Internet-Draft BGP TERMS July 2024
Fiebig Expires 4 January 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
Global Routing Operations
Internet-Draft:
draft-fiebig-grow-routing-ops-terms-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Author:
T. Fiebig
MPI-INF

Currently Used Terminology in Global Routing Operations

Abstract

Operating the global routing ecosystem entails a divers set of interacting components, while operational practice evolved over time. In that time, terms emerged, disappeared, and sometimes changed their meaning.

To aid operators and implementers in reading contemporary drafts, this document provides an overview of terms and abbreviations used in the global routing operations community. The document explicitly does not serve as an authoritative source of correct terminology, but instead strives to provide an overview of practice.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 January 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The practical operation of the global routing ecosystem entails a divers set of interacting components, while operational practice evolved over time. In that time, terms emerged, disappeared, and sometimes changed their meaning.

To aid operators and implementers in reading contemporary drafts, this document provides an overview of terms and abbreviations used in the global routing operations community.

1.1. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

2. Scope of the Document

This document is explicitly descriptive, i.e., provides a collection of terms that are currently being used along with the context and definitions with which their use was observed. It is not an authoritative source of terminology, and only provides a snapshot of how certain terms have been used at the time of publication. As such, any terms and summaries in this document are subject to change.

3. Definitions and Acronyms

The following terms are used in this document:

ACL:
Access Control List
ASN:
Autonomous System Number
DFZ:
Default Free Zone
GRT:
Global Routing Table
IRR:
Internet Routing Registry
IXP:
Internet Exchange Point
LIR:
Local Internet Registry
NLRI:
Network Layer Reachability Information
OTC:
Only To Customer BGP Attribute
PMTUD:
Path MTU Discovery
uRPF:
Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding

In addition to the list above, the following terms are used with a specific meaning.

BGP Speaker:
A device exchanging routes with other BGP speakers using the BGP protocol
BGP Neighbor:
Also just 'Neighbor'. Two BGP speakers that communicate using the BGP protocols are neighbors.
Cone:
The set of ASes who are either direct downstreams of an AS, or in the cone of any of those ASes; Depending on the context this also includes the joint set of prefixes that may be originated by ASes in a cone.
Downstream:
In a direct relationship between two ASes the one receiving upstream from the other. (See: [RFC9234], also known as the customer in a customer-provider relationship.)
Exporting a Prefix:
Advertising a prefix to a neighbor.
Full Table:
A routing table containing a route to all prefixes in the GRT but not the default route.
Importing a Prefix:
Accepting a prefix advertised by a neighbor and considering it for route selection and import into the local AS' routing table.
Network edge:
Last routers under the control of an operator.
Mutual Transit:
When two directly connected ASes both advertise a BGP fulltable to each other. (See: [I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification])
Upstream:
In a direct relationship between two ASes the one providing upstream to the other. (See: [RFC9234], also known as the provider in a customer-provider relationship.)
Operator:
Individual, group of people, or organizational unit responsible for operating BGP speakers, i.e., making administrative changes, as well as defining and setting policies for all BGP speakers within an organization.
Originating a Prefix:
Advertising a prefix with an empty AS-Path.
Peer:
Two directly connected ASes who only advertise routes they originate or learned from their downstreams to each other. (See: [RFC9234])
Providing Transit:
Forwarding packets destined for addresses in an advertised prefix, while advertising a full BGP table or default route to the neighbor.
Providing Upstream:
See: Providing Transit
Router:
In this document, router always refers to a BGP speaker.

4. IANA Considerations

This document does not require any IANA actions.

5. Security Considerations

This document describes currently used terminology and does not make recommendations. As such, it does not have security considerations.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC7454]
Durand, J., Pepelnjak, I., and G. Doering, "BGP Operations and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>.
[RFC9234]
Azimov, A., Bogomazov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., and K. Sriram, "Route Leak Prevention and Detection Using Roles in UPDATE and OPEN Messages", RFC 9234, DOI 10.17487/RFC9234, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9234>.
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification]
Azimov, A., Bogomazov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., Snijders, J., and K. Sriram, "BGP AS_PATH Verification Based on Autonomous System Provider Authorization (ASPA) Objects", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification-17, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification-17>.

Acknowledgements

This document is based on [RFC7454] and we thank the original authors for their work.

We thank the following people for reviewing this draft and suggesting changes:

Author's Address

Tobias Fiebig
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Informatik
Campus E14
66123 Saarbruecken
Germany