pick the one that seems most suit- able. It should be noted that it is commonly general prac- tice for a router to have single uniquely defined domain name. Example: inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net Status: mandatory, only one line allowed localas: The autonomous system in which this router belongs. Format: AS Example: localas: AS3333 Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 4 - ifaddr: An interface address within the router. Format: must be a "dotted-quad" represented host address. It should be noted that at least ONE ifaddr must be configured for the inet-rtr object to be valid. This facilitates the registering of route servers which may only have one interface address and are purely routing engines. Examples: ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 ifaddr: 192.87.4.99 AS1755 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed peer: Details of any router peerings. These can be both interior or exterior. Format: [Local AS] is the interface address of the remote peer. This is same format as that used in the ``ifaddr'' attribute above. is the autonomous system number of the peer. Its format is AS. It should be noted that even interior peers should have their detailed. represents the routing protocol running between the router and the peer. This can be any one of the following reserved routing protocol keywords: EGP The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, EGP [7]. BGP The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP conforming to [8]. This can mean either BGP ver- sion 2 or BGP version 3. BGP4 The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP conforming to BGP version 4 [9]. IBGP ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 5 - The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP as an interior routing protocol conforming to [8]. This can mean either BGP version 2 or BGP ver- sion 3. IBGP4 The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP as an interior routing protocol conforming to BGP version 4 [9]. IDRP The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, IDRP conforming to [10]. IGP This is an interior peering using a standard interior gateway protocol (i.e. RIP, OSPF, etc.). OTHER This peering is using a protocol not in one of the categories above. [Local AS] is an optional piece of information which allows this peering to be configured as having the router in a DIFFERENT autonomous system. This is useful only when a router is configured to `fake' that it is another AS. The format of [Local AS] is "localas AS". The string `localas' must be present for this optional information to be valid. Example: peer: 193.0.0.219 AS2122 BGP peer: 193.0.0.221 AS1104 BGP peer: 192.87.4.18 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.24 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.20 AS286 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.6 AS2122 BGP4 localas AS2121 Status: optional, multiple lines allowed admin-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative contact person. Format: or Examples: admin-c: Joe T Bloggs admin-c: JTB1 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 6 - tech-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of a technical con- tact person for this macro. This is someone to be contacted for technical problems such as misconfiguration. Format: or Examples: tech-c: John E Doe tech-c: JED31 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed notify: The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- cations of changes to this object should be send. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain syntax wherever possible. Example: notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Status: optional, multiple lines allowed maintainer: The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. Format: Example: maintainer: RIPE-DBM Status: optional, multiple lines allowed remarks: Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. Format: free text Example: remarks: This is a router ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 7 - Status: optional, multiple lines allowed changed: Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. Format: YYMMDD should be the address of the person who made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change was made. Example: changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed source: Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries the value is fixed to RIPE. Format: RIPE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 8 - 5. References [1] Bates, T., Gerich, E., Joncheray, L., Joanigot, J-M, Karren- berg, D., Terpstra, M, Yu, J., ripe-81++, July 1994. WORK IN PROGRESS [2] PRIDE Tools Release 1. See ftp.ripe.net:pride/tools/pride-tools-1.tar.Z. [3] Merit Inc. RRDB Tools. See rrdb.merit.edu:pub/meritrr/* [4] J. Postel, "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, January 1981. [5] Kastenholz, F., draft-ietf-rreq-iprouters-require-01.txt, April, 1994, INTERNET DRAFT [6] V. Fuller, T. Li, J. Yu, K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Stra- tegy", RFC1519, Sep., 1993. [7] Mills, D., "Exterior Gateway Protocol formal specification", RFC904, April 1984. [8] K. Lougheed, Y. Rekhter, "A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)", RFC1267, October 1991. [9] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", , INTERNET DRAFT, May, 1994. [10] C. Kunzinger, "ISO/IEC 10747 - Protocol for the Exchange of Inter-Domain Routing Information among Intermediate Systems to Support Forwarding of ISO 8473 PDUs", , INTERNET DRAFT, April 1994. ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 -------- Logged at Tue Jul 19 12:58:08 MET DST 1994 --------- From bonito at nis.garr.it Tue Jul 19 10:53:00 1994 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 10:53:00 MET DST Subject: The router object In-Reply-To: <9407181603.AA23706@mature.ripe.net>; from "Tony Bates" at Jul 18, 94 6:03 pm Message-ID: <9407190853.AA04818@picche.nis.garr.it> > > > Tony Bates writes: > * > Okay, one immediate change that comes to mind is that the OPTIONAL [Local AS] > information in the ifaddr attrbiute should be moved . It > should in fact move out of ifaddr into peer information as I think the only > time this will be used is actually at the routing/policy level rather than the > interface level. Here is an updated draft with the modified syntax. Other comments/corrections below... > > > --Tony. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Specifying an `Internet Router' in the Routing > Registry > > > Tony Bates > > > DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT > > Document ID: ripe-xy > > > > ABSTRACT > > This paper describes a simple specification for > defining an Internet router within a routing registry. > > > > 1. Introduction > > It has become apparent as routing registries are evolving that there > is a need to register some details of an Internet router (1) within > the routing registry. By adding this kind of detailed information it > adds functionality to information based on routing policies [1] > facilitating the ability to build operational tools [2],[3] such as > configuration generators and diagnostic tools within increased local > information. It also provides a direct method to find a contact for > an important component of the Internet infrastructure. This can be > extremely useful when resolving operational problems. > > 2. Acknowledgments > > This specification is based on a similar specification by Merit Inc. > for a `route' object (2). All credit should go to them. This paper > acts purely to clarify the original ideas set out in the Merit > paper. > _________________________ > (1) Here an Internet router means any IP [4] node ca- > pable of running an IP routing protocol. Be that RIP, > BGP or any other of the current IP based routing proto- > cols found in the Internet today. This definition is > intentionally looser than what might be found in the > "Router requirements" Internet draft [5]. > (2) This specification does not use `router' as the > object name to avoid possible clashes with the `route' > object which already exists within the routing regis- > try. > > > > > ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 > - 2 - > > > 3. Router Representation > > The representation must be capable of representing both ``interior'' > and ``border'' routers within ones own autonomous system. Each > object is uniquely identified by its object name. Here is a simple > example of a router object: > > > inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net > localas: AS3333 > ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 > ifaddr: 192.87.4.28 > ifaddr: 193.0.0.222 > peer: 192.87.45.6 AS2122 BGP4 > peer: 193.0.0.219 AS2122 BGP > peer: 193.0.0.221 AS1104 BGP > peer: 192.87.4.18 AS1103 BGP4 > peer: 192.87.4.24 AS1103 BGP4 > peer: 192.87.4.20 AS286 BGP4 > peer: 192.87.4.5 AS3333 IBGP4 > admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg > tech-c: Tony Bates > tech-c: Marten Terpstra > notify: ops at ripe.net > remarks: The router for the RIPE NCC > changed: tony at ripe.net 940720 > source: RIPE > > > This object provides several key pieces of information. The exact > syntax for each attribute is discussed in the next section. However, > some general remarks about this example are worthy of note. From > this you can see immediately that this router "Amsterdam.ripe.net" > is in the autonomous system 3333 and has three configured inter- > faces. You also see that it has several exterior peers and one inte- > rior peer (192.87.45.6). Details of the actual routing protocol are > given. This can be extremely useful. For example a BGP3 router is > not CIDR [6] capable whereas a BGP4 capable router is. A tool could > use this information when examining routing policy to see if a peer > can make use of aggregation. Finally, we also see who we can con- > tact when problems occur with this router. The example should list also interior peers with internal routing protocols and the explanation text should mention that too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 > - 3 - > > > 4. `inet-rtr' Syntax Definition > > Here is a summary of the tags associated with inet-rtr object itself > and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the > second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the inet-rtr > object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can > occur only once per object [single], or one or more [multiple]. When > specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be > repeated. > > inet-rtr: [mandatory] [single] > localas: [mandatory] [single] > ifaddr: [mandatory] [multiple] > peer: [optional] [multiple] > tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] > admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] > remarks: [optional] [multiple] > notify: [optional] [multiple] > maintainer: [optional] [single] > changed: [mandatory] [multiple] > source: [mandatory] [single] > > > Each attribute has the following syntax: > > > inet-rtr: > The fully qualified domain name of the router. > > Format: > Fully qualified domain name without trailing "." (dot). > This must be registered in the DNS. For routers with more > than one DNS you should pick the one that seems most suit- > able. It should be noted that it is commonly general prac- > tice for a router to have single uniquely defined domain > name. > > Example: > > inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net > > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > localas: > The autonomous system in which this router belongs. > > Format: > AS > > Example: > > localas: AS3333 > > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > > > ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 > - 4 - > > > ifaddr: > An interface address within the router. > > Format: > > > must be a "dotted-quad" represented > host address. It should be noted that at least ONE ifaddr > must be configured for the inet-rtr object to be valid. > This facilitates the registering of route servers which > may only have one interface address and are purely routing > engines. Uhmmm, a route server which does not route packets but is only used by actual routers as a source of routing information IS NOT a router. Does it need to be registered? If yes I think it should be clearly distinguishable by actual routers. > > Examples: > > ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 > ifaddr: 192.87.4.99 AS1755 ^^^^^^ This should be removed after the mod from Tony, right? > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > peer: > Details of any router peerings. These can be both interior or > exterior. > > Format: > [Local AS] > > is the interface address of the remote > peer. This is same format as that used in the ``ifaddr'' > attribute above. > > is the autonomous system number of the peer. Its > format is AS. It > should be noted that even interior peers should have their > detailed. > > represents the routing protocol running > between the router and the peer. This can be any one of > the following reserved routing protocol keywords: > > EGP > The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, > EGP [7]. > > BGP > The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, > BGP conforming to [8]. This can mean either BGP ver- > sion 2 or BGP version 3. > > BGP4 > The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, > BGP conforming to BGP version 4 [9]. > > IBGP > > > > ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 > - 5 - > > > The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, > BGP as an interior routing protocol conforming to > [8]. This can mean either BGP version 2 or BGP ver- > sion 3. > > IBGP4 > The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, > BGP as an interior routing protocol conforming to BGP > version 4 [9]. > > IDRP > The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, > IDRP conforming to [10]. > > IGP > This is an interior peering using a standard interior > gateway protocol (i.e. RIP, OSPF, etc.). > > OTHER > This peering is using a protocol not in one of the > categories above. > > [Local AS] is an optional piece of information which > allows this peering to be configured as having the router > in a DIFFERENT autonomous system. This is useful only > when a router is configured to `fake' that it is another > AS. The format of [Local AS] is "localas AS integer between 1 and 65535>". The string `localas' must > be present for this optional information to be valid. Text to be added: Note that in some cases a router configured as being in more than one AS can also peer with itself to exchange routes among its ASes > > Example: > > peer: 193.0.0.219 AS2122 BGP > peer: 193.0.0.221 AS1104 BGP > peer: 192.87.4.18 AS1103 BGP4 > peer: 192.87.4.24 AS1103 BGP4 > peer: 192.87.4.20 AS286 BGP4 > peer: 192.87.4.6 AS2122 BGP4 localas AS2121 > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > admin-c: > Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative > contact person. > > Format: > or > > Examples: > > admin-c: Joe T Bloggs > admin-c: JTB1 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > > > ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 > - 6 - > > > tech-c: > Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of a technical con- > tact person for this macro. This is someone to be contacted for > technical problems such as misconfiguration. > > Format: > or > > Examples: > > tech-c: John E Doe > tech-c: JED31 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > notify: > The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- > cations of changes to this object should be send. The meaning and usage of this attribute is not clear: which kind of changes? > > Format: > > > The should be in RFC822 domain syntax > wherever possible. > > Example: > > notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > maintainer: > The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. The meaning and purpose of this attribute is not clear. > > Format: > > > Example: > > maintainer: RIPE-DBM > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > remarks: > Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. > > Format: > free text > > Example: > > remarks: This is a router > > > > > > ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 > - 7 - > > > Status: optional, multiple lines allowed > > changed: > Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. > > Format: > YYMMDD > > should be the address of the person who > made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change > was made. > > Example: > > changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 > > Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed > > source: > Source of the information. > > This is used to separate information from different sources > kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries > the value is fixed to RIPE. > > Format: > RIPE > Status: mandatory, only one line allowed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 > - 8 - > > > 5. References > > [1] Bates, T., Gerich, E., Joncheray, L., Joanigot, J-M, Karren- > berg, D., Terpstra, M, Yu, J., ripe-81++, July 1994. WORK IN > PROGRESS > > [2] PRIDE Tools Release 1. > See ftp.ripe.net:pride/tools/pride-tools-1.tar.Z. > > [3] Merit Inc. RRDB Tools. > See rrdb.merit.edu:pub/meritrr/* > > [4] J. Postel, "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, January 1981. > > [5] Kastenholz, F., draft-ietf-rreq-iprouters-require-01.txt, > April, 1994, INTERNET DRAFT > > [6] V. Fuller, T. Li, J. Yu, K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter-Domain > Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Stra- > tegy", RFC1519, Sep., 1993. > > [7] Mills, D., "Exterior Gateway Protocol formal specification", > RFC904, April 1984. > > [8] K. Lougheed, Y. Rekhter, "A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)", > RFC1267, October 1991. > > [9] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", > , INTERNET DRAFT, May, 1994. > > [10] C. Kunzinger, "ISO/IEC 10747 - Protocol for the Exchange of > Inter-Domain Routing Information among Intermediate Systems to > Support Forwarding of ISO 8473 PDUs", ISO10747-00.txt>, INTERNET DRAFT, April 1994. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 > -- ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 (50) 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 CNUCE I 56126 PISA Italy Fax: +39 (50) 904052 ---------- ---------- -------- Logged at Tue Jul 19 21:28:33 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Tue Jul 19 21:28:28 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 21:28:28 +0200 Subject: The router object In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 19 Jul 1994 10:53:00 +0700. <9407190853.AA04818@picche.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: <9407191928.AA00723@mellow.ripe.net> bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * * The example should list also interior peers with internal routing protocols * and the explanation text should mention that too. * Well it does have an IBGP interior example. I can add something in the text as well. * > * > * > must be a "dotted-quad" represented * > host address. It should be noted that at least ONE ifaddr * > must be configured for the inet-rtr object to be valid. * > This facilitates the registering of route servers which * > may only have one interface address and are purely routing * > engines. * * Uhmmm, a route server which does not route packets but is only used by * actual routers as a source of routing information IS NOT a router. Does it * need to be registered? If yes I think it should be clearly distinguishable * by actual routers. * Uhmmm..sorry not where I come from. A router is something that exchanges routing information - I see no reason why a router needs to forward packets. In fact a route server is specifically configured to not to forward packets. You are confusing routing with forwarding. I see no real reason to distinguish an RS. Whilst it is perhaps a special case it still fits simply into the general schema of the object. By having a single interface you give an indication of route serving (of course you can forward in and out of this as well but..). It is not the intent of this object to catch every special case (otherwise we have to support to ebgp multihop - tunnels, etc). * > * > Examples: * > * > ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 * > ifaddr: 192.87.4.99 AS1755 * ^^^^^^ * This should be removed after the mod from Tony, right? * Yep - overhanging mistake. * * Text to be added: * Note that in some cases a router configured as being in more * than one AS can also peer with itself to exchange routes * among its ASes * Really ? what is the exact purpose of this and how is it acheived ? * > * > notify: * > The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- * > cations of changes to this object should be send. * * The meaning and usage of this attribute is not clear: which kind of changes * ? * Any update - please look at the relavent ripe document for more details. ripe-096.txt btw. * > * > maintainer: * > The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. * * The meaning and purpose of this attribute is not clear. See ripe-096 for more details. --Tony. -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 12:01:10 MET DST 1994 --------- From bonito at nis.garr.it Thu Jul 21 11:57:04 1994 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 11:57:04 MET DST Subject: The router object In-Reply-To: <9407191928.AA00723@mellow.ripe.net>; from "Tony Bates" at Jul 19, 94 9:28 pm Message-ID: <9407210957.AA05649@picche.nis.garr.it> Tony, > > > bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: > > * > * The example should list also interior peers with internal routing protocols > * and the explanation text should mention that too. > * > Well it does have an IBGP interior example. I can add something in the > text as well. I meant IGP should be there too. Usually you get information on internal routes via some IGP (OSPF, I-ISIS, RIP, IGRP, ...). It is wise to mention that in the example, I guess. > * > > * > > * > must be a "dotted-quad" represented > * > host address. It should be noted that at least ONE ifaddr > * > must be configured for the inet-rtr object to be valid. > * > This facilitates the registering of route servers which > * > may only have one interface address and are purely routing > * > engines. > * > * Uhmmm, a route server which does not route packets but is only used by > * actual routers as a source of routing information IS NOT a router. Does it > * need to be registered? If yes I think it should be clearly distinguishable > * by actual routers. > * > Uhmmm..sorry not where I come from. A router is something that > exchanges routing information - I see no reason why a router needs to > forward packets. In fact a route server is specifically configured to > not to forward packets. You are confusing routing with forwarding. I see no > real reason to distinguish an RS. Whilst it is perhaps a special case > it still fits simply into the general schema of the object. By having > a single interface you give an indication of route serving (of course > you can forward in and out of this as well but..). > It is not the intent of this object to catch every special case > (otherwise we have to support to ebgp multihop - tunnels, etc). OK, this is terminology and "network philosophy". Leave as it is. > > * > * Text to be added: > * Note that in some cases a router configured as being in more > * than one AS can also peer with itself to exchange routes > * among its ASes > * > Really ? what is the exact purpose of this and how is it acheived ? Suppose you are running two BGP processes in a router you may want to run an IBGP between the two to echange routes eventually applying some policy filtering to the exchange. Exactly what is done if you have two different boxes... > > * > > * > notify: > * > The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- > * > cations of changes to this object should be send. > * > * The meaning and usage of this attribute is not clear: which kind of changes > * ? > * > Any update - please look at the relavent ripe document for more > details. > ripe-096.txt btw. OK, so please insert a reference to ripe-096 in the text. > > * > > * > maintainer: > * > The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. > * > > * The meaning and purpose of this attribute is not clear. > > See ripe-096 for more details. OK, so please insert a reference to ripe-096 in the text. > > --Tony. > ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 (50) 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 CNUCE I 56126 PISA Italy Fax: +39 (50) 904052 ---------- ---------- -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 13:31:17 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Thu Jul 21 13:31:14 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 13:31:14 +0200 Subject: The router object In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 21 Jul 1994 11:57:04 +0700. <9407210957.AA05649@picche.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: <9407211131.AA10177@mature.ripe.net> bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * * I meant IGP should be there too. Usually you get information on internal * routes via some IGP (OSPF, I-ISIS, RIP, IGRP, ...). It is wise to mention t * hat * in the example, I guess. * Okay. * > * * > Really ? what is the exact purpose of this and how is it acheived ? * * Suppose you are running two BGP processes in a router you may want to run * an IBGP between the two to echange routes eventually applying some policy * filtering to the exchange. Exactly what is done if you have two different * boxes... * Is this possible to do ??? in the same box. The BGP RIB(s) (i.e. its tables, the Adj-RIBs-In, the Loc-RIB, and the Adj-RIBs-Out) are single for whole box. Also IBGP is a sync not a policy setter. Two boxes is a subtle difference plus the IBGP part will only be of interest in terms of the Exterior routes passed in the IBGP. I would be interested if there is such a box that can have (currently) more than one (effective) BGP process in a box. I am a little lost on this matter I must admit ? * > * > * > * > * > notify: * > * > The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi * - * > * > cations of changes to this object should be send. * > * * > * The meaning and usage of this attribute is not clear: which kind of c * hanges * > * ? * > * * > Any update - please look at the relavent ripe document for more * > details. * > ripe-096.txt btw. * * OK, so please insert a reference to ripe-096 in the text. * Will do.... * > * > * > * > * > maintainer: * > * > The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name * . * > * * > * > * The meaning and purpose of this attribute is not clear. * > * > See ripe-096 for more details. * * OK, so please insert a reference to ripe-096 in the text. * Will do... Thanks for your comments. --Tony. -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 13:58:33 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Thu Jul 21 13:58:28 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 13:58:28 +0200 Subject: The router object In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 21 Jul 1994 11:57:04 +0700. <9407210957.AA05649@picche.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: <9407211158.AA10280@mature.ripe.net> Here the latest draft with the comments from Blasco. I would like to have this agreed at the latest at the next RIPE meeting. Comments are of course still welcome. However, I am about to depart for a month so they will have to wait to be folded in. --Tony. Specifying an `Internet Router' in the Routing Registry Tony Bates DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT Document ID: ripe-xy ABSTRACT This paper describes a simple specification for defining an Internet router within a routing registry. 1. Introduction It has become apparent as routing registries are evolving that there is a need to register some details of an Internet router (1) within the routing registry. By adding this kind of detailed information it adds functionality to information based on routing policies [1] facilitating the ability to build operational tools [2],[3] such as configuration generators and diagnostic tools within increased local information. It also provides a direct method to find a contact for an important component of the Internet infrastructure. This can be extremely useful when resolving operational problems. 2. Acknowledgments This specification is based on a similar specification by Merit Inc. for a `route' object (2). All credit should go to them. This paper acts purely to clarify the original ideas set out in the Merit paper. _________________________ (1) Here an Internet router means any IP [4] node ca- pable of running an IP routing protocol. Be that RIP, BGP or any other of the current IP based routing proto- cols found in the Internet today. This definition is intentionally looser than what might be found in the "Router requirements" Internet draft [5]. (2) This specification does not use `router' as the object name to avoid possible clashes with the `route' object which already exists within the routing regis- try. ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 2 - 3. Router Representation The representation must be capable of representing both ``interior'' and ``border'' routers within ones own autonomous system. Each object is uniquely identified by its object name. Here is a simple example of a router object: inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net localas: AS3333 ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 ifaddr: 192.87.4.28 ifaddr: 193.0.0.222 peer: 192.87.45.6 AS2122 BGP4 peer: 193.0.0.219 AS2122 BGP peer: 193.0.0.221 AS1104 BGP peer: 192.87.4.18 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.24 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.20 AS286 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.5 AS3333 IBGP4 peer: 192.87.4.2 AS3333 IGP admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Tony Bates tech-c: Marten Terpstra notify: ops at ripe.net remarks: The router for the RIPE NCC changed: tony at ripe.net 940720 source: RIPE This object provides several key pieces of information. The exact syntax for each attribute is discussed in the next section. However, some general remarks about this example are worthy of note. From this you can see immediately that this router "Amsterdam.ripe.net" is in the autonomous system 3333 and has three configured inter- faces. You also see that it has several exterior peers and one inte- rior peer (192.87.45.6). Details of the actual routing protocol are given. This can be extremely useful. For example a BGP3 router is not CIDR [6] capable whereas a BGP4 capable router is. A tool could use this information when examining routing policy to see if a peer can make use of aggregation. Finally, we also see who we can con- tact when problems occur with this router. ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 3 - 4. `inet-rtr' Syntax Definition Here is a summary of the tags associated with inet-rtr object itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the inet-rtr object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can occur only once per object [single], or one or more [multiple]. When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be repeated. inet-rtr: [mandatory] [single] localas: [mandatory] [single] ifaddr: [mandatory] [multiple] peer: [optional] [multiple] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] remarks: [optional] [multiple] notify: [optional] [multiple] maintainer: [optional] [single] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] source: [mandatory] [single] Each attribute has the following syntax: inet-rtr: The fully qualified domain name of the router. Format: Fully qualified domain name without trailing "." (dot). This must be registered in the DNS. For routers with more than one DNS you should pick the one that seems most suit- able. It should be noted that it is commonly general prac- tice for a router to have single uniquely defined domain name. Example: inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net Status: mandatory, only one line allowed localas: The autonomous system in which this router belongs. Format: AS Example: localas: AS3333 Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 4 - ifaddr: An interface address within the router. Format: must be a "dotted-quad" represented host address. It should be noted that at least ONE ifaddr must be configured for the inet-rtr object to be valid. This facilitates the registering of route servers which may only have one interface address and are purely routing engines. Examples: ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 ifaddr: 192.87.4.99 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed peer: Details of any router peerings. These can be both interior or exterior. Format: [Local AS] is the interface address of the remote peer. This is same format as that used in the ``ifaddr'' attribute above. is the autonomous system number of the peer. Its format is AS. It should be noted that even interior peers should have their detailed. represents the routing protocol running between the router and the peer. This can be any one of the following reserved routing protocol keywords: EGP The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, EGP [7]. BGP The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP conforming to [8]. This can mean either BGP ver- sion 2 or BGP version 3. BGP4 The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP conforming to BGP version 4 [9]. IBGP ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 5 - The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP as an interior routing protocol conforming to [8]. This can mean either BGP version 2 or BGP ver- sion 3. IBGP4 The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, BGP as an interior routing protocol conforming to BGP version 4 [9]. IDRP The routers are using the exterior gateway protocol, IDRP conforming to [10]. IGP This is an interior peering using a standard interior gateway protocol (i.e. RIP, OSPF, etc.). OTHER This peering is using a protocol not in one of the categories above. [Local AS] is an optional piece of information which allows this peering to be configured as having the router in a DIFFERENT autonomous system. This is useful only when a router is configured to `fake' that it is another AS. The format of [Local AS] is "localas AS". The string `localas' must be present for this optional information to be valid. Example: peer: 193.0.0.219 AS2122 BGP peer: 193.0.0.221 AS1104 BGP peer: 192.87.4.18 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.24 AS1103 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.20 AS286 BGP4 peer: 192.87.4.6 AS2122 BGP4 localas AS2121 Status: optional, multiple lines allowed admin-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative contact person. Format: or Examples: admin-c: Joe T Bloggs admin-c: JTB1 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 6 - tech-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of a technical con- tact person for this macro. This is someone to be contacted for technical problems such as misconfiguration. Format: or Examples: tech-c: John E Doe tech-c: JED31 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed notify: The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- cations of changes to this object should be send. See [11] for more details. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain syntax wherever possible. see Example: notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Status: optional, multiple lines allowed maintainer: The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. See [11] for more details. Format: Example: maintainer: RIPE-DBM Status: optional, multiple lines allowed remarks: Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. Format: free text Example: ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 7 - remarks: This is a router Status: optional, multiple lines allowed changed: Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. Format: YYMMDD should be the address of the person who made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change was made. Example: changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed source: Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries the value is fixed to RIPE. Format: RIPE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 - 8 - 5. References [1] Bates, T., Gerich, E., Joncheray, L., Joanigot, J-M, Karren- berg, D., Terpstra, M, Yu, J., ripe-81++, July 1994. WORK IN PROGRESS [2] PRIDE Tools Release 1. See ftp.ripe.net:pride/tools/pride-tools-1.tar.Z. [3] Merit Inc. RRDB Tools. See rrdb.merit.edu:pub/meritrr/* [4] J. Postel, "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, January 1981. [5] Kastenholz, F., draft-ietf-rreq-iprouters-require-01.txt, April, 1994, INTERNET DRAFT [6] V. Fuller, T. Li, J. Yu, K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Stra- tegy", RFC1519, Sep., 1993. [7] Mills, D., "Exterior Gateway Protocol formal specification", RFC904, April 1984. [8] K. Lougheed, Y. Rekhter, "A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)", RFC1267, October 1991. [9] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", , INTERNET DRAFT, May, 1994. [10] C. Kunzinger, "ISO/IEC 10747 - Protocol for the Exchange of Inter-Domain Routing Information among Intermediate Systems to Support Forwarding of ISO 8473 PDUs", , INTERNET DRAFT, April 1994. [11] Karrenberg, D., "Authorisation and Notification of Changes in the RIPE Database", ripe-096, Oct, 1993. ripe-xy.txt July, 1994 -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 15:07:30 MET DST 1994 --------- From bonito at nis.garr.it Thu Jul 21 15:03:25 1994 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 15:03:25 MET DST Subject: The router object In-Reply-To: <9407211158.AA10280@mature.ripe.net>; from "Tony Bates" at Jul 21, 94 1:58 pm Message-ID: <9407211303.AA05814@picche.nis.garr.it> > > Here the latest draft with the comments from Blasco. I would like to > have this agreed at the latest at the next RIPE meeting. Comments are > of course still welcome. However, I am about to depart for a month so > they will have to wait to be folded in. > > --Tony. An inconsistency due to working in a hurry, I guess... > . . . > > 3. Router Representation > > The representation must be capable of representing both ``interior'' > and ``border'' routers within ones own autonomous system. Each > object is uniquely identified by its object name. Here is a simple > example of a router object: > > > inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net > localas: AS3333 > ifaddr: 192.87.45.190 > ifaddr: 192.87.4.28 > ifaddr: 193.0.0.222 > peer: 192.87.45.6 AS2122 BGP4 > peer: 193.0.0.219 AS2122 BGP > peer: 193.0.0.221 AS1104 BGP > peer: 192.87.4.18 AS1103 BGP4 > peer: 192.87.4.24 AS1103 BGP4 > peer: 192.87.4.20 AS286 BGP4 > peer: 192.87.4.5 AS3333 IBGP4 > peer: 192.87.4.2 AS3333 IGP > admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg > tech-c: Tony Bates > tech-c: Marten Terpstra > notify: ops at ripe.net > remarks: The router for the RIPE NCC > changed: tony at ripe.net 940720 > source: RIPE > > > This object provides several key pieces of information. The exact > syntax for each attribute is discussed in the next section. However, > some general remarks about this example are worthy of note. From > this you can see immediately that this router "Amsterdam.ripe.net" > is in the autonomous system 3333 and has three configured inter- > faces. You also see that it has several exterior peers and one inte- ^^^ Should be two > rior peer (192.87.45.6). Details of the actual routing protocol are ^^^^^^^^^^^ should be (192.87.4.5, 192.87.4.2) > given. This can be extremely useful. For example a BGP3 router is > not CIDR [6] capable whereas a BGP4 capable router is. A tool could > use this information when examining routing policy to see if a peer > can make use of aggregation. Finally, we also see who we can con- > tact when problems occur with this router. > ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 (50) 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 CNUCE I 56126 PISA Italy Fax: +39 (50) 904052 ---------- ---------- -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 16:18:13 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Thu Jul 21 16:17:53 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 16:17:53 +0200 Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ Message-ID: <9407211417.AA10651@mature.ripe.net> Find below the latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++. We have ratified all the outstanding issues with the possible exception of the ordering of the interas-in/interas-out attribute which is not a `show-stopper' at this point. We have used our preferred syntax "for now" for clarity reasons. Anyway, here it is. We must reach agreement on this at the RIPE meeting if this is to be implemented in a timely manner and preferably before. Working group chairs please take note and see if you can't get this agreed within your groups before hand. The major changes from the last draft is the inclusion of the interas-in/interas-out work and pointers to the `inet-rtr' object (already circulated). versions online as usual from: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/drafts/ripe-81++.ps ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/drafts/ripe-81++.txt All comments welcome. Enjoy ! Regards, --Tony. Representation of IP Routing Policies in a Routing Registry (ripe-81++) DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Tony Bates Elise Gerich Laurent Joncheray Jean-Michel Jouanigot Daniel Karrenberg Marten Terpstra Jessica Yu Document-ID: ripe-1nn Obsoletes: ripe-81 July, 1994 ABSTRACT This document is an update to the original `ripe- 81'[1] proposal for representing and storing routing polices within the RIPE database. It incorporates several extensions proposed by Merit Inc.[2] and gives details of a generalised IP routing policy representa- tion to be used by all Internet routing registries. It acts as both tutorial and provides details of database objects and attributes that use and make up a routing registry. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 2 - Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................ ? 2 Organisation of this Document ............................... ? 3 General Representation of Policy Information ................ ? 4 The Routing Registry and the RIPE Database .................. ? 5 The Route Object ............................................ ? 6 The Autonomous System Object ................................ ? 7 The AS Macro Object ......................................... ? 8 The Community Object ........................................ ? 9 Representation of Routing Policies .......................... ? 10 Future Extensions .......................................... ? 11 References ................................................. ? 12 Authors Addresses .......................................... ? Appendix A - Syntax for the "aut-num" object .................. ? Appendix B - Syntax for the "community" object ................ ? Appendix C - Syntax for the "as-macro" object ................. ? Appendix D - Syntax for the "route" object .................... ? Appendix E - List of reserved words ........................... ? Appendix F - Motivations for RIPE-81++ ........................ ? Appendix G - Transition strategy from RIPE-81 to RIPE-81++ .... ? ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 3 - 1. Introduction This document is a much revised version of the RIPE routing registry document known as ripe-81[1]. Since its inception in February, 1993 and the establishment of the RIPE routing registry, several addi- tions and clarifications have come to light which can be better presented in a single updated document rather than separate addenda. Some of the text remains the same the as the original ripe-81 docu- ment keeping its tutorial style mixed with details of the RIPE data- base objects relating to routing policy representation. However this document does not repeat the background and historical remarks in ripe-81. For these please refer to the original document. It should be noted that whilst this document specifically references the RIPE database and the RIPE routing registry one can easily read "Regional routing registry" in place of RIPE as this representation is certainly general and flexible enough to be used outside of the RIPE community incorporating many ideas and features from other routing registries in this update. As you can see this document has a new RIPE document identification number but can also be referred to as ripe-81++. Appendix F summar- ises the changes from ripe-81 plus the motivation for these changes. We would like to acknowledge many people for help with this docu- ment. Specifically, Peter Lothberg who was a co-author of the ori- ginal ripe-81 document for his many ideas and Gilles Farrache. We would also like to thank the RIPE routing working group for their review and comment. Finally, we like to thank Merit Inc. for many constructive comments and ideas and making the routing registry a worldwide Internet service. We would also like to acknowledge the funding provided by the PRIDE project run in conjunction with the RARE Technical Program, RIPE and the RIPE NCC without which this paper would not have been possible. 2. Organisation of this Paper This paper acts as both a basic tutorial for understanding routing policy and provides details of objects and attributes used within an Internet routing registry to store routing policies. Section 3 describes general issues about IP routing policies and their representation in routing registries. Experienced readers may wish to skip this section. Section 4 provides an overview of the RIPE database, its basic concepts, schema and objects which make up the database itself. It highlights the way in which the RIPE database splits routing information from allocation information. Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 detail all the objects associated with routing policy representation. Section 9 gives a fairly extensive "walk through" of how these objects are used for expressing routing policy and the general principles behind their use. Section 10 provides a list of references used throughout this document. Appendix A, B, C and D document the formal syntax for the database objects and attributes. Appendix F details the main changes from ripe-81 and motivations for these changes. Appendix G tackles the issues of transition from ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 4 - ripe-81 to ripe-81++. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 5 - 3. General Representation of Policy Information Networks, Network Operators and Autonomous Systems Throughout this document an effort is made to be consistent with terms so as not to confuse the reader. When we talk about "networks" we mean physical networks which have a unique classless IP network number: Layer 3 entities. We do not mean organisations. We call the organisations operating networks "network operators". For the sake of the examples we divide network operators into two categories: "service providers" and "customers". A "service pro- vider" is a network operator who operates a network to provide Internet services to different organisations, its "customers". The distinction between service providers and customers is not clear cut. A national research networking organisation frequently acts as a service provider to Universities and other academic organisations, but in most cases it buys international connectivity from another service provider. A University networking department is a customer of the research networking organisation but in turn may regard University departments as its customers. An Autonomous System (AS) is a group of IP networks having a single clearly defined routing policy which is run by one or more network operators. Inside ASes IP packets are routed using one or more Inte- rior Routing Protocols (IGPs). In most cases interior routing deci- sions are based on metrics derived from technical parameters like topology, link speeds and load(1). ASes exchange routing information with other ASes using Exterior Routing Protocols (EGPs). Exterior routing decisions are frequently based on policy based rules rather than purely on technical parame- ters. Tools are needed to configure complex policies and to commun- icate those policies between ASes while still ensuring proper opera- tion of the Internet as a whole. Some EGPs like BGP-3 [8] and BGP-4 [9] provide tools to filter routing information according to policy rules and more. None of them provides a mechanism to publish or com- municate the policies themselves. Yet this is critical for opera- tional coordination and fault isolation among network operators and thus for the operation of the global Internet as a whole. This document describes a "Routing Registry" providing this functional- ity. _________________________ (1) The entity we refer to as an AS is frequently and more generally called a routing domain with the AS just being an implementation vehicle. We have decided to use the term AS exclusively because it relates more direct- ly with the database objects and routing tools. By us- ing only one term we hope to reduce the number of con- cepts and to avoid confusion. The academically inclined reader may forgive us. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 6 - Routing Policies The exchange of routing information between ASes is subject to rout- ing policies. Consider the case of two ASes, X and Y exchanging routing information: NET1 ...... ASX <---> ASY ....... NET2 ASX knows how to reach a network called NET1. It does not matter whether NET1 is belonging to ASX or some other AS which exchanges routing information with ASX either directly or indirectly; we just assume that ASX knows how to direct packets towards NET1. Likewise ASY knows how to reach NET2. In order for traffic from NET2 to NET1 to flow between ASX and ASY, ASX has to announce NET1 to ASY using an external routing protocol. This states that ASX is willing to accept traffic directed to NET1 from ASY. Policy thus comes into play first in the decision of ASX to announce NET1 to ASY. In addition ASY has to accept this routing information and use it. It is ASY's privilege to either use or disregard the information that ASX is willing to accept traffic for NET1. ASY might decide not to use this information if it does not want to send traffic to NET1 at all or if it considers another route more appropriate to reach NET1. So in order for traffic in the direction of NET1 to flow between ASX and ASY, ASX must announce it to ASY and ASY must accept it from ASX: resulting packet flow towards NET1 <<=================================== | | announce NET1 | accept NET1 --------------> + -------------> | AS X | AS Y | <------------- + <-------------- accept NET2 | announce NET2 | | resulting packet flow towards NET2 ===================================>> Ideally, and seldom practically, the announcement and acceptance policies of ASX and ASY are identical. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 7 - In order for traffic towards NET2 to flow, announcement and accep- tance of NET2 must be in place the other way round. For almost all applications connectivity in just one direction is not useful at all. It is important to realise that with current destination based for- warding technology routing policies must eventually be expressed in these terms. It is relatively easy to formulate reasonable policies in very general terms which CANNOT be expressed in terms of announc- ing and accepting networks. With current technology such policies are almost always impossible to implement. Usually policies are not configured for each network separately but for groups of networks. In practise these groups are almost always defined by the networks forming one or more ASes. Routing Policy limitations The generic example of a reasonable but un-implementable routing is a split of already joined packet streams based on something other than destination address. Once traffic for the same destination network passes the same router, or the same AS at our level of abstraction, it will take exactly the same route to the destina- tion(2). In a concrete example AS Z might be connected to the outside world by two links. AS Z wishes to reserve these links for different kinds of traffic, let's call them black and white traffic. For this purpose the management of AS Z keeps two lists of ASes, the black and the white list. Together these lists comprise all ASes in the world reachable from AS Z. "W" <---> ... AS Z .... NET 3 <---> "B" It is quite possible to implement the policy for traffic originating in AS Z: AS Z will only accept announcements for networks in white ASes on the white link and will only accept announcements for net- works in black ASes on the black link. This causes traffic from networks within AS Z towards white ASes to use the white link and likewise traffic for black ASes to use the black link. Note that this way of implementing things makes it necessary to decide on the colour of each new AS which appears before traffic can be sent to it from AS Z. A way around this would be to accept only _________________________ (2) Disregarding special cases like "type of service" routing, load sharing and routing instabilities. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 8 - white announcements via the white link and to accept all but white announcements on the black link. That way traffic from new ASes would automatically be sent down the black link and AS Z management would only need to keep the list of white ASes rather than two lists. Now for the unimplementable part of the policy. This concerns traffic towards AS Z. Consider the following topology: B AS ---) "W" W AS ---) ---> B AS ---)>> AS A ---> ... AS Z .... NET 3 B AS ---) ---> W AS ---) "B" As seen from AS Z there are both black and white ASes "behind" AS A. Since ASes can make routing decisions based on destination only, AS A and all ASes between AS A and the two links connecting AS Z can only make the same decision for traffic directed at a network in AS Z, say NET 3. This means that traffic from both black and white ASes towards NET 3 will follow the same route once it passes through AS A. This will either be the black or the white route depending on the routing policies of AS A and all ASes between it and AS Z. The important thing to note is that unless routing and forwarding decisions can be made based on both source and destination addresses, policies like the "black and white" example cannot be implemented in general because "once joined means joined forever". Access Policies Access policies contrary to routing policies are not necessarily defined in terms of ASes. The very simplest type of access policy is to block packets from a specific network S from being forwarded to another network D. A common example is when some inappropriate use of resources on network D has been made from network S and the prob- lem has not been resolved yet. Other examples of access policies might be resources only accessible to networks belonging to a par- ticular disciplinary group or community of interest. While most of these policies are better implemented at the host or application level, network level access policies do exist and are a source of connectivity problems which are sometimes hard to diagnose. There- fore they should also be documented in the routing registry accord- ing to similar requirements as outlined above. Routing v Allocation information The RIPE database contains both routing registry and address space allocation registry information. In the past the database schema combined this information. Because RIPE was tasked with running both an allocation and routing registry it seemed natural to initially ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 9 - combine these functions. However, experience has shown that a clear separation of routing information from allocation is desirable. Often the maintainer of the routing information is not the same as the maintainer of the allocation information. Also, in other parts of the world there are different registries for each kind of infor- mation. Whilst the actual routing policy objects will be introduced in the next section it is worthy of note that a transition from the current objects will be required. This is described with in Appendix G. This split in information represents a significant change in the representational model of the RIPE database. Appendix F expands on the reasons for this a little more. Tools The network operators will need a series of tools for policy rout- ing. Some tools are already available to perform some of the tasks. Most notably, the PRIDE tools [3] from the PRIDE project started in September 1993 as well as others produced by Merit Inc [4] and CERN [5]. These tools will enable them to use the routing policy stored in the RIPE routing registry to perform such tasks as check actual routing against policies defined, ensure consistency of policies set by dif- ferent operators, and simulate the effects of policy changes. Work continues on producing more useful tools to service the Inter- net community. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 10 - 4. The Routing Registry and the RIPE Database One of the activities of RIPE is to maintain a database of Euro- pean IP networks, DNS domains and their contact persons along with various other kinds of network management information. The database content is public and can be queried using the whois protocol as well as retrieved as a whole. This supports NICs/NOCs all over Europe and beyond to perform their respective tasks. The RIPE database combines both allocation registry and routing registry functions. The RIPE allocation registry contains data about address space allocated to specific enterprises and/or delegated to local registries as well as data about the domain name space. The allocation registry is described in separate documents [6,7] and outside the scope of this document. Database Objects Each object in the database describes a single entity in the real world. This basic principle means that information about that entity should only be represented in the corresponding data- base object and not be repeated in other objects. The whois ser- vice can automatically display referenced objects where appropriate. The types of objects stored in the RIPE database are summarised in the table below: R Object Describes References ____________________________________________________________________ B person contact persons A inetnum IP address space person A domain DNS domain person R aut-num autonomous system person (aut-num,community) R as-macro a group of autonomous systems person, aut-num R community community person R route a route being announced aut-num, community R clns CLNS address space and routing person The first column indicates whether the object is part of the alloca- tion registry (A), the routing registry (R) or both (B). The last column indicates the types of objects referenced by the particular type of object. It can be seen that almost all objects reference contact persons. Objects are described by attributes value pairs, one per line. Objects are separated by empty lines. An attribute that consists ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 11 - of multiple lines should have the attribute name repeated on consecutive lines. The information stored about network 192.87.45.0 consists of three objects, one network object and two person objects and looks like this: inetnum: 192.87.45.0 netname: RIPE-NCC descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre descr: Amsterdam, Netherlands country: NL admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Marten Terpstra rev-srv: ns.ripe.net rev-srv: ns.eu.net notify: ops at ripe.net changed: tony at ripe.net 940110 source: RIPE person: Daniel Karrenberg address: RIPE Network Coordination Centre (NCC) address: Kruislaan 409 address: NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam address: Netherlands phone: +31 20 592 5065 fax-no: +31 20 592 5090 e-mail: dfk at ripe.net nic-hdl: DK58 changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920826 source: RIPE person: Marten Terpstra address: RIPE Network Coordination Centre (NCC) address: PRIDE Project address: Kruislaan 409 address: NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam address: Netherlands phone: +31 20 592 5064 fax-no: +31 20 592 5090 e-mail: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net nic-hdl: MT2 notify: marten at ripe.net changed: marten at ripe.net 931230 source: RIPE Objects are stored and retrieved in this tag/value format. The RIPE NCC does not provide differently formatted reports because any desired format can easily be produced from this generic one. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 12 - Routing Registry Objects The main objects comprising the routing registry are "aut-num" and "route", describing an autonomous system and a route respectively. It should be noted that routes not described in the routing registry should never be routed in the Internet itself. The autonomous system (aut-num) object provides contact information for the AS and describes the routing policy of that AS. The routing policy is described by enumerating all neighbouring ASes with which routing information is exchanged. For each neighbour the routing policy is described in terms of exactly what is being sent (announced) and allowed in (accepted). It is important to note that this is exactly the part of the global policy over which an AS has direct control. Thus each aut-num object describes what can indeed be implemented and enforced locally by the AS concerned. Combined together all the aut-num objects provide the global routing graph and permit to deduce the exact routing policy between any two ASes. While the aut-num objects describe how routing information is pro- pagated, the route object describes a single route injected into the external routing mesh. The route object references the AS injecting (originating) the route and thereby indirectly provides contact information for the originating AS. This reference also provides the primary way of grouping routes into larger collections. This is necessary because describing routing policy on the level of single routes would be awkward to impractical given the number of routes in the Internet which is about 20,000 at the time of this writing. Thus routing policy is most often defined for groups of routes by originating AS. This method of grouping is well supported by current exterior routing protocols. The route object also refer- ences community objects described below to provide another method of grouping routes. Modification of aut-num object itself and the referencing by route objects is strictly protected to provide net- work operators control over the routing policy description and the routes originated by their ASes. Sometimes even keeping track of groups of routes at the AS level is cumbersome. Consider the case of policies described at the transit provider level which apply transitively to all customers of the transit provider. Therefore another level of grouping is provided by the as-macro object which provides groups of ASes which can be referenced in routing policies just like single ASes. Membership of as-macro groups is also strictly controlled. Sometimes there is a need to group routes on different criteria than ASes for purposes like statistics or local access policies. This is provided by the community object. A community object is much like an AS but without a routing policy. It just describes a group of routes. This is not supported at all by exterior routing protocols and depending on aggregation of routes may not be generally usable to define routing policies. It is suitable for local policies and non-routing related purposes. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 13 - These routing related objects will be described in detail in the sections below. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 14 - 5. The Route Object As stated in the previous chapter routing and address space alloca- tion information are now clearly separated. This is performed with the introduction of the route object. The route object will contain all the information regarding a routing announcement. All routing related attributes are removed from the inetnum object. Some old attributes are obsoleted: connect, routpr-l, bdryg-l, nsf- in, nsf-out, gateway). The currently useful routing attributes are moved to the route object: aut-sys becomes origin, ias-int will be encoded as part of the "to be proposed" `border-router' object and comm-list simply moves. See [6] for detail of the "inetnum" object definition. The information in the old inetnum object inetnum: 192.87.45.0 netname: RIPE-NCC descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre descr: Amsterdam, Netherlands country: NL admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Marten Terpstra connect: RIPE NSF WCW aut-sys: AS3333 comm-list: SURFNET ias-int: 192.87.45.80 AS1104 ias-int: 192.87.45.6 AS2122 ias-int: 192.87.45.254 AS2600 rev-srv: ns.ripe.net rev-srv: ns.eu.net notify: ops at ripe.net changed: tony at ripe.net 940110 source: RIPE will be distributed over two objects: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 15 - inetnum: 192.87.45.0 netname: RIPE-NCC descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre descr: Amsterdam, Netherlands country: NL admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Marten Terpstra rev-srv: ns.ripe.net rev-srv: ns.eu.net notify: ops at ripe.net changed: tony at ripe.net 940110 source: RIPE route: 192.87.45.0/24 descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre origin: AS3333 comm-list: SURFNET changed: dfk at ripe.net 940427 source: RIPE The route object is used to represent a single route originated into the Internet routing mesh. The actual syntax is given in Appendix D. However, there are several important aspects of the attributes worthy of note. The value of the route attribute will be a classless address. It represents the exact route being injected into the routing mesh. The representation of classless addresses is described in [10]. The value of the origin attribute will be an AS reference of the form AS1234 referring to an aut-num object. It represents the AS injecting this route into the routing mesh. The "aut-num" object (see below) thus referenced provides all the contact information for this route. Special cases: There can only be a single originating AS in each route object. However in todays Internet sometimes a route is injected by more than one AS. This situation is potentially dangerous as it can create conflicting routing policies for that route and requires coordination between the originating ASes. In the routing registry this is represented by multiple route objects. This is a departure from the one route (net), one AS principle of the ripe-81 routing registry. The consequences for the different tools based in the routing registry will need to be evaluated and possibly additional consistency checking of the database is needed. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 16 - The examples below will illustrate the usage of the route object further. Suppose three chunks of address space of 2 different enterprises represented by the following inetnum objects: Examples inetnum: 193.0.1.0 netname: ENT-1 descr: Enterprise 1 ... inetnum: 193.0.8.0 netname: ENT-2 descr: Enterprise 2 ... inetnum: 193.0.9.0 netname: ENT-2-SPEC descr: Enterprise 2 ... Supposing that the Enterprises have their own AS numbers straight application of routing without aggregation would yield: route: 193.0.1.0/24 descr: Enterprise 1 origin: AS1 ... route: 193.0.8.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 ... route: 193.0.9.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 ... NB: This representation can be achieved by straight translation from the ripe-81 representation. See Appendix G for more details. Homogeneous Aggregation The two chunks of address space of Enterprise 2 can be represented by one aggregate route turning two route objects into one and poten- tially saving routing table space for one route. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 17 - route: 193.0.8.0/23 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 ... Note that AS2 can also decide to originate all routes mentioned so far, two 24-bit prefixes and one 23-bit prefix. This case would be represented by storing all three route objects in the database. In this particular example the additional routes will not add any func- tionality however and only increase the amount of routes announced unnecessarily. Heterogeneous Aggregation Consider the following case however: route: 193.0.8.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 ... route: 193.0.9.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 / Special origin: AS2 comm-list: SPECIAL ... Now the prefix 193.0.9.0/24 belongs to community SPECIAL (this com- munity may well not be relevant to routing) and the other prefix originated by AS2 does not. If AS2 aggregates these prefixes into the 193.0.8.0/23 prefix, routing policies based on the community value SPECIAL cannot be implemented in general, because there is no way to distinguish between the special and the not-so-special parts of AS2. If another AS has the policy to accept only routes to members of community SPECIAL it cannot implement it, because accept- ing the route to 193.0.8.0/23 would also route to 193.0.8.0/24 and not accepting this route would lose connectivity to the special part 193.0.9.0/24. We call aggregate routes consisting of components belonging to different communities or even different ASes "hetero- geneous aggregates". The problems introduced with heterogeneous aggregates are that once the homogeneous routes are withdrawn one cannot tell if a more specific part of the heterogeneous has a different policy. However, if can be counter argued that knowing this policy is of little use if you cannot implement a routing policy based on the less specific (and only route present) heterogeneous aggregate. In fact, this displays a facet of CIDR itself in that one may actually compromise slight variations on policy over announcing a larger (albeit ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 18 - heterogeneous in terms of policy) aggregate to save address space. However, it is still useful to be able to document these variations in policy especially when this homogeneous more specific route is just being withdrawn. For this one can use the "withdrawn" attri- bute. The withdrawn attribute can serve to both indicate that a less specific aggregate is in fact heterogeneous and also allow the gen- eral documenting of route withdrawal. So there has to be a way for AS2 to document this even if it does not originate the route to 193.0.9.0/24 any more. This can be done with the "withdrawn" attribute of the route object. The aggregate route to 193.0.8.0/23 is now be registered as: route: 193.0.8.0/23 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 ... With the two homogeneous routes marked as withdrawn from the Inter- net routing mesh but still preserving their original routing infor- mation. route: 193.0.8.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 origin: AS2 withdrawn: 940701 ... route: 193.0.9.0/24 descr: Enterprise 2 / Special origin: AS2 comm-list: SPECIAL withdrawn: 940701 ... It should be noted that the date value used in the withdrawn attri- bute can only be in the past. Proxy Aggregation The next step of aggregation are aggregates consisting of more than one AS. This generally means one AS is aggregating on behalf of another. It is called proxy aggregation. Proxy aggregation should be done with great care and always coordinates with other providers announcing the same route. Consider the following: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 19 - route: 193.0.0.0/20 descr: All routes known by AS1 in a single package origin: AS1 ... route: 193.0.1.0/24 descr: Foo origin: AS1 withdrawn: 940310 ... route: 193.0.8.0/24 descr: Bar origin: AS2 withdrawn: 940310 ... route: 193.0.9.0/24 descr: Bar-2 origin: AS2 withdrawn: 940310 comm-list: SPECIAL ... If AS1 announced no other routes to a single homed neighbouring AS, that neighbour can in general either take that route or leave it but not differentiate between AS1 and AS2. Note: If the neighbor was previously configured to accept routes originating in AS2 but not in AS1 they lose connectivity to AS2 as well. This means that proxy aggregation has to be done carefully and in a well coordinated fashion. The information in the withdrawn route object can help to achieve that. Aggregates with Holes If we assume that the world of our example still consists of only three chunks of address space the aggregate above contains what are called holes, parts of an aggregate that are not reachable via the originator of the route. From the routing information itself one cannot tell whether these are holes and what part of the route falls inside one. The only way to tell is to send a packet there and see ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 20 - whether it gets to the destination, or an ICMP message is received back, or there is silence. On the other hand announcing aggregates with holes is quite legitimate. Consider a 16-bit aggregate with only one 24-bit prefix unreachable. The savings in routing table size by far outweigh the hole problem. For operational reasons however it is very useful to register these holes in the routing registry. Consider the case where a remote net- work operator experiences connectivity problems to addresses inside an aggregate route. If the packets are getting to the AS announcing the aggregate and there are no more specific routes, the normal cause of action is to get in touch with the originating AS of the aggregate route and ask them to fix the problem. If the address falls into a hole this is futile. Therefore problem diagnosis can be sped up and unnecessary calls prevented by registering the holes in the routing registry. We do this by using the "hole" attribute. In our example the representation would be: route: 193.0.0.0/20 descr: All routes known by AS1 origin: AS1 hole: 193.0.0.0/24 hole: 193.0.2.0/23 hole: 193.0.4.0/22 hole: 193.0.10.0/23 hole: 193.0.12.0/22 ... Note: there would also be two routes with the withdrawn attribute as displayed above (i.e. 193.0.8.0/24 and 193.0.9.0/24) Multiple Proxy Aggregation Finally suppose that AS2 decides to announce the same aggregate, they would add the following route object to the registry: route: 193.0.0.0/20 descr: All routes known by AS2 origin: AS2 hole: 193.0.0.0/24 hole: 193.0.2.0/23 hole: 193.0.4.0/22 hole: 193.0.10.0/23 hole: 193.0.12.0/22 ... As per the update procedures below both AS1 and AS2 will be notified that there already is a route to the same prefix in the registry. This multiple proxy aggregation is very dangerous to do if the sub- ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 21 - aggregates of the route are not the same. It is still dangerous when the sub-aggregates are consistent but connectivity to the sub- aggregates varies widely between the originators. Route object update procedures Adding a route object will be have to be authorised by the guardian of the originating AS. The actual implementation of this is outside the scope of this document. This guarantees that an AS guardian has full control over the registration of the routes it announces. What is an Inter-AS network ? An inter-AS network(3) exists for the purpose of passing traffic and routing information between different autonomous systems. The most simple example of an inter-AS network is a point-to-point link, con- necting exactly two ASes. Each end of such a link is connected to an interface of router belonging to each of the autonomous systems. More complex examples are broadcast type networks with multiple interfaces connecting multiple ASes with the possibility of more than one connection per AS. Consider the following example of three routers 1, 2 and 3 with interfaces a through f connected by two inter-AS networks X and Y: X Y a1b --- c2d --- e3f Suppose that network X is registered in the routing registry as part of AS1 and net Y as part of AS3. If traffic passes from left to right prtraceroute will report the following sequence of interfaces and ASes: a in AS1 c in AS1 e in AS3 The traceroute algorithm enumerates only the receiving interfaces on the way to the destination. In the example this leads to the pas- sage of AS2 going unnoticed. This is confusing to the user and will also generate exceptions when the path found is checked against the routing registry. _________________________ (3) Inter-AS IP networks are those networks are currently called FIXes, IXFs, DMZs, NAPs, GIX and many other acronyms. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 22 - For operational monitoring tools such as prtraceroute it is neces- sary to know which interface on an inter-AS network belongs to which AS. If AS information is not known about interfaces on an inter-AS network, tools like prtraceroute cannot determine correctly which ASes are being traversed. All interfaces on inter-AS networks will are described in a separate object know as the `inet-rtr' object [15]. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 23 - 6. The Autonomous System Object Autonomous Systems An Autonomous System (AS) is a group of IP networks run by one or more network operators which has a single and clearly defined rout- ing policy. An AS has a unique number associated with it which is used both in exchange of exterior routing information and as an identifier of the AS itself. Exterior routing protocols such as BGP and EGP are used to exchange routing information between ASes. In routing terms an AS will normally use one or more interior gate- way protocols (IGPs) in conjunction with some sort of common agreed metrics when exchanging network information within its own AS. The term AS is often confused or even misused as a convenient way of grouping together a set of networks which belong under the same administrative umbrella even if within that group of networks there are various different routing policies. We provide the "community" concept for such use. ASes can strictly have only one single rout- ing policy. The creation of an AS should be done in a conscious and well coordi- nated manner to avoid creating ASes for the sake of it, perhaps resulting in the worst case scenario of one AS per routing announce- ment. It should be noted that there is a limited number of AS numbers available. Also creating an AS may well increase the number of AS paths modern EGPs will have to keep track of. This aggravates what is known as "the routing table growth problem". This may mean that by applying the general rules for the creation and allocation of an AS below, some re-engineering may well be needed. However, this may be the only way to actually implement the desired routing policy anyway. The creation and allocation of an AS should be done with the following recommendations in mind: o Creation of an AS is only required when exchanging routing information with other ASes. Some router implementations make use of an AS number as a form of tagging to identify the rout- ing process. However, it should be noted that this tag does not need to be unique unless routing information is indeed exchanged with other ASes. o For a simple case of customer networks connected to a single service provider, the IP network should normally be a member of the service providers AS. In terms of routing policy the IP network has exactly the same policy as the service provider and there is no need to make any distinction in routing informa- tion. This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it highlights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 24 - as a representation of routing policy as opposed to some form of administrative use. o If a network operator connects to more than one AS with dif- ferent routing policies then they need to create their own AS. In the case of multi-homed customer networks connected to two service providers there are at least two different routing pol- icies to a given customer network. At this point the customer networks will be part of a single AS and this AS would be dis- tinct from either of the service providers ASes. This allows the customer the ability of having a different representation of policy and preference to the different service providers. This is the ONLY case where a network operator should create its own AS number. o As a general rule one should always try to populate the AS with as many routes as possible, providing all routes conform to the same routing policy. Each AS is represented in the RIPE database by both an AS object and the route objects representing the routes originated by the AS. The AS object stores descriptive, administrative and contact information about the AS as well as the routing policies of the AS in relation to all neighbouring ASes. The origin attributes of the route objects define the set of routes originated by the AS. Each route object can have exactly one origin attribute. Route objects can only be created and updated by the "guardian" of the AS and not by those immediately responsible for the particular routes referenced therein. This ensures that opera- tors, especially service providers, remain in control of AS routing announcements. The AS object itself is used to represent a description of adminis- trative details and the routing policies of the AS itself. The AS object definition is depicted as follows. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 25 - Example: aut-num: AS1104 descr: NIKHEF-H Autonomous system as-in: from AS1213 100 accept AS1213 as-in: from AS1913 100 accept AS1913 as-in: from AS1755 150 accept ANY as-out: to AS1213 announce ANY as-out: to AS1913 announce ANY as-out: to AS1755 announce AS1104 AS1913 AS1213 tech-c: Rob Blokzijl admin-c: Eric Wassenaar guardian: as-guardian at nikhef.nl changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920910 source: RIPE See Appendix A for a complete syntax definition of the "aut-num" object. It should be noted that this representation provides two things: o a set of routes. o a description of administrative details and routing policies. The set of routes can be used to generate network list based confi- guration information as well as configuration information for exte- rior routing protocols knowing about ASes. This means an AS can be defined and is useful even if it does not use routing protocols which know about the AS concept. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 26 - Description of local connections between ASes - "interas- in/interas-out". Description of local connections between ASes is necessary only if the ASes are connected by more than one link and routing policy differs between the two links. These local differences are visible only to the two ASes concerned and not beyond them. Note: The description of local connections is applicable only to very few configurations. The tutorial description below is less detailed than other parts of this document. Those interested but not experienced should contact their routing registry for support. Often two ASes will have more than one physical connection between them. In practice certain local policies my be placed on these inter-AS connections as agreed by the two ASes. If we look at the example of two ASes, AS2 and AS3 connected with links 193.0.1.1- 193.0.1.2 and 193.0.1.5-193.0.1.6: Example: LINK1 193.0.1.1 +----------+ 193.0.1.2 | | AS1------AS2== ==AS3-----AS4 | | 193.0.1.5 +----------+ 193.0.1.6 LINK2 It may be that AS2 wants to use LINK2 only for traffic towards AS4. LINK1 is used for traffic to AS3 and as backup to AS4, should LINK2 fail. While this is purely of local information and at the AS level will have no significance per se to any other ASes except AS2 and AS3 this may be useful to represent. The way this is done is by using the attributes "interas-in" and "interas-out". The exact syn- tax is given in Appendix A. However, if we follow this example through in terms of AS2 we would represent this policy as follows: Example: aut-num: AS2 as-in: from AS3 10 accept AS3 AS4 as-out: to AS3 announce AS1 AS2 interas-in: from AS3 193.0.1.1/32 193.0.1.2/32 (pref-type=5) accept AS3 interas-in: from AS3 193.0.1.1/32 193.0.1.2/32 (pref-type=15) accept AS4 interas-in: from AS3 193.0.1.5/32 193.0.1.6/32 (pref-type=10) accept AS4 ... ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 27 - Here we see additional local link based information in terms of the IP addresses of the link. It should be noted that the preference on interas-in attributes is only of relevance to other interas-in attributes in the same AS and not to as-in or default attribute. The parentheses and keyword are syntactic sugar to allow further extensions. If pref-type=MED is specified the preference indicated by the remote as via the multi-exit discriminator metric of BGP is used. Of course this type on inter-AS policy should always be bila- terally agreed to avoid asymmetry and in practice there may need to be corresponding interas-in attributes in the policy representation of AS3. The interas-out attribute is similar in the same way to interas-in as as-out to as-in. The one major difference being that interas-out allows to associate an outgoing metric with each route. It is impor- tant to note that this metric is just passed to the peer AS and it is at the peer AS's discretion to use or ignore it. A special value of IGP specifies that the metric passed to the receiving AS will be derived from the IGP of the sending AS. In this way the peer AS can choose the optimal link for its traffic as determined by the sending AS. Descriptions of local policies do not replace the global policy described in as-in, as-out and other policy attributes which should be specified too. If the global policy mentions more routes than the local policy then local preferences for these routes are assumed to be equal for all links. If a route is only referenced in some interas-in/out attributes and not in others it is assumed not announced/accepted on the links concerned (see the example above). The key difference between interas-in/interas-out and as-in/as-in attributes is the former describes a local inter-AS policy and the latter the general inter-AS policy as seen by other ASes. The gen- eral policy should always be defined. The local inter-AS policy should only be defined when such a policy really exists and the implications of setting such policies is fully understood. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 28 - How to describe the exclusion policy of a certain AS - "as-exclude" Some ASes have a routing policy based on the exclusion of certain routes if for whatever reason a certain AS is used as transit. Whilst, this is in general not good practice as it makes implicit assumptions on topology with asymmetry a possible outcome if not coordinated, this case needs to be accommodated within the routing policy representation. The way this is achieved is by making use of the "as-exclude" attri- bute. The precise syntax of this attribute can be found in Appendix A along with the rest of the defined syntax for the "aut-num" object. However, some explanation of the use of this attribute is useful. If we have the following example topology. Example: AS4--------AS3 | | | | | | AS1--------AS2--------AS5 With a simple corresponding policy like so: Example: aut-num: AS1 as-in: from AS2 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 as-exclude: exclude AS4 to ANY .... We see an interesting policy. What this says in simple terms is AS1 doesn't want to reach anything if it transit AS4. This can be a per- fectly valid policy. However, it should be realised that for what- ever reason AS2 decides to route to AS3 via AS4 then immediately AS1 has no connectivity to AS3 or if AS1 is running default to AS2 pack- ets from AS1 will still flow via AS4. The important point about this is that whilst AS1 can advise its neighbours of its policy it has no direct control on how it can enforce this policy to neighbours upstream. Another interesting scenario to highlight the unexpected result of using such an "as-exclude" policy. If we assume in the above example AS2 preferred AS4 to reach AS3 and AS1 did not use default routing then as stated AS1 would have no connectivity to AS3. Now lets sup- pose that for example the link between AS2 and AS4 went down for some reason. Like so: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 29 - Example: AS4--------AS3 | | AS1--------AS2--------AS5 Suddenly AS1 now has connectivity to AS3. This unexpected behavior should be considered when created policies based on the "as-exclude" attribute. The second problem with this type of policy is the potential of asymmetry. In the original example we saw the correct policy from AS1's point of view but if ASes with connectivity through AS4 do not use a similar policy you have asymmetric traffic and policy. If an AS uses such a policy they must be aware of the consequences of its use. Namely that the specified routes which transit the AS (i.e. routing announcements with this AS in the AS path information) in question will be excluded. If not coordinated this can easily cause asymmetry or even worse loss of connectivity to unknown ASes behind (or in front for that matter) the transit AS in question. With this in mind this attribute can only be viewed as a form of advisory to other service providers. However, this does not preclude its use with policy based tools if the attribute exists. By having the ability to specify a route keyword based on any of the four notations given in the syntax it allows the receiving AS to specify what routes it wishes to exclude through a given transit AS to a network granularity. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 30 - 7. AS Macros It may be difficult to keep track of each and every new AS that is represented in the routing registry. A convenient way around this is to define an `AS Macro' which essentially is a convenient way to group ASes. This is done so that each and every AS guardian does not have to add a new AS to it's routing policy as described by the as- in and as-out attributes of it's AS object. However, it should be noted that this creates an implicit trust on the guardian of the AS-Macro. An AS-Macro can be used in for the "as-in" and "as-out" attributes in the aut-num object. The AS-Macro object is then used to derive the list or group of ASes. A simple example would be something like: Example: aut-num: AS786 as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS-EBONE AND NOT AS1104 as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS-EBONE AND NOT AS1104 as-out to AS1755 announce AS786 ..... Where the as-macro object for AS-EBONE is as follows: as-macro: AS-EBONE descr: ASes routed by EBONE as-list: AS2121 AS1104 AS2600 AS2122 as-list: AS1103 AS1755 AS2043 guardian: guardian at ebone.net ...... So the policy would be evaluated to: aut-num: AS786 as-in: from AS1755 100 accept (AS2121 OR AS1104 OR AS2600 OR AS2122 as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS1103 OR AS1755 OR AS2043) AND NOT AS1104 ...... It should be noted that the above examples incorporates the rule for line wrapping as defined in Appendix A for policy lines. See Appen- dix C for a definition on the AS-Macro syntax. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 31 - 8. The Community Object A community is a group of routes that cannot be represented by an AS or a group of ASes. It is in some circumstances useful to define a group of routes that have something in common. This could be a spe- cial access policy to a supercomputer centre, a group of routes used for a specific mission, or a disciplinary group that is scattered among several autonomous systems. Also these communities could be useful to group routes for the purpose of network statistics. Communities do not exchange routing information, since they do not represent an autonomous system. More specifically, communities do not define routing policies, but access or usage policies. However, they can de used as in conjunction with an ASes routing policy to define a set of routes the AS sets routing policy for. Communities should be defined in a strict manner, to avoid creating as many communities as there are routes, or even worse. Communities should be defined following the two rules below; o Communities must have a global meaning. Communities that have no global meaning, are used only in a local environment and should be avoided. o Communities must not be defined to express non-local policies. It should be avoided that a community is created because some other organisation forces a policy upon your organisation. Communities must only be defined to express a policy defined by your organisation. Community examples There are some clear examples of communities: BACKBONE - all customers of a given backbone service provider even though they can have various different routing policies and hence belong to different ASes. This would be extremely useful for statistics collection. HEPNET - the High Energy Physics community partly shares infrastructure with other organisations, and the institutes it consists of are scattered all over Europe, often being part of a non HEPNET autonomous system. To allow statistics, access or part of a routing policy , a community HEPNET, consisting of all routes that are part of HEPNET, conveniently groups all these routes. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 32 - NSFNET - the National Science Foundation Network imposes an acceptable use policy on routes that wish to make use of it. A community NSFNET could imply the set of routes that comply with this pol- icy. MULTI - a large multinational corporation that does not have its own internal infrastructure, but connects to the various parts of its organisations by using local service providers that connect them all together, may decide to define a community to restrict access to their networks, only by networks that are part of this community. This way a corporate network could be defined on shared infrastructure. Also, this community could be used by any of the service providers to do statistics for the whole of the corporation, for instance to do topology or bandwidth plan- ning. Similar to Autonomous systems, each community is represented in the RIPE database by both a community object and community tags on the route objects representing the routes belonging to the community. The community object stores descriptive, administrative and contact information about the community. The community tags on the route objects define the set of routes belonging to a community. A route can have multiple community tags. The community tags can only be created and updated by the "guardian" of the community and not by those directly responsible for the par- ticular network. This ensures that guardians remain in control of community membership. Here's an example of how this might be represented in terms of the community tags within the network object. We have an example where the route 192.16.199.0/24 has a single routing policy (i.e. that of AS 1104), but is part of several different communities of interest. We use the tag "comm-list" to represent the list of communities associated with this route. NIKHEF-H uses the service provider SURFNET (a service provider with customers with more than one rout- ing policy), is also part of the High Energy Physics community as well as having the ability to access the Supercomputer at CERN(4). _________________________ (4) The community `CERN-SUPER', is somewhat national, but is intended as an example of a possible use of an access policy constraint. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 33 - Example: route: 192.16.199.0/24 descr: Local Ethernet descr: NIKHEF section H origin: AS1104 comm-list: HEPNET CERN-SUPER SURFNET changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920604 source: RIPE In the above examples some communities have been defined. The com- munity object itself will take the following format: Example: community: SURFNET descr: Dutch academic research network authority: SURFnet B.V. guardian: comm-guardian at surfnet.nl admin-c: Erik-Jan Bos tech-c: Erik-Jan Bos changed: ripe-dbm at ripe.net 920604 source: RIPE For a complete explanation of the syntax please refer to Appendix B. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 34 - 9. Representation of Routing Policies Routing policies of an AS are represented in the autonomous system object. Initially we show some examples, so the reader is familiar with the concept of how routing information is represented, used and derived. Refer to Appendix A, for the full syntax of the "aut-num" object. The topology of routing exchanges is represented by listing how routing information is exchanged with each neighbouring AS. This is done separately for both incoming and outgoing routing information. In order to provide backup and back door paths a relative cost is associated with incoming routing information. Example 1: AS1------AS2 This specifies a simple routing exchange of two presumably isolated ASes. Even if either of them has routing information about routes in ASes other than AS1 and AS2, none of that will be announced to the other. aut-num: AS1 as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 aut-num: AS2 as-out: to AS1 announce AS2 as-in: from AS1 100 accept AS1 The number 100 in the in-bound specifications is a relative cost, which is used for backup and back door routes. The absolute value is of no significance. The relation between different values within the same AS object is. A lower value means a lower cost. This is cons- ciously similar to the cost based preference scheme used with DNS MX RRs. Example 2: Now suppose that AS2 is connected to one more AS, besides AS1, and let's call that AS3: AS1------AS2------AS3 ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 35 - In this case there are two reasonable routing policies: a) AS2 just wants to exchange traffic with both AS1 and AS3 itself without passing traffic between AS1 and AS3. b) AS2 is willing to pass traffic between AS3 and AS1, thus acting as a transit AS Example 2a: In the first case AS1's representation in the routing registry will remain unchanged as will be the part of AS2's representation describing the routing exchange with AS1. A description of the addi- tional routing exchange with AS3 will be added to AS2's representa- tion: aut-num: AS1 as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 aut-num: AS2 as-out: to AS1 announce AS2 as-in: from AS1 100 accept AS1 as-out: to AS3 announce AS2 as-in: from AS3 100 accept AS3 aut-num: AS3 as-out: to AS2 announce AS3 as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 Note that in this example, AS2 keeps full control over its resources. Even if AS3 and AS1 were to allow each others routes in from AS2, the routing information would not flow because AS2 is not announcing it(5). Example 2b: If contrary to the previous case, AS1 and AS3 are supposed to have connectivity to each other via AS2, all AS objects have to change: _________________________ (5) Of course AS1 and AS3 could just send traffic to each other to AS2 even without AS2 announcing the routes, hoping that AS2 will forward it correctly. Such questionable practices however are beyond the scope of this document. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 36 - aut-num: AS1 as-out: to AS2 announce AS1 as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS2 AS3 aut-num: AS2 as-out: to AS1 announce AS2 AS3 as-in: from AS1 100 accept AS1 as-out: to AS3 announce AS2 AS1 as-in: from AS3 100 accept AS3 aut-num: AS3 as-out: to AS2 announce AS3 as-in: from AS2 100 accept AS1 AS2 Note that the amount of routing information exchanged with a neigh- bour AS is defined in terms of routes belonging to ASes. In BGP terms this is the AS where the routing information originates and the originating AS information carried in BGP could be used to implement the desired policy. However, using BGP or the BGP AS-path information is not required to implement the policies thus speci- fied. Configurations based on route lists can easily be generated from the database. The AS path information, provided by BGP can then be used as an additional checking tool as desired. The specification understands one special expression and this can be expressed as a boolean expressions: ANY - means any routing information known. For output this means that all routes an AS knows about are announced. For input it means that anything is accepted from the neighbour AS. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 37 - Example 3: AS4 is a stub customer AS, which only talks to service provider AS123. | | -----AS123------AS4 | | aut-num: AS4 as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce ANY Since AS4 has no other way to reach the outside world than AS123 it is not strictly necessary for AS123 to send routing information to AS4. AS4 can simply send all traffic for which it has no explicit routing information to AS123 by default. This strategy is called default routing. It is expressed in the routing registry by adding one or more default tags to the autonomous system which uses this strategy. In the example above this would look like: aut-num: AS4 as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 default: AS123 100 aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 38 - Example 4: AS4 now connects to a different operator, AS5. AS5 uses AS123 for outside connectivity but has itself no direct connection to AS123. AS5 traffic to and from AS123 thus has to pass AS4. AS4 agrees to act as a transit AS for this traffic. | | -----AS123------AS4-------AS5 | | aut-num: AS4 as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 AS5 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS5 announce ANY as-in: from AS5 50 accept AS5 aut-num: AS5 as-in: from AS4 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS4 announce AS5 aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 AS5 as-out: to AS4 announce ANY Now AS4 has two sources of external routing information. AS5 which provides only information about its own routes and AS123 which pro- vides information about the external world. Note that AS4 accepts information about AS5 from both AS123 and AS5 although AS5 informa- tion cannot come from AS123 since AS5 is connected only via AS4 itself. The lower cost of 50 for the announcement from AS5 itself compared to 100 from AS123 ensures that AS5 is still believed even in case AS123 will unexpectedly announce AS5. In this example too, default routing can be used by AS5 much like in the previous example. AS4 can also use default routing towards AS123: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 39 - aut-num: AS4 as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 AS5 default: AS123 11 as-in: from AS5 50 accept AS5 Note no announcements to AS5, they default to us. aut-num: AS5 as-out: to AS4 announce AS5 default: AS4 100 aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 100 announce AS4 AS5 Note that the relative cost associated with default routing is totally separate from the relative cost associated with in-bound announcements. The default route will never be taken if an explicit route is known to the destination. Thus an explicit route can never have a higher cost than the default route. The relative cost asso- ciated with the default route is only useful in those cases where one wants to configure multiple default routes for redundancy. Note also that in this example the configuration using default routes has a subtly different behavior than the one with explicit routes: In case the AS4-AS5 link fails AS4 will send traffic to AS5 to AS123 when using the default configuration. Normally this makes not much difference as there will be no answer and thus little traffic. With certain datagram applications which do not require acknowledgments however, significant amounts of traffic may be use- lessly directed at AS123. Similarly default routing should not be used if there are stringent security policies which proscribe any traffic intended for AS5 to ever touch AS123. Generally it can be said that default routing should only be used in very simple topologies. Once the situation gets more complex using default routes can lead to unexpected results or even defeat the routing policies established when links fail. As an example consider how Example 5a) below could be implemented using default routing. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 40 - Example 5: In a different example AS4 has a private connection to AS6 which in turn is connected to the service provider AS123: | | -----AS123------AS4 | | | | | | AS6 ---------+ There are a number of policies worth examining in this case: a) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves exclusively via the private link between themselves; such traffic should never pass through the backbone (AS123). The link should never be used for transit traffic, i.e. traffic not both originating in and destined for AS4 and AS6. b) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves via the private link between themselves. Should the link fail, traffic between AS4 and AS6 should be routed via AS123. The link should never be used for transit traffic. c) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves via the private link between themselves. Should the link fail, traffic between AS4 and AS6 should be routed via AS123. Should the connection between AS4 and AS123 fail, traffic from AS4 to des- tinations behind AS123 can pass through the private link and AS6's connection to AS123. d) AS4 and AS6 wish to exchange traffic between themselves via the private link between themselves. Should the link fail, traffic between AS4 and AS6 should be routed via AS123. Should the backbone connection of either AS4 or AS6 fail, the traffic of the disconnected AS should flow via the other AS's backbone connection. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 41 - Example 5a: aut-num: AS4 as-in: from AS123 100 accept NOT AS6 as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 as-in: from AS6 50 accept AS6 as-out: to AS6 announce AS4 aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 100 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce ANY as-in: from AS6 100 accept AS6 as-out: to AS6 announce ANY aut-num: AS6 as-in: from AS123 100 accept NOT AS4 as-out: to AS123 announce AS6 as-in: from AS4 50 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce AS6 Note that here the configuration is slightly inconsistent. AS123 will announce AS6 to AS4 and AS4 to AS6. These announcements will be filtered out on the receiving end. This will implement the desired policy. Consistency checking tools might flag these cases however. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 42 - Example 5b: aut-num: AS4 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 as-in: from AS6 50 accept AS6 as-out: AS6 AS4 aut-num: AS123 as-in: AS4 100 AS4 as-out: AS4 ANY as-in: AS6 100 AS6 as-out: AS6 ANY aut-num: AS6 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS123 announce AS6 as-in: from AS4 50 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce AS6 The thing to note here is that in the ideal operational case, `all links working' AS4 will receive announcements for AS6 from both AS123 and AS6 itself. In this case the announcement from AS6 will be preferred because of its lower cost and thus the private link will be used as desired. AS6 is configured as a mirror image. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 43 - Example 5c: The new feature here is that should the connection between AS4 and AS123 fail, traffic from AS4 to destinations behind AS123 can pass through the private link and AS6's connection to AS123. aut-num: AS4 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS123 announce AS4 as-in: from AS6 50 accept AS6 as-in: from AS6 110 accept ANY as-out: to AS6 AS4 aut-num: AS123 as-in: from AS4 1 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce ANY as-in: from AS6 1 accept AS6 as-in: from AS6 2 accept AS4 as-out: to AS6 announce ANY aut-num: AS6 as-in: from AS123 100 accept ANY as-out: to AS123 AS6 announce AS4 as-in: from AS4 50 accept AS4 as-out: to AS4 announce ANY Note that it is important to make sure to propagate routing informa- tion for both directions in backup situations like this. Connec- tivity in just one direction is not useful at all for almost all applications. Note also that in case the AS6-AS123 connection breaks, AS6 will only be able to talk to AS4. The symmetrical case (5d) is left as an exercise to the reader. 10. Future Extensions We envision that over time the requirements for describing routing policy will evolve. The routing protocols will evolve to support the requirements and the routing policy description syntax will need to evolve as well. For that purpose, a separate document will describe experimental syntax definitions for policy description. This docu- ment will be updated when new objects or attributes are proposed or modified. Two new attributes of the AS object which are proposed and supported by the Merit Routing Registry are as-transit and db-selector. as-transit describes the transit preferences of an AS. It allows an AS to describe its path preference in order to reach certain ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 44 - destinations. The AS(s) specified in the path preference may or may not be an immediate neighbor of the AS defined in the AS object. as-transit accommodates policy decisions involving AS path whereas as-in and as-out do not. It is not unusual for ASs to have routing policies which involve path selection based on AS. Emerging proto- cols like SDRP [13] will allow an AS to choose a path independent of a neighboring ASs path choice. as-transit permits descriptions based on AS path selection. The DataBase Selector (db-selector) function allows one to take advantage of information registered in other Registries. It permits the selection of networks in a database based on their attributes. It is proposed to be used within the as-in/as-out attribute family to make the description of policy concise. For example, if an AS has the policy of not accepting any routes from country XYZ, the AS can use the db-selector to check a database which has a network and country attribute and relate that information to the information in the routing registry. The advantage of referencing another database is that the routing registry will avoid duplicating the information maintained in other information registries. Detailed examples and syntax are described in document ???? [14]. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 45 - 11. References [1] Bates, T., Jouanigot, J-M., Karrenberg, D., Lothberg, P., Terpstra, M., "Representation of IP Routing Policies in the RIPE Database", RIPE-81, February 1993. [2] Merit Network Inc.,"Representation of Complex Routing Policies of an Autonomous System", DRAFT, March, 1994. [3] PRIDE Tools Release 1. See ftp.ripe.net:pride/tools/pride-tools-1.tar.Z. [4] Merit Inc. RRDB Tools. See rrdb.merit.edu:pub/meritrr/* [5] The Network List Compiler. See dxcoms.cern.ch:pub/ripe-routing-wg/nlc-2.2d.tar [6] Lord, A., Terpstra, M., "RIPE Database Template for Networks and Persons", DRAFT, May 1994. [7] Karrenberg, D., "RIPE Database Template for Domains", RIPE-49, April 1992. [8] Lougheed, K., Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP- 3)", RFC1267, October 1991. [9] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC-1654, May 1994. [10] Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., Terpstra, M., "Support for Classless Internet Addresses in the RIPE Database", DRAFT, May 1994. [11] Karrenberg, D., "Authorisation and Notification of Changes in the RIPE Database", RIPE-96, October 1993. [12] Bates, T., "Support of Guarded fields within the RIPE Data- base", ripe-108, February 1994. [13] Estrin, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., Varadhan, K., "Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and Forwarding Specification (Version 1)", INTERNET-DRAFT, draft-ietf-sdr-sdrp-04.txt, March 1994. [14] ?????, "Experimental Objects and attributes for the Routing Registry, ???, ????. [15] Bates, T., "Specifying an `Internet Router' in the Routing Registry", DRAFT, July 1994. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 46 - 12. Author's Addresses Tony Bates RARE/PRIDE Project c/o RIPE Network Coordination Centre Kruislaan 409 NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam The Netherlands +31 20 592 5064 T.Bates at ripe.net Elise Gerich The University of Michigan Merit Computer Network 1075 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA +1 313 936 2120 epg at merit.edu Laurent Joncheray The University of Michigan Merit Computer Network 1075 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA +1 313 936 2065 lpj at merit.edu Jean-Michel Jouanigot CERN, European Laboratory for Particle Physics CH-1211 Geneva 23 Switzerland +41 22 767 4417 Jean-Michel.Jouanigot at cern.ch Daniel Karrenberg RIPE Network Coordination Centre Kruislaan 409 NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam The Netherlands +31 20 592 5065 D.Karrenberg at ripe.net ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 47 - Marten Terpstra PRIDE Project c/o RIPE Network Coordination Centre Kruislaan 409 NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam The Netherlands +31 20 592 5064 M.Terpstra at ripe.net Jessica Yu The University of Michigan Merit Computer Network 1075 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA +1 313 936 2655 jyy at merit.edu ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 48 - Appendix A - Syntax for the aut-num object. Here is a summary of the tags associated with aut-num object itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the aut-num object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. aut-num: [mandatory] [single] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] as-in: [optional] [multiple] as-out: [optional] [multiple] interas-in: [optional] [multiple] interas-out: [optional] [multiple] as-exclude: [optional] [multiple] default: [optional] [multiple] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] guardian: [mandatory] [single] remarks: [optional] [multiple] notify: [optional] [multiple] maintainer: [optional] [single] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] source: [mandatory] [single] Each attribute has the following syntax: aut-num: The autonomous system number. This must be a uniquely allo- cated autonomous system number from an AS registry (i.e. the RIPE NCC, the Inter-NIC, etc). Format: AS Example: aut-num: AS1104 Status: mandatory, only one line allowed descr: A short description of the Autonomous System. Format: free text Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed as-in: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 49 - Example: descr: NIKHEF section H descr: Science Park Watergraafsmeer descr: Amsterdam A description of accepted routing information between AS peers. Format: from accept The keywords from and accept are optional and can be omit- ted. refers to your AS neighbour. is a positive integer used to express a relative cost of routes learned. The lower the cost the more pre- ferred the route. can take the following for- mats. 1. A list of one or more ASes, AS Macros, Communities or Network Lists. A Network List is a list of network numbers in prefix length format, separated by commas, and surrounded by curly brackets. Examples: as-in: from AS1103 100 accept AS1103 as-in: from AS786 105 accept AS1103 as-in: from AS786 10 accept AS786 HEPNET as-in: from AS1755 110 accept AS1103 AS786 as-in: from AS3333 100 accept {192.87.45.0/16, 128.141.0.0/16} 2. A set of KEYWORDS. The following KEYWORD is currently defined: ANY this means anything the neighbour AS knows. 3. A logical expression of either 1 or 2 above The current logical operators are defined as: AND OR NOT ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 50 - NOTE: if no logical operator is given between ASes, AS-macros, Communities, Network Lists and KEYWORDS it is implicitly evaluated as an `OR' operation. The OR can be left out for conciseness. Rules are grouped together using parenthesis i.e "(" and ")". Example: as-in: from AS1755 100 accept ANY AND NOT (AS1234 OR AS513) as-in: from AS1755 150 accept AS1234 OR {35.0.0.0/8} A rule can be wrapped over lines providing the associated , values and from and accept keywords are repeated and occur on con- secutive lines. Example: as-in: from AS1755 100 accept ANY AND NOT (AS1234 AS513) and as-in: from AS1755 100 accept ANY AND NOT ( as-in: from AS1755 100 accept AS1234 AS513) are evaluated to the same result. Please note that the ordering of these continuing lines matters. Status: optional, multiple lines allowed as-out: A description of generated routing information sent to other AS peers. Format: to announce refers to your AS neighbour. is explained in the as-in attribute definition above. Example: as-out: to AS1104 announce AS978 as-out: to AS1755 announce ANY as-out: to AS786 announce ANY AND NOT (AS978) Status: optional, multiple lines allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 51 - interas-in: Describes incoming local preferences on an inter AS connection. Format: from accept The keywords from and accept are optional and can be omit- ted. is an autonomous system as defined in as-in. contains the IP address of the local border router, followed by a space, followed by the IP address of the remote border router. IP addresses must be in prefix length format. is defined as follows: (pref-type=) It should be noted the parenthesis ``('' and ``)'' and the ``pref-type'' keyword must be present for this preference to be valid. can take one of the following values: is a positive integer used to express a rela- tive cost of routes learned. The lower the cost the more preferred the route. This value is only relevant to other interas-in attributes, not to as-in attributes. MED This indicates the AS will use the BGP MED metric sent from its neighbour AS. NOTE: Combinations of MED and should be avoided for the same destinations. CAVEAT: The pref-type values may well be enhanced in the future as more inter-ASs routing protocols intro- duce other metrics. is an expression as defined in as-in above. Examples: interas-in: from AS1104 192.87.45.254/32 192.87.45.80/32 (pref-type=10) accept AS786 AS987 interas-in: from AS1104 192.87.45.254/32 192.87.45.79/32 (pref-type=20) accept AS987 interas-in: from AS1103 192.87.45.254/32 192.87.45.32/32 (pref-type=MED) accept ANY Status: optional, multiple lines allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 52 - interas-out: Format: to announce The keywords to and announce are optional and can be omit- ted. The definitions of , , and are identical to those defined in interas-in. is defined as follows: (metric-out=) It should be noted the parenthesis ``('' and ``)'' and the ``metric-out'' keyword must be present for this metric to be valid. can take one of the following values: is a pre-configured metric for outbound routes. The lower the cost the more preferred the route. This value is only relevant to other interas-out attributes, not to as-out attri- butes. IGP This indicates that this means that the metric reflects the ASs internal topology cost. The topology is reflected here by using MED which is derived from the AS's IGP metric. NOTE: Combinations of IGP and should be avoided for the same destinations. CAVEAT: The metric-out values may well be enhanced in the future as more interas protocols make use of metrics. Examples: interas-out: to AS1104 192.87.45.254/32 192.87.45.80/32 (metric-out=10) announce AS23 AS10 interas-out: to AS1104 192.87.45.254/32 192.87.45.79/32 (metric-out=15) announce AS10 interas-out: to AS1103 192.87.45.254/32 192.87.45.79/32 (metric-out=IGP) announce ANY Status: optional, multiple lines allowed as-exclude: A list of transit ASes to ignore all routes from. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 53 - Format: exclude to Keywords exclude and to are optional and can again be omitted. refers to the transit AS in question. an can be ONE of the following. 1. 2. AS macro 3. Community 4. ANY Examples: as-exclude: exclude AS690 to HEPNET This means exclude any HEPNET routes which have a route via AS690. as-exclude: exclude AS1800 to AS-EUNET This means exclude any AS-EUNET routes which have a route via AS1800. as-exclude: exclude AS1755 to AS1104 This means exclude any AS1104 route which have a route via AS1755. as-exclude: exclude AS1104 to ANY This means exclude all routes which have a route via AS1104. Status: optional, multiple lines allowed default: An indication of how default routing is done. Format: where is the AS peer you will default route to, and is the relative cost is a positive integer used to express a preference for default. There is no relationship to the cost used in the as-in tag. The AS peer with the lowest cost is used for default over ones ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 54 - with higher costs. is optional and provides information on how a default route is selected. It can take the fol- lowing formats: 1. static. This indicates that a default is statically configured to this AS peer. 2. A network list with the syntax as described in the as-in attribute. This indicates that this list of routes is used to generate a default route. A special but valid value in this is the special route used by some routing protocols to indicate default: 0.0.0.0/0 3. default. This is the same as {0.0.0.0/0}. This means that the routing protocol between these two peers generates a true default. Examples: default: AS1755 10 default: AS786 5 {140.222.0.0/16, 192.87.45.0/24} default: AS2043 15 default Status: optional, multiple lines allowed tech-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of a technical con- tact person. This is someone to be contacted for technical problems such as misconfiguration. Format: or Example: tech-c: John E Doe tech-c: JED31 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed admin-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative contact person. In many cases this would be the name of the guardian. Format: or Example: admin-c: Joe T Bloggs admin-c: JTB1 ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 55 - Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed guardian: Mailbox of the guardian of the Autonomous system. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain format wherever possible. Example: guardian: as1104-guardian at nikhef.nl Status: mandatory, only one line and e-mail address allowed remarks: Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. Format: free text Example: remarks: Multihomed AS talking to AS1755 and AS786 remarks: Will soon connect to AS1104 also. Status: optional, multiple lines allowed notify: The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- cations of changes to this object should be sent. See also [11]. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain syntax wherever possible. Example: notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Status: optional, multiple lines allowed maintainer: The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. See also [11]. Format: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 56 - Example: maintainer: RIPE-DBM Status: optional, multiple lines allowed changed: Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. Format: YYMMDD should be the address of the person who made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change was made. Example: changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed source: Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries the value is fixed to RIPE. Format: RIPE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 57 - Appendix B - Syntax details for the community object. Here is a summary of the tags associated with community object itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the commun- ity object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. community: [mandatory] [single] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] authority: [mandatory] [single] guardian: [mandatory] [single] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] remarks: [optional] [multiple] notify: [optional] [multiple] maintainer: [optional] [single] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] source: [mandatory] [single] Each attribute has the following syntax: community: Name of the community. The name of the community should be descriptive of the community it describes. Format: Upper case text string which cannot start with "AS" or any of the KEYWORDS. See Appendix A. Example: community: WCW Status: mandatory, only one line allowed descr: A short description of the community represented. Format: free text Example: descr: Science Park Watergraafsmeer descr: Amsterdam Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 58 - authority: The formal authority for this community. This could be an organisation, institute, committee, etc. Format: free text Example: authority: WCW LAN Committee Status: mandatory, only one line allowed guardian: Mailbox of the guardian of the community. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain format wherever possible. Example: guardian: wcw-guardian at nikhef.nl Status: mandatory, only one line and email address allowed tech-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an technical con- tact person for this community. Format: or Example: tech-c: John E Doe tech-c: JED31 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed admin-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative contact person. In many cases this would be the name of the guardian. Format: or Example: admin-c: Joe T Bloggs admin-c: JTB1 ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 59 - Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed remarks: Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. Format: free text Example: remarks: Temporary community remarks: Will be removed after split into ASes Status: optional, multiple lines allowed notify: The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- cations of changes to this object should be send. See also [11]. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain syntax wherever possible. Example: notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Status: optional, multiple lines allowed maintainer: The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. See also [11]. Format: Example: maintainer: RIPE-DBM Status: optional, multiple lines allowed changed: Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. Format: YYMMDD should be the address of the person who made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change was made. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 60 - Example: changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed source: Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries the value is fixed to RIPE. Format: RIPE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 61 - Appendix C - AS Macros syntax definition. Here is a summary of the tags associated with as-macro object itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the as-macro object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. as-macro: [mandatory] [single] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] as-list: [mandatory] [multiple] guardian: [mandatory] [single] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] remarks: [optional] [multiple] notify: [optional] [multiple] maintainer: [optional] [single] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] source: [mandatory] [single] Each attribute has the following syntax: as-macro: The name of a macro containing at least two Autonomous Systems grouped together for ease of administration. Format: AS- The should be in upper case and not contain any special characters. Example: as-macro: AS-EBONE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed descr: A short description of the Autonomous System Macro. Format: free text Example: descr: Macro for EBONE connected ASes Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 62 - as-list: The list of ASes that make up this macro. Format: ... See Appendix A for definition. Example: as-list: AS786 AS513 AS1104 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed guardian: Mailbox of the guardian of this AS macro. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain format wherever possible. Example: guardian: as-ebone-guardian at ebone.net Status: mandatory, only one line and e-mail address allowed tech-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of a technical con- tact person for this macro. This is someone to be contacted for technical problems such as misconfiguration. Format: or Examples: tech-c: John E Doe tech-c: JED31 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed admin-c: Full name or uniquely assigned NIC-handle of an administrative contact person. In many cases this would be the name of the guardian. Format: or Examples: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 63 - admin-c: Joe T Bloggs admin-c: JTB1 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed remarks: Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. Format: free text Example: remarks: AS321 will be removed from this Macro shortly Status: optional, multiple lines allowed notify: The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- cations of changes to this object should be send. See also [11]. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain syntax wherever possible. Example: notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Status: optional, multiple lines allowed maintainer: The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. See also [11]. Format: Example: maintainer: RIPE-DBM Status: optional, multiple lines allowed changed: Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. Format: YYMMDD ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 64 - should be the address of the person who made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change was made. Example: changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed source: Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries the value is fixed to RIPE. Format: RIPE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 65 - Appendix D - Syntax for the "route" object. There is a summary of the tags associated with community object itself and their status. The first column specifies the attribute, the second column whether this attribute is mandatory in the commun- ity object, and the third column whether this specific attribute can occur only once per object [single], or more than once [multiple]. When specifying multiple lines per attribute, the attribute name must be repeated. See [6] the example for the descr: attribute. route: [mandatory] [single] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] origin: [mandatory] [single] hole: [optional] [multiple] withdrawn: [optional] [multiple] comm-list: [optional] [multiple] remarks: [optional] [multiple] notify: [optional] [multiple] maintainer: [optional] [single] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] source: [mandatory] [single] Each attribute has the following syntax: route: Route being announced. Format: Classless representation of a route with the RIPE database known as the "prefix length" representation. See [10] for more details on classless representations. Examples: route: 192.87.45.0/24 This represents addressable bits 192.87.45.0 to 192.87.45.255. route: 192.1.128.0/17 This represents addressable bits 192.1.128.0 to 192.1.255.255. Status: mandatory, only one line allowed origin: The autonomous system announcing this route. Format: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 66 - See appendix A for syntax. Example: origin: AS1104 Status: mandatory, only one line allowed hole: Denote the parts of the address space covered this route object to which the originator does not provide connectivity. Format: Classless representation of a route with the RIPE database known as the "prefix length" representation. See [10] for more details on classless representations. It should be noted that is sub-aggregate must be a component of that registered in the route object. Example: hole: 193.0.4.0/24 Status: optional, multiple lines allowed withdrawn: Used to denote the day this route has been withdrawn from the Internet routing mesh. It should be noted that this date cannot be in the future. Format: YYMMDD YYMMDD denotes the date this route was withdrawn. Example: withdrawn: 940711 Status: optional, multiple lines allowed comm-list: List of one or more communities this route is part of. Format: ... See Appendix B for definition. Example: comm-list: HEP LEP Status: optional, multiple lines allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 67 - remarks: Remarks/comments, to be used only for clarification. Format: free text Example: remarks: Multihomed AS talking to AS1755 and AS786 remarks: Will soon connect to AS1104 also. Status: optional, multiple lines allowed notify: The notify attribute contains an email address to which notifi- cations of changes to this object should be send. See also [11]. Format: The should be in RFC822 domain syntax wherever possible. Example: notify: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Status: optional, multiple lines allowed maintainer: The maintainer attribute contains a registered maintainer name. See also [11]. Format: Example: maintainer: RIPE-DBM Status: optional, multiple lines allowed changed: Who changed this object last, and when was this change made. Format: YYMMDD should be the address of the person who made the last change. YYMMDD denotes the date this change was made. Example: ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 68 - changed: johndoe at terabit-labs.nn 900401 Status: mandatory, multiple lines allowed source: Source of the information. This is used to separate information from different sources kept by the same database software. For RIPE database entries the value is fixed to RIPE. Format: RIPE Status: mandatory, only one line allowed ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 69 - Appendix E - List of reserved words The following list of words are reserved for use within the attri- butes of the AS object. The use of these words is solely for the purpose of clarity. All keywords must be lower case. accept announce exclude from to transit Examples of the usage of the reserved words are: as-in: from neighborAS accept route as-out: to neighborAS announce route as-exclude: exclude ASpath to destination as-transit: transit ASpath to destination default: from neighborAS accept route default: to neighborAS announce route Note: that as-transit is an experimental attribute. See section 10. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 70 - Appendix F - Motivations for RIPE-81++ This appendix gives motivations for the major changes in this propo- sal from ripe-81. (It is not complete yet). The main goals of the routing registry rework are: SPLIT Separate the allocation and routing registry functions into different database objects. This will facilitate data manage- ment if the Internet registry and routing registry functions are separated (like in other parts of the world). It will also make more clear what is part of the routing registry and who has authority to change allocation vs. routing data. CIDR Add the possibility to specify classless routes in the routing registry. Classless routes are being used in Internet produc- tion now. Aggregation information in the routing registry is necessary for network layer troubleshooting. It is also neces- sary because aggregation influences routing policies directly. CALLOC Add the possibility to allocate address space on classless boundaries in the allocation registry. This is a way to preserve address space. CLEAN To clean up some of the obsolete and unused parts of the rout- ing registry. The major changes are now discussed in turn: Introduce Classless Addresses CIDR, CALLOC Introduce route object. SPLIT, CIDR and CALLOC. Delete obsolete attributes from inetnum. CLEAN. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 71 - Delete RIPE-DB and LOCAL from routing policy expressions. CLEAN Allow multiple ASes to originate the same route Because it is being done. CIDR. Made possible by SPLIT. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 - 72 - Appendix G - Transition strategy from RIPE-81 to RIPE-81++ Transition from the routing registry described by ripe-81 to the routing registry described in this document is a straightforward process once the new registry functions have been implemented in the database software and are understood by the most commonly used registry tools. The routing related attributes in the classful inet- num objects of ripe-81 can be directly translated into new routing objects. Then these attributes can be deleted from the inetnum object making that object conform to the new schema. Proposed transition steps: 1) Implement classless addresses and new object definition in the database software. 2) Make common tools understand the new schema and prefer it if both old and new are present. 3) Invite everyone to convert their data to the new format. This can be encouraged by doing conversions automatically and pro- posing them to maintainers. 4) At a flag day remove all remaining routing information from the inetnum objects. Before the flag day all usage of obsoleted inetnum attributes has to cease and all other routing registry functions have to be taken over by the new objects and attri- butes. The current estimate is that point three can be reached in the Sum- mer 1994 if the draft is accepted by mid-June. The flag day should be scheduled 3-4 months after this point. ripe-1nn.txt July, 1994 -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 16:28:13 MET DST 1994 --------- From lpj at merit.edu Thu Jul 21 16:27:59 1994 From: lpj at merit.edu (Laurent Joncheray) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 10:27:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: <9407211417.AA10651@mature.ripe.net> from "Tony Bates" at Jul 21, 94 04:17:53 pm Message-ID: <199407211428.KAA12537@merit.edu> Ok, here are my last comments again (seens that last time they went directly to /dev/null). I won't accept a document which does not allow more than 1 update of an object per day. Laurent A few things i'd like to propose: - A route/AS name attribute. You currently use the first line of the 'desc' attribute to generate a name (with prtraceroute for instance). Having a separate name attribute can make the query of the server (whois or whatever) easier since it doesn't require any parsing. - Include the time (hour, min, second) in the "changed" attribute. This is in case of several changes in the same day. Proposed syntax (compatible with the older one): changed: YYMMDD [hh:mm:ss] [+oo] If hh:mm:ss is missing we assume 00:00:00 +00 ??? +oo if the offset from GMT. (i know, we have to deal with the times zones :-) Laurent -- Laurent Joncheray, E-Mail: lpj at merit.edu Merit Network Inc, 1071 Beal Avenue, Phone: +1 (313) 936 2065 Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Fax: +1 (313) 747 3745 "This is the end, Beautiful friend. This is the end, My only friend, the end" JM -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 16:35:45 MET DST 1994 --------- From bonito at nis.garr.it Thu Jul 21 16:31:09 1994 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 16:31:09 MET DST Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: <199407211428.KAA12537@merit.edu>; from "Laurent Joncheray" at Jul 21, 94 10:27 am Message-ID: <9407211431.AA05990@picche.nis.garr.it> > > Ok, here are my last comments again (seens that last time they > went directly to /dev/null). I won't accept a document which does not > allow more than 1 update of an object per day. > Laurent > > A few things i'd like to propose: > > - A route/AS name attribute. You currently use the first line of the 'desc' > attribute to generate a name (with prtraceroute for instance). Having > a separate name attribute can make the query of the server (whois or whatever) > easier since it doesn't require any parsing. I strongly agree. > > - Include the time (hour, min, second) in the "changed" attribute. This is > in case of several changes in the same day. Proposed syntax > (compatible with the older one): > > changed: YYMMDD [hh:mm:ss] [+oo] > > If hh:mm:ss is missing we assume 00:00:00 +00 ??? > +oo if the offset from GMT. (i know, we have to deal with the times > zones :-) I agree not because I think that frequent updates are necessary but because including the time zone better identifies the exact time of the update. > Laurent > > -- > Laurent Joncheray, E-Mail: lpj at merit.edu > Merit Network Inc, 1071 Beal Avenue, Phone: +1 (313) 936 2065 > Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Fax: +1 (313) 747 3745 > "This is the end, Beautiful friend. This is the end, My only friend, the end" JM > ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 (50) 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 CNUCE I 56126 PISA Italy Fax: +39 (50) 904052 ---------- ---------- -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 16:45:10 MET DST 1994 --------- From Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Thu Jul 21 16:45:06 1994 From: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net (Marten Terpstra) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 16:45:06 +0200 Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 21 Jul 1994 10:27:59 EDT. <199407211428.KAA12537@merit.edu> Message-ID: <9407211445.AA06157@rijp.ripe.net> Laurent Joncheray writes * Ok, here are my last comments again (seens that last time they * went directly to /dev/null). I won't accept a document which does not * allow more than 1 update of an object per day. * in case of several changes in the same day. Proposed syntax * (compatible with the older one): * * changed: YYMMDD [hh:mm:ss] [+oo] * * If hh:mm:ss is missing we assume 00:00:00 +00 ??? * +oo if the offset from GMT. (i know, we have to deal with the times * zones :-) This is not for us to decide. The database working group should decide on this. However, your statement that the document only allows one update per day is wrong. The current database can take as many updates per day for one object as you like. Implementation matter. -Marten -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 16:49:15 MET DST 1994 --------- From Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no Thu Jul 21 16:49:02 1994 From: Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no (Havard Eidnes) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 16:49:02 +0200 Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 Jul 1994 10:27:59 EDT." <199407211428.KAA12537@merit.edu> Message-ID: <9407211449.AA28866@ravn> > - Include the time (hour, min, second) in the "changed" attribute. This is > in case of several changes in the same day. Proposed syntax > (compatible with the older one): > > changed: YYMMDD [hh:mm:ss] [+oo] > > If hh:mm:ss is missing we assume 00:00:00 +00 ??? > +oo if the offset from GMT. (i know, we have to deal with the times > zones :-) Why do you need that sort of resolution? Unless it would serve a real purpose I really don't see the need for this -- it's just one more creeping feature to have to implement and maintain. - H?vard -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 16:50:30 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Thu Jul 21 16:50:26 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 16:50:26 +0200 Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 21 Jul 1994 16:31:09 +0700. <9407211431.AA05990@picche.nis.garr.it> Message-ID: <9407211450.AA10697@mature.ripe.net> bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: * > Firstly, this is just my opinion.. it is up to the working group chairs to decide any new extensions here. I am just `trying' to complete the action for ripe-81++ from the last meeting. The points you raise are more general (esp. the time related one). However, find below my personal view on this. * > Ok, here are my last comments again (seens that last time they * > went directly to /dev/null). I won't accept a document which does not * > allow more than 1 update of an object per day. * > Laurent * > * > A few things i'd like to propose: * > * > - A route/AS name attribute. You currently use the first line of the 'des * c' * > attribute to generate a name (with prtraceroute for instance). Having * > a separate name attribute can make the query of the server (whois or what * ever) * > easier since it doesn't require any parsing. * * I strongly agree. * Umm... do not see the need for routes to have names - doesn't effect prtraceroute or any other tool for that matter. Whats to parse in description ? It is there in the aut-num object so a tool uses it..and works as far as I can tell ? However, if the groups want this fine by me. Just I didn't hear any other votes for this until now. * > * > - Include the time (hour, min, second) in the "changed" attribute. This i * s * > in case of several changes in the same day. Proposed syntax * > (compatible with the older one): * > * > changed: YYMMDD [hh:mm:ss] [+oo] * > * > If hh:mm:ss is missing we assume 00:00:00 +00 ??? * > +oo if the offset from GMT. (i know, we have to deal with the times * > zones :-) * * I agree not because I think that frequent updates are necessary but because * including the time zone better identifies the exact time of the update. * Makes no odds to me either way. The software allows more than one update a day so this is a misnomer from Laurent. However, this is VERY much a general database issue and not at all in context with the ripe-81++ proposal I am afraid. DB chair what say you ? --Tony. -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 16:53:29 MET DST 1994 --------- From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Jul 21 16:53:26 1994 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 16:53:26 +0200 Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 21 Jul 1994 10:27:59 EDT. <199407211428.KAA12537@merit.edu> Message-ID: <9407211453.AA05691@reif.ripe.net> > Laurent Joncheray writes: > Ok, here are my last comments again (seens that last time they > went directly to /dev/null). I won't accept a document which does not > allow more than 1 update of an object per day. This is a general RIPE db question which should be treated for all objects, like authentication, and other such issues applicable to all objects. Thus it is outside the scope of RIPE-81++. It is inside the scope of the database working group. To explain my very firm point of view here let me explain that this document needs to be stable for both the RIPE database implementation work and adaption of the PRIDE tools. Both activities are also already a little behind shedule. Further delays present the real danger that it will be next year before any of this is operational. We cannot wait any more. The absolute deadline is the RIPE meeting but preferably this should be done earlier. Laurent and Jessica had agreed on June 3d to provide pieces of text for this draft, especially for the interas-in and interas-out attributes. When we had not received anything but a repeat of their syntax proposals, Tony and I wrote it up ourselves again in order to get the draft out now, weeks after schedule. Daniel -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 16:59:36 MET DST 1994 --------- From lpj at merit.edu Thu Jul 21 16:59:26 1994 From: lpj at merit.edu (Laurent Joncheray) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 10:59:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: <9407211445.AA06157@rijp.ripe.net> from "Marten Terpstra" at Jul 21, 94 04:45:06 pm Message-ID: <199407211459.KAA15453@merit.edu> Introducing several updates a day when the 'changed' attribute has a granularity of 1 day can result in inconsistancies in the database when you use email for the update. More than 1 update a day should be avoided in your current implementation. Laurent PS: Yes Tony "The software allows more than one update a day": - i send a update at 15:00, but i have email problems and the mail is delayed 1h (common value with sendmail). - i send a update at 15:20 because i realized i did a typo. The email problem is gone and the mail is not delayed. - The result is left as an exercise for the reader :-) Actually i am wondering if 'dbupdate' check the date in the email header? > This is not for us to decide. The database working group should decide > on this. However, your statement that the document only allows one > update per day is wrong. The current database can take as many updates > per day for one object as you like. Implementation matter. > > -Marten > -- Laurent Joncheray, E-Mail: lpj at merit.edu Merit Network Inc, 1071 Beal Avenue, Phone: +1 (313) 936 2065 Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Fax: +1 (313) 747 3745 "This is the end, Beautiful friend. This is the end, My only friend, the end" JM -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 17:08:00 MET DST 1994 --------- From Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net Thu Jul 21 17:07:55 1994 From: Marten.Terpstra at ripe.net (Marten Terpstra) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 17:07:55 +0200 Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 21 Jul 1994 10:59:26 EDT. <199407211459.KAA15453@merit.edu> Message-ID: <9407211507.AA06228@rijp.ripe.net> Laurent Joncheray writes * Introducing several updates a day when the 'changed' * attribute has a granularity of 1 day can result in inconsistancies in the * database when you use email for the update. More than 1 update a day * should be avoided in your current implementation. * Laurent * * PS: Yes Tony "The software allows more than one update a day": * - i send a update at 15:00, but i have email problems and the mail is * delayed 1h (common value with sendmail). * - i send a update at 15:20 because i realized i did a typo. The email probl * em * is gone and the mail is not delayed. * - The result is left as an exercise for the reader :-) * Actually i am wondering if 'dbupdate' check the date in the email header? You are very right, it is strange however that over the few hundreds of thousands up updates this has never happened. I usually wait for an acknowledgement before I send in a new update. And no, dbupdate does not check the date in the email header, it is as reliable as mail itself. These are implementation and general database matters, NOT ripe-81++ matters. We should take implementation matters offline, and not bother all these mailing lists with it. -Marten -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 17:25:30 MET DST 1994 --------- From dsj at merit.edu Thu Jul 21 17:25:20 1994 From: dsj at merit.edu (Dale S. Johnson) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 11:25:20 -0400 Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ Message-ID: <199407211525.LAA17787@merit.edu> > > bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: > * > > Firstly, > this is just my opinion.. it is up to the working group chairs > to decide any new extensions here. I am just `trying' to complete the > action for ripe-81++ from the last meeting. The points you raise are > more general (esp. the time related one). However, find below my > personal view on this. > > * > Ok, here are my last comments again (seens that last time they > * > went directly to /dev/null). I won't accept a document which does not > * > allow more than 1 update of an object per day. > * > Laurent > * > > * > A few things i'd like to propose: > * > > * > - A route/AS name attribute. You currently use the first line of the 'des > * c' > * > attribute to generate a name (with prtraceroute for instance). Having > * > a separate name attribute can make the query of the server (whois or what > * ever) > * > easier since it doesn't require any parsing. > * > * I strongly agree. > * > Umm... do not see the need for routes to have names - doesn't effect > prtraceroute or any other tool for that matter. Whats to parse in > description ? It is there in the aut-num object so a tool uses it..and > works as far as I can tell ? > > However, if the groups want this fine by me. Just I didn't hear any > other votes for this until now. I'd vote for routes having names. I think the arguments for this are essentially the same as in the discussion a couple of years ago about whether nets needed names (or, more precisely, whether net names needed to be unique). When working on routing problems, Routes will be the entities that are looked at during the analysis like nets have been in the past. Giving the tools the ability to put up even a slightly descriptive name provides a lot of sanity checking. It also gives a pronouncable verbal shorthand for human communication ("Hey, has that JvNC AGG-one come back up yet?") --Dale -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 17:49:25 MET DST 1994 --------- From bonito at nis.garr.it Thu Jul 21 17:45:16 1994 From: bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 17:45:16 MET DST Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: <9407211507.AA06228@rijp.ripe.net>; from "Marten Terpstra" at Jul 21, 94 5:07 pm Message-ID: <9407211545.AA06107@picche.nis.garr.it> > > > Laurent Joncheray writes > * Introducing several updates a day when the 'changed' > * attribute has a granularity of 1 day can result in inconsistancies in the > * database when you use email for the update. More than 1 update a day > * should be avoided in your current implementation. > * Laurent > * > * PS: Yes Tony "The software allows more than one update a day": > * - i send a update at 15:00, but i have email problems and the mail is > * delayed 1h (common value with sendmail). > * - i send a update at 15:20 because i realized i did a typo. The email probl > * em > * is gone and the mail is not delayed. > * - The result is left as an exercise for the reader :-) > * Actually i am wondering if 'dbupdate' check the date in the email header? > > You are very right, it is strange however that over the few hundreds > of thousands up updates this has never happened. I usually wait for an > acknowledgement before I send in a new update. > > And no, dbupdate does not check the date in the email header, it is as > reliable as mail itself. > > These are implementation and general database matters, NOT ripe-81++ > matters. We should take implementation matters offline, and not bother > all these mailing lists with it. > > -Marten > I agree with the argument: "These are implementation and general database matters, NOT ripe-81++" Personal comments like mine on the mail from Laurent should not delay the approval of the document. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough... ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 (50) 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 CNUCE I 56126 PISA Italy Fax: +39 (50) 904052 ---------- ---------- -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 18:43:08 MET DST 1994 --------- From jyy at merit.edu Thu Jul 21 18:43:01 1994 From: jyy at merit.edu (Jessica Yu) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 12:43:01 -0400 Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 Jul 1994 16:17:53 +0200." <9407211417.AA10651@mature.ripe.net> Message-ID: <199407211643.MAA24093@merit.edu> Tony, Thanks for the sending out the draft. Does not have time to read the whole thing yet but just for the certain parts I read, have a couple of comments: 1. On page 52, interas-out definition: the order of announce and are reversed. It is just a typo I think since in interas-in, you have the right order. So please change to: Format: to announce 2. In interas-out the is optional, please mention that in the doc. interas-in is fine with being mandatory. 3. In both interas-in and interas-out, should be optional. 4. See some misunderstanding about the pref-type and pref. We may not write it clearly in our paragraph to you. Can we discuss it face-to-face at the ietf? Thanks! --Jessica -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 18:51:53 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Thu Jul 21 18:51:50 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 18:51:50 +0200 Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 21 Jul 1994 12:43:01 EDT. <199407211643.MAA24093@merit.edu> Message-ID: <9407211651.AA11127@mature.ripe.net> Jessica Yu writes: * Tony, * * Thanks for the sending out the draft. Does not have time to read the whole * thing yet but just for the certain parts I read, have a couple of comments: * * 1. On page 52, interas-out definition: the order of announce and a * re * reversed. It is just a typo I think since in interas-in, you have the righ * t * order. So please change to: * Yeah - thats a typo. * Format: * to announce * * 2. In interas-out the is optional, please mention that in the doc. * interas-in is fine with being mandatory. * Okay - but I saw no mention of this in your proposal. * 3. In both interas-in and interas-out, should be optional. * Why ? - does it harm to have it non optional - doesn't this cause problems for your parser ????? Again no mention in your original. * 4. See some misunderstanding about the pref-type and pref. We may not writ * e it * clearly in our paragraph to you. Can we discuss it face-to-face at the iet * f? * If you think we can reach an understanding yes. -T -------- Logged at Thu Jul 21 20:29:33 MET DST 1994 --------- From jyy at merit.edu Thu Jul 21 20:29:24 1994 From: jyy at merit.edu (Jessica Yu) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 14:29:24 -0400 Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ Message-ID: <199407211829.OAA01847@merit.edu> >* 2. In interas-out the is optional, please mention that in the doc. >* interas-in is fine with being mandatory. >* >Okay - but I saw no mention of this in your proposal. The proposal we sent out only clearifies the definition of in interas-in/out per our meeting at Ann Arbor fter the nanog. I expect everything else in these two attributes are the same as in our original paper which calls them as-in/as-out. There you will see in as-out is optional. Not a big deal, just want to clarify it for point 3 as well. > * 3. In both interas-in and interas-out, should be optional. >* >Why ? - does it harm to have it non optional - doesn't this cause problems >for your parser ????? >Again no mention in your original. The reason is not mentioned there is the same as above. The proposal was just for pref definition not for other part of the interas-in/out component. The other part should refer to the original Merit paper which indicates routerid is optional. One of the reasons to make it optional is that a lot of times, you just need to have identify one router, say your neighbor's router . One does not need always list them in pairs. >* 4. See some misunderstanding about the pref-type and pref. We may not writ >* e it >* clearly in our paragraph to you. Can we discuss it face-to-face at the iet >* f? >* >If you think we can reach an understanding yes. Yes. See you there. --Jessica -------- Logged at Fri Jul 22 14:38:51 MET DST 1994 --------- From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Jul 22 13:49:12 1994 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 13:49:12 MET-DST Subject: Latest and hopefully last iteration of ripe-81++ Message-ID: <00981CF0.EB85FB56.2@cc.univie.ac.at> = * > .... = * > - A route/AS name attribute. You currently use the first line of the 'des = * c' = * > attribute to generate a name (with prtraceroute for instance). Having = * > a separate name attribute can make the query of the server (whois or what = * ever) = * > easier since it doesn't require any parsing. = * = * I strongly agree. = * =Umm... do not see the need for routes to have names - doesn't effect =prtraceroute or any other tool for that matter. Whats to parse in =description ? It is there in the aut-num object so a tool uses it..and =works as far as I can tell ? = =However, if the groups want this fine by me. Just I didn't hear any =other votes for this until now. ...Well no strong feelings about introducing a name atrtribute, but I don't see the need for it. It's very easy to spoil the first line for the description and it's comparably easy to spoil the value for a name attribute... I think the issue here is to make people aware that these strings (however they are stored) are used by software and shold give useful *and concise* information. Would some others, having strong feelings, please speak up?! = * > = * > - Include the time (hour, min, second) in the "changed" attribute. This i = * s = * > in case of several changes in the same day. Proposed syntax = * > (compatible with the older one): = * > = * > changed: YYMMDD [hh:mm:ss] [+oo] = * > = * > If hh:mm:ss is missing we assume 00:00:00 +00 ??? = * > +oo if the offset from GMT. (i know, we have to deal with the times = * > zones :-) = * = * I agree not because I think that frequent updates are necessary but because = * including the time zone better identifies the exact time of the update. = * = =Makes no odds to me either way. The software allows more than one =update a day so this is a misnomer from Laurent. =However, this is VERY much a general database issue and not at all in =context with the ripe-81++ proposal I am afraid. DB chair what say you ? There are two aspects to it: - 1) do we need it? do we have to specify implementation? - 2) if we need it - what do we want? 1) My personal opinion is (shaped by the experience of dealing regularly with a *very reliable* RIPE-DB implementation) that we don't need this gadget. Given the responsiveness of the overall system I won't come to think of submitting another update before I've checked the reply from the database! So I think it's an issue of trying to solve the problem only when we have proof that it is there. And - btw - I strongly advocate keeping the possibility to submit more than one update per day!!! I consider this a feature, not a bug. 2) *IF* and when we decide to implement finer granularity, then I think wiring in the weirdness of timezones (to DST or not to DST :-) is definitely a *bad* idea! Do we really need time-information? If this is the case then we should agree on UTC. But I think what Laurent is perhaps advocating is something like an update sequence number. So my proposal would be to add an *optional* (positive, integer :-) sequence number with no other restrictions like being contiguous etc. much like the DNS serial numbers. Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Wilfried.Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Wed Jul 27 23:37:33 MET DST 1994 --------- From Tony.Bates at ripe.net Wed Jul 27 23:37:31 1994 From: Tony.Bates at ripe.net (Tony Bates) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 23:37:31 +0200 Subject: Summary of small meeting with merit of the last ripe-81++ issues Message-ID: <9407272137.AA24720@mature.ripe.net> Here follows the actions and issues resulting from a small meeting today here in Toronto. 1. The optional parts as per Jessica messages would be made clear in the interas-in/interas-out syntax. 2. Jessica will submit the changes to the syntax in the pref-type part to clear up that the pref-type is not fixed in the future. 3. The ordering will be left to Jimi to decide on return but would remain as is in the ripe-81++ draft with the same statement on top whne next sent out. 4. Jessica will send the diffs to 1 and 2 out to rr-impl by Tuesday next week at the latest. 5. Tony will fold these in before the end of that week and send out the new draft. This will be the last changes made other than the possible ordering change. --Tony. -------- Logged at Thu Jul 28 01:55:15 MET DST 1994 --------- From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Jul 28 01:55:12 1994 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 01:55:12 +0200 Subject: Summary of small meeting with merit of the last ripe-81++ issues In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 27 Jul 1994 23:37:31 MDT. <9407272137.AA24720@mature.ripe.net> Message-ID: <9407272355.AA04993@reif.ripe.net> > Tony Bates writes: > Here follows the actions and issues resulting from a small meeting > today here in Toronto. > > This will be the last changes made other than the possible > ordering change. Good. I keep my fingers crossed when not typing. Daniel PS: Just got ppp to work to reifchen.ripe.net. Daniel -------- Logged at Thu Aug 4 00:29:13 MET DST 1994 ---------