rfc1267.A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)
BGP协议详解
BGP协议简介:BGP中文名字:边界网关协议英文名字: border gateway protocolBGP协议是运行于 TCP 上的一种自治系统的路由协议。
BGP 是唯一一个用来处理像因特网大小的网络的协议,也是唯一能够妥善处理好不相关路由域间的多路连接的协议。
BGP 构建在 EGP 的经验之上。
是互联网上一个核心的去中心化自治路由协议。
它通过维护IP路由表或‘前缀’表来实现自治系统(AS)之间的可达性,属于矢量路由协议。
BGP不使用传统的内部网关协议(IGP)的指标,而使用基于路径、网络策略或规则集来决定路由。
功能:BGP 系统的主要功能是和其他的BGP 系统交换网络可达信息。
网络可达信息包括列出的自治系统(AS)的信息。
这些信息有效地构造了AS 互联的拓朴图并由此清除了路由环路,同时在AS 级别上可实施策略决策。
BGP的强大过滤功能:解决大规模网络应用中遇到的问题:优缺点:优点:应用特定的属性避免环路的发生路由信息携带丰富的属性丰富的属性值可以组建可扩展的巨大的网络丰富的路由过滤和路由策略缺点:传统的BGP-4只能管理IPv4单播路由信息,对于使用其它网络层协议(如IPv4 组播,IPv6单播、组播)的应用,在跨自治系统传播时就受到一定限制。
为了提供对多种网络层协议的支持,IETF对BGP-4进行了扩展,形成MP-BGP。
所有的用户私有网络在被BGP 传递时,都加入了RD(路由区分符),BGP 要支持这些RD 的传递,也需要多协议的BGP(MP-BGP)MP-BGP采用地址族(Address Family)来区分不同的网络层协议。
目前,系统实现了多种MP-BGP扩展应用,包括对VPN的扩展、对IPv6的扩展等。
为保证IBGP对等体之间的连通性,需要在IBGP对等体之间建立全连接关系。
假设在一个AS内部有n台路由器,那么应该建立的IBGP连接数就为n(n-1)/2。
当IBGP对等体数目很多时,对网络资源和CPU资源的消耗都很大。
H3C_BGP配置
目录
目录
第 1 章 BGP配置 .....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 BGP简介 ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.1 BGP的消息类型....................................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.2 BGP的路由属性....................................................................................................... 1-5 1.1.3 BGP的选路规则....................................................................................................... 1-9 1.1.4 IBGP和IGP同步..................................................................................................... 1-12 1.1.5 大规模BGP网络所遇到
imap rfc标准
Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) is an email retrieval protocol. It stores email messages on a mail server and enables the recipient to view and manipulate them as though they were stored locally on their device. IMAP was developed in the late 1980s and has since become one of the most widely used email retrieval protocols.The IMAP standard is defined in RFC 3501, which was published in 2003. This document provides a detailed description of the protocol's functionality, including its data formats, commands, and responses. The standard specifies how IMAP clients and servers should communicate with each other to enable the retrieval and manipulation of email messages.One of the key features of IMAP is its support for multiple clients accessing the same mailbox simultaneously. This is achieved through the use of a "shared" storage model, where all clients see the same set of messages and folders stored on the server. This allows users to access their email from different devices without having to worry about synchronizing their messages manually.Another important aspect of IMAP is its support for message organization and management. Clients can create, delete, and rename folders, as well as move messages between folders. They can also search for specific messages based on various criteria, such as sender, subject, or date.IMAP also provides a range of features for managing individual messages. Clients can mark messages as read or unread, flag them for follow-up, and even move them to a specific folder. They can also reply to messages, forward them to others, and generate replies or forwards with attachments.Overall, the IMAP standard provides a powerful and flexible framework for managing email messages. Its support for shared storage, message organization, and advanced message management features make it a popular choice for both personal and business email users.。
38-BGP配置 MyPower S4330 V1.0 系列交换机配置手册
BGP配置本手册著作权属迈普通信技术有限公司所有,未经著作权人书面许可,任何单位或个人不得以任何方式摘录、复制或翻译。
侵权必究。
策划:研究院资料服务处* * *迈普通信技术有限公司地址:成都市高新区九兴大道16号迈普大厦技术支持热线:400-886-8669传真:(+8628)85148948E-mail:support@网址:邮编:610041版本:2011年8月v1.0版目录第1章BGP配置命令 (4)1.1 BGP简介 (4)1.2 BGP配置 (6)1.2.1 BGP配置任务列表 (6)1.2.2 BGP基本配置 (6)1.2.3 BGP对等体配置 (7)1.2.4 bgp参数配置 (7)1.2.5 定义AS路径配置 (8)1.2.6 BGP的监控和维护 (9)1.2.7 配置举例 (10)第1章BGP配置命令1.1 BGP简介BGP(Border Gateway Protocol,边界网关协议)是一种自治系统间的动态路由协议,它的基本功能是在自治系统间自动交换无环路的路由信息,通过交换带有自治系统(AS)路径属性的网路层可达信息,来构造自治系统的拓扑结构。
BGP规范文档早期发布的几个版本分别是RFC1105(BGP-1)、RFC1163(BGP-2)和RFC1267(BGP-3),普遍使用的版本是RFC1771(BGP- 4),最新版本为RFC4271(BGP- 4)。
它适用于分布式结构,并支持无类别域间路由CIDR(Classless InterDomain Routing)。
利用BGP还可以实施用户配置的策略。
BGP-4正迅速成为Internet外部路由协议事实上的标准。
BGP多用于ISP之间。
BGP特性描述如下:●BGP是一种外部路由协议,与OSPF、RIP等内部路由协议不同,其着眼点不在于发现和计算路由,而在于控制路由的传播和选择最好的路由。
●通过在BGP路由中携带AS路径信息,可以彻底解决路由循环问题。
srv6相关标准
SRv6(Segment Routing over IPv6)是一种基于IPv6网络的新型路由技术,它通过在IPv6数据包中添加一个24位的标签来标识不同的路径。
这种技术可以提高网络的可扩展性、灵活性和安全性。
以下是一些与SRv6相关的标准:1. RFC 8210:这是SRv6的基本规范,定义了SRv6的基本概念、操作和实现要求。
2. RFC 8365:这个文档描述了如何使用BGP-LS(Border Gateway Protocol - Link State)协议在IPv6网络中传播SRv6路由信息。
3. RFC 8402:这个文档描述了如何使用MP-BGP(Multiprotocol BGP)协议在IPv6网络中传播SRv6路由信息。
4. RFC 8415:这个文档描述了如何使用IS-IS(Intermediate System to Intermediate System)协议在IPv6网络中传播SRv6路由信息。
5. RFC 8475:这个文档描述了如何使用OSPF(Open Shortest Path First)协议在IPv6网络中传播SRv6路由信息。
6. RFC 8597:这个文档描述了如何使用BFD(Bidirectional Forwarding Detection)协议在IPv6网络中检测SRv6路径的状态。
7. RFC 8795:这个文档描述了如何使用LDP(Label Distribution Protocol)协议在IPv6网络中分发SRv6标签。
8. RFC 8879:这个文档描述了如何使用PCE(Path Computation Element)协议在IPv6网络中计算SRv6路径。
9. RFC 8915:这个文档描述了如何使用SDN(Software-Defined Networking)技术来实现SRv6网络。
10. RFC 9119:这个文档描述了如何使用SRv6技术来实现网络切片。
RFC 2026
Network Working Group T. HowesRequest for Comments: 2254 Netscape Communications Corp. Category: Standards Track December 1997The String Representation of LDAP Search Filters1. Status of this MemoThis document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions forimprovements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright NoticeCopyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved. IESG NoteThis document describes a directory access protocol that provides both read and update access. Update access requires secureauthentication, but this document does not mandate implementation of any satisfactory authentication mechanisms.In accordance with RFC 2026, section 4.4.1, this specification is being approved by IESG as a Proposed Standard despite thislimitation, for the following reasons:a. to encourage implementation and interoperability testing ofthese protocols (with or without update access) before theyare deployed, andb. to encourage deployment and use of these protocols in read-only applications. (e.g. applications where LDAPv3 is used asa query language for directories which are updated by somesecure mechanism other than LDAP), andc. to avoid delaying the advancement and deployment of other Internet standards-track protocols which require the ability to query, but not update, LDAPv3 directory servers.Howes Standards Track [Page 1]RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 1997Readers are hereby warned that until mandatory authenticationmechanisms are standardized, clients and servers written according to this specification which make use of update functionality areUNLIKELY TO INTEROPERATE, or MAY INTEROPERATE ONLY IF AUTHENTICATION IS REDUCED TO AN UNACCEPTABLY WEAK LEVEL.Implementors are hereby discouraged from deploying LDAPv3 clients or servers which implement the update functionality, until a Proposed Standard for mandatory authentication in LDAPv3 has been approved and published as an RFC.2. AbstractThe Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [1] defines anetwork representation of a search filter transmitted to an LDAP server. Some applications may find it useful to have a common way of representing these search filters in a human-readable form. This document defines a human-readable string format for representing LDAP search filters.This document replaces RFC 1960, extending the string LDAP filter definition to include support for LDAP version 3 extended matchfilters, and including support for representing the full range ofpossible LDAP search filters.Howes Standards Track [Page 2]RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 19973. LDAP Search Filter DefinitionAn LDAPv3 search filter is defined in Section 4.5.1 of [1] asfollows:Filter ::= CHOICE {and [0] SET OF Filter,or [1] SET OF Filter,not [2] Filter,equalityMatch [3] AttributeValueAssertion,substrings [4] SubstringFilter,greaterOrEqual [5] AttributeValueAssertion,lessOrEqual [6] AttributeValueAssertion,present [7] AttributeDescription,approxMatch [8] AttributeValueAssertion,extensibleMatch [9] MatchingRuleAssertion}SubstringFilter ::= SEQUENCE {type AttributeDescription,SEQUENCE OF CHOICE {initial [0] LDAPString,any [1] LDAPString,final [2] LDAPString}}AttributeValueAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {attributeDesc AttributeDescription,attributeValue AttributeValue}MatchingRuleAssertion ::= SEQUENCE {matchingRule [1] MatchingRuleID OPTIONAL,type [2] AttributeDescription OPTIONAL,matchValue [3] AssertionValue,dnAttributes [4] BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE}AttributeDescription ::= LDAPStringAttributeValue ::= OCTET STRINGMatchingRuleID ::= LDAPStringAssertionValue ::= OCTET STRINGLDAPString ::= OCTET STRINGHowes Standards Track [Page 3]RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 1997where the LDAPString above is limited to the UTF-8 encoding of the ISO 10646 character set [4]. The AttributeDescription is a string representation of the attribute description and is defined in [1]. The AttributeValue and AssertionValue OCTET STRING have the form defined in [2]. The Filter is encoded for transmission over anetwork using the Basic Encoding Rules defined in [3], withsimplifications described in [1].4. String Search Filter DefinitionThe string representation of an LDAP search filter is defined by the following grammar, following the ABNF notation defined in [5]. The filter format uses a prefix notation.filter = "(" filtercomp ")"filtercomp = and / or / not / itemand = "&" filterlistor = "|" filterlistnot = "!" filterfilterlist = 1*filteritem = simple / present / substring / extensiblesimple = attr filtertype valuefiltertype = equal / approx / greater / lessequal = "="approx = "~="greater = ">="less = "<="extensible = attr [":dn"] [":" matchingrule] ":=" value/ [":dn"] ":" matchingrule ":=" valuepresent = attr "=*"substring = attr "=" [initial] any [final]initial = valueany = "*" *(value "*")final = valueattr = AttributeDescription from Section 4.1.5 of [1] matchingrule = MatchingRuleId from Section 4.1.9 of [1]value = AttributeValue from Section 4.1.6 of [1]The attr, matchingrule, and value constructs are as described in thecorresponding section of [1] given above.Howes Standards Track [Page 4]RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 1997If a value should contain any of the following charactersCharacter ASCII value---------------------------* 0x2a( 0x28) 0x29\ 0x5cNUL 0x00the character must be encoded as the backslash '\' character (ASCII 0x5c) followed by the two hexadecimal digits representing the ASCII value of the encoded character. The case of the two hexadecimaldigits is not significant.This simple escaping mechanism eliminates filter-parsing ambiguities and allows any filter that can be represented in LDAP to berepresented as a NUL-terminated string. Other characters besides the ones listed above may be escaped using this mechanism, for example, non-printing characters.For example, the filter checking whether the "cn" attribute contained a value with the character "*" anywhere in it would be represented as "(cn=*\2a*)".Note that although both the substring and present productions in the grammar above can produce the "attr=*" construct, this construct is used only to denote a presence filter.5. ExamplesThis section gives a few examples of search filters written using this notation.(cn=Babs Jensen)(!(cn=Tim Howes))(&(objectClass=Person)(|(sn=Jensen)(cn=Babs J*)))(o=univ*of*mich*)The following examples illustrate the use of extensible matching.(cn:1.2.3.4.5:=Fred Flintstone)(sn:dn:2.4.6.8.10:=Barney Rubble)(o:dn:=Ace Industry)(:dn:2.4.6.8.10:=Dino)Howes Standards Track [Page 5]RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 1997The second example illustrates the use of the ":dn" notation toindicate that matching rule "2.4.6.8.10" should be used when making comparisons, and that the attributes of an entry's distinguished name should be considered part of the entry when evaluating the match.The third example denotes an equality match, except that DNcomponents should be considered part of the entry when doing the match.The fourth example is a filter that should be applied to anyattribute supporting the matching rule given (since the attr has beenleft off). Attributes supporting the matching rule contained in the DN should also be considered.The following examples illustrate the use of the escaping mechanism.(o=Parens R Us \28for all your parenthetical needs\29)(cn=*\2A*)(filename=C:\5cMyFile)(bin=\00\00\00\04)(sn=Lu\c4\8di\c4\87)The first example shows the use of the escaping mechanism torepresent parenthesis characters. The second shows how to represent a"*" in a value, preventing it from being interpreted as a substring indicator. The third illustrates the escaping of the backslashcharacter.The fourth example shows a filter searching for the four-byte value 0x00000004, illustrating the use of the escaping mechanism torepresent arbitrary data, including NUL characters.The final example illustrates the use of the escaping mechanism to represent various non-ASCII UTF-8 characters.6. Security ConsiderationsThis memo describes a string representation of LDAP search filters. While the representation itself has no known security implications, LDAP search filters do. They are interpreted by LDAP servers toselect entries from which data is retrieved. LDAP servers should take care to protect the data they maintain from unauthorized access.Howes Standards Track [Page 6]RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 19977. References[1] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.[2] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997.[3] Specification of ASN.1 encoding rules: Basic, Canonical, and Distinguished Encoding Rules, ITU-T Recommendation X.690, 1994.[4] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and ISO 10646", RFC 2044, October 1996.[5] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet TextMessages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.8. Author's AddressTim HowesNetscape Communications Corp.501 E. Middlefield RoadMountain View, CA 94043USAPhone: +1 415 937-3419EMail: howes@Howes Standards Track [Page 7]RFC 2254 String Representation of LDAP December 19979. Full Copyright StatementCopyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved.This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose ofdeveloping Internet standards in which case the procedures forcopyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must befollowed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATIONHEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OFMERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Howes Standards Track [Page 8]。
现代通信交换技术课程设计之BGP协议
现代通信交换技术课程设计设计题目:BGP协议姓名:学号:班级:指导老师:201 年月目录1 BGP概述 (1)1.1 BGP协议的定义 (1)1.2 BGP协议的发展经历 (1)1.3 BGP协议基本思想 (1)1.4 BGP协议特性 (1)2 BGP协议详解 (2)2.1 BGP协议的消息类型 (2)2.2 BGP报文种类 (2)2.3 自治系统 (5)2.5 BGP路由属性 (6)2.5.1 BGP路由属性的分类 (6)2.5.2常见的路由属性 (7)2.5.3 BGP路由传递 (11)2.5.4 BGP如何根据属性完成决策 (11)2.6 BGP过滤功能 (12)3 BGP的应用 (12)3.1 BGP的使用原则 (12)3.2 BGP协议中消息的应用 (13)3.3 BGP的同步 (13)3.4 成为BGP路由的途径 (14)参考文献 (17)附录缩略语 (18)1 BGP概述1.1 BGP协议的定义BGP(Border Gateway Protocol)是一种自治系统间的动态路由协议,它的基本功能是在自治系统间自动交换无环路的路由信息,通过交换带有自治系统号序列属性的路径可达信息,来构造自治区域的拓扑图,从而消除路由环路并实施用户配置的路由策略。
1.2 BGP协议的发展经历BGP协议从1989年以来就已经开始使用。
它最早发布的三个版本分别是RFC1105(BGP-1)、RFC1163(BGP-2)和RFC1267(BGP-3),当前使用的是RFC1771(BGP- 4)。
随着INTERNET的飞速发展,路由表的体积也迅速增加,自治区域间路由信息的交换量越来越大,影响了网络的性能。
BGP支持无类别域间选路CIDR(Classless Inter-domain Routing),可以有效的减少日益增大的路由表。
BGP-4正迅速成为事实上的Internet边界路由协议标准。
1.3 BGP协议基本思想不采用RIP、OSPF的原因:(1)RIP记录的只有下一跳,没有真正定义到目的地的完整路径,RIP跳数上限只有16,不适合较大规模网络(2)OSPF的LSDB随网络规模的增加成几何数增长。
常用网络术语缩写表
PSTN(Public Switched Telephone Network)公共交换电话网络,一种常用旧式电话系统
Q----------------------------------------------------------------Q
SCTP(STREAM CONTROL TRANSMISSION PROTOCOL)流控制传输协议,RFC 4960详细说明了SCTP,介绍性的文档是RFC 3286
SNTP(Simple Network Time Protocol)简单网络时间协议
SSH(Secure shell)SSH 为建立在应用层和传输层基础上的安全协议
SSL(Secure Sockets Layer 安全套接层),及其继任者传输层安全(Transport Layer Security,TLS)是为网络通信提供安全及数据完整性的一种安全协议。
QoS(Quality of service)服务质量,服务质量保证
R----------------------------------------------------------------R
RIP(RoutinginformationProtocol)路由信息协议,rfc 2453,1058,1388,2080
E----------------------------------------------------------------E
EGP(Exterior Gateway Protocol)外部网关协议,是一种在自治系统的相邻两个网关主机间交换路由信息的协议。
ECMP(Equal-CostMultipathRouting RFC 2991)等价多路径,存在多条不同链路到达同一目的地址的网络环境中,如果使用传统的路由技术,发往该目的地址的数据包只能利用其中的一条链路,其它链路处于备份状态或无效状态,并且在动态路由环境下相互的切换需要一定时间,而等值多路径路由协议可以在该网络环境下同时使用多条链路,不仅增加了传输带宽,并且可以无时延无丢包地备份失效链路的数据传输。
rfc3765.NOPEER Community for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Route Scope Control
Network Working Group G. Huston Request for Comments: 3765 Telstra Category: Informational April 2004 NOPEER Community for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)Route Scope ControlStatus of this MemoThis memo provides information for the Internet community. It doesnot specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of thismemo is unlimited.Copyright NoticeCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. AbstractThis document describes the use of a scope control Border GatewayProtocol (BGP) community. This well-known advisory transitivecommunity allows an origin AS to specify the extent to which aspecific route should be externally propagated. In particular thiscommunity, NOPEER, allows an origin AS to specify that a route withthis attribute need not be advertised across bilateral peerconnections.1. IntroductionBGP today has a limited number of commonly defined mechanisms thatallow a route to be propagated across some subset of the routingsystem. The NOEXPORT community allows a BGP speaker to specify that redistribution should extend only to the neighbouring AS. Providers commonly define a number of communities that allow their neighboursto specify how advertised routes should be re-advertised. Currentoperational practice is that such communities are defined on as AS by AS basis, and while they allow an AS to influence the re-advertisement behaviour of routes passed from a neighbouring AS, they do not allow this scope definition ability to be passed in atransitive fashion to a remote AS.Advertisement scope specification is of most use in specifying theboundary conditions of route propagation. The specification can take on a number of forms, including as AS transit hop count, a set oftarget ASs, the presence of a particular route object, or aparticular characteristic of the inter-AS connection.Huston Informational [Page 1]There are a number of motivations for controlling the scope ofadvertisement of route prefixes, including support of limited transit services where advertisements are restricted to certain transitproviders, and various forms of selective transit in a multi-homedenvironment.This memo does not attempt to address all such motivations of scopecontrol, and addresses in particular the situation of both multi-homing and traffic engineering. The commonly adopted operationaltechnique is that the originating AS advertises an encompassingaggregate route to all multi-home neighbours, and also selectivelyadvertises a collection of more specific routes. This implements aform of destination-based traffic engineering with some level of fail over protection. The more specific routes typically cease to leverany useful traffic engineering outcome beyond a certain radius ofredistribution, and a means of advising that such routes need not to be distributed beyond such a point is of some value in moderating one of the factors of continued route table growth.Analysis of the BGP routing tables reveals a significant use of thetechnique of advertising more specific prefixes in addition toadvertising a covering aggregate. In an effort to ameliorate some of the effects of this practice, in terms of overall growth of the BGProuting tables in the Internet and the associated burden of globalpropagation of dynamic changes in the reachability of such morespecific address prefixes, this memo describes the use of atransitive BGP route attribute that allows more specific route tables entries to be discarded from the BGP tables under appropriateconditions. Specifically, this attribute, NOPEER, allows a remote AS not to advertise a route object to a neighbour AS when the two AS’sare interconnected under the conditions of some form of sender keepall arrangement, as distinct from some form of provider / customerarrangement.2. NOPEER AttributeThis memo defines the use a new well-known bgp transitive community, NOPEER.The semantics of this attribute is to allow an AS to interpret thepresence of this community as an advisory qualification toreadvertisement of a route prefix, permitting an AS not toreadvertise the route prefix to all external bilateral peer neighbour AS’s. It is consistent with these semantics that an AS may filterreceived prefixes that are received across a peering session that the receiver regards as a bilateral peer sessions.Huston Informational [Page 2]3. MotivationThe size of the BGP routing table has been increasing at anaccelerating rate since late 1998. At the time of publication ofthis memo the BGP forwarding table contains over 118,000 entries, and the three year growth rate of this table shows a trend rate which can be correlated to a compound growth rate of no less than 10% per year [2].One of the aspects of the current BGP routing table is the widespread use of the technique of advertising both an aggregate and a number of more specific address prefixes. For example, the table may contain a routing entry for the prefix 10.0.0.0/23 and also contain entries for the prefixes 10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.1.0/24. In this example thespecific routes fully cover the aggregate announcement. Sparsecoverage of aggregates with more specifics is also observed, where,for example, routing entries for 10.0.0.0/8 and 10.0.1.0/24 bothexist in the routing table. In total, these more specific routeentries occupy some 51% of the routing table, so that more than onehalf of the routing table does not add additional addressreachability information into the routing system, but instead is used to impose a finer level of detail on existing reachabilityinformation.There are a number of motivations for having both an aggregate route and a number of more specific routes in the routing table, including various forms of multi-homed configurations, where there is arequirement to specify a different reachability policy for a part of the advertised address space.One of the observed common requirements in the multi-homed networkconfiguration is that of undertaking some form of load balancing ofincoming traffic across a number of external connections to a number of different neighbouring ASs. If, for example, an AS wishes to use a multi-homed configuration for routing-based load balancing and some form of mutual fail over between the multiple access connections for incoming traffic, then one approach is for the AS to advertise thesame aggregate address prefix to a number of its upstream transitproviders, and then advertise a number of more specifics toindividual upstream providers. In such a case all of the trafficdestined to the more specific address prefixes will be received only over those connections where the more specific has been advertised.If the neighbour BGP peering session of the more specificadvertisement fails, the more specific will cease to be announced and incoming traffic will then be passed to the originating network based on the path associated with the advertisement of the encompassingaggregate. In this situation the more specific routes are notautomatically subsumed by the presence of the aggregate at any remote Huston Informational [Page 3]AS. Both the aggregate and the associated more specific routes areredistributed across the entire external BGP routing domain. In many cases, particularly those associated with desire to undertake traffic engineering and service resilience, the more specific routes areredistributed well beyond the scope where there is any outcomes interms of traffic differentiation.To the extent that remote analysis of BGP tables can observe thisform of configuration, the number of entries in the BGP forwardingtable where more specific entries share a common origin AS with their immediately enclosing aggregates comprise some 20% of the totalnumber of FIB entries. Using a slightly stricter criteria where the AS path of the more specific route matches the immediately enclosing aggregate, the number of more specific routes comprises some 14% ofthe number of FIB entries.One protocol mechanism that could be useful in this context is toallow the originator of an advertisement to state some additionalqualification on the redistribution of the advertisement, allowing a remote AS to suppress further redistribution under some originator-specified criteria.The redistribution qualification condition can be specified either by enumeration or by classification. Enumeration would encompass theuse of a well-known transitive extended community to specify a listof remote AS’s where further redistribution is not advised. Theweakness of this approach is that the originating AS would need toconstantly revise this enumerated AS list to reflect the changes ininter-AS topology, as, otherwise, the more specific routes would leak beyond the intended redistribution scope. An approach ofclassification allows an originating AS to specify the conditionswhere further redistribution is not advised without having to referto the particular AS’s where a match to such conditions areanticipated.The approach described here to specifying the redistribution boundary condition is one based on the type of bilateral inter-AS peering.Where one AS can be considered as a customer, and the other AS can be considered as a contracted agent of the customer, or provider, thenthe relationship is one where the provider, as an agent of thecustomer, carries the routes and associated policy associated withthe routes. Where neither AS can be considered as a customer of the other, then the relationship is one of bilateral peering, and neither AS can be considered as an agent of the other in redistributingpolicies associated with routes. This latter arrangement is commonly referred to as a "sender keep all peer" relationship, or "peering". Huston Informational [Page 4]This peer boundary can be regarded as a logical point where theredistribution of additional reachability policy imposed by theorigin AS on a route is no longer an imposed requirement.This approach allows an originator of a prefix to attach a commonlydefined policy to a route prefix, indicate that a route should bere-advertised conditionally, based on the characteristics of theinter-AS connection.4. IANA ConsiderationsThe IANA has registered NOPEER as a well-known community, as defined in [1], as having global significance.NOPEER (0xFFFFFF04)This is an advisory qualification to readvertisement of a routeprefix, permitting an AS not to readvertise the route prefix to allexternal bilateral peer neighbour AS’s. It is consistent with these semantics that an AS may filter received prefixes that are receivedacross a peering session that the receiver regards as a bilateralpeer sessions5. Security ConsiderationsBGP is an instance of a relaying protocol, where route information is received, processed and forwarded. BGP contains no specificmechanisms to prevent the unauthorized modification of theinformation by a forwarding agent, allowing routing information to be modified, deleted or false information to be inserted without theknowledge of the originator of the routing information or any of the recipients.The NOPEER community does not alter this overall situation concerning the integrity of BGP as a routing system.Use of the NOPEER community has the capability to introduceadditional attack mechanisms into BGP by allowing the potential forman-in-the-middle, session-hijacking, or denial of service attacksfor an address prefix range being launched by a remote AS.Unauthorized addition of this community to a route prefix by atransit provider where there is no covering aggregate route prefixmay cause a denial of service attack based on denial of reachability to the prefix. Even in the case that there is a covering aggregate, if the more specific route has a different origin AS than theHuston Informational [Page 5]aggregate, the addition of this community by a transit AS may cause a denial of service attack on the origin AS of the more specificprefix.BGP is already vulnerable to a denial of service attack based on the injection of false routing information. It is possible to use thiscommunity to limit the redistribution of a false route entry suchthat its visibility can be limited and detection and rectification of the problem can be more difficult under the circumstances of limited redistribution.6. References6.1. Normative References[1] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P. and T. Li, "BGP CommunitiesAttribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.6.2. Informative References[2] Huston, G., "Commentary on Inter-Domain Routing in the Internet", RFC 3221, December 2001.7. Author’s AddressGeoff HustonTelstraEMail: gih@Huston Informational [Page 6]8. Full Copyright StatementCopyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 andexcept as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNETENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THEINFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIEDWARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual PropertyThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of anyIntellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described inthis document or the extent to which any license under such rightsmight or might not be available; nor does it represent that it hasmade any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can befound in BCP 78 and BCP 79.Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and anyassurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of anattempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of thisspecification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at /ipr.The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention anycopyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietaryrights that may cover technology that may be required to implementthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@.AcknowledgementFunding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by theInternet Society.Huston Informational [Page 7]。
关于BGP路由协议的研究与应用 论文
摘要本论文主要叙述的是BGP-4(Border Gateway Protocol-4,中文名为边界网关协议)版本的协议,提供一系列BGP配置案例,包括在BGP路由之间建立对等关系、将IGP(interior Gateway Protocols)内部网关协议路由注入BGP、将BGP注入IGP等基本配置,并从管理和维护的角度讨论从而使学习BGP连接变得的更易管理。
研究BGP路由协议,先必须了解BGP路由协议及其他路由协议的基本原理及作用,在做网络工程时,选择不同的路由协议直接决定了该网络的好与坏。
必须掌握BGP基本连接属性及重要的拓展属性,通过大量的实验熟悉和了解这些属性的意义和作用。
本论文中的设计使用了我国Internet组网框架,集合BGP路由协议的特点模拟现实的网络构建的网络拓扑,在设计中,主要介绍了网络工程中所使用工具,并对BGP 路由协议的基本配置、路由黑洞的产生及解决、Local_Preference属性及MED(Multi Exit Disc)属性进行了详细介绍,并对测试结果进行了详细说明,并加入了通过做工程而得到的结论及心得。
这里我要说明一下,BGP不是单纯的路由协议,它很少单独用于网络当中,许多时候是和IGP互操的,这就说明了学习BGP比学习IGP难的地方,BGP 路由表是独立于IGP路由表的,但是这两个表之间可以进行信息的交换,这就是前面提到的“再分布”技术(Redistribution)。
信息的交换有两个方向:从BGP注入IGP,以及从IGP注入BGP.前者是将AS外部的路由信息传给AS内部的路由器,而后者是将AS 内部的路由信息传到外部网络,这也是路由更新的来源。
把路由信息从BGP注入IGP 涉及到一个重要概念——同步(Synchronization)。
同步规则的主要目的是为了保证AS (As-Path)自治系统内部的连通性,防止路由循环的黑洞。
但是在实际的应用中,一般都会将同步功能禁用,而使用AS内IBGP的全网状连接结构来保证连通性,这样即可以避免向IGP中注入大量BGP路由,加快路由器处理速度,又可以保证数据包不丢失。
RFC1771_边界网关协议版本4(BGP-4)
信息经过的自治系统(AS)清单上的信息。这些信息有效地构造了AS互联的图像并由此清除
了路由环路同时在AS级别上实施了策略决策。
BGP-4提供了一套新的机制支持无类域间路由。这些机制包括支持网络前缀的广播取消
6.3 减少路由抖动 40
6.4 BGP 计时器 40
6.5 路径属性顺序 40
6.6 AS_SET 排序 41
6.7 版本商议控制 41
6.8 复杂 AS_PATH 聚合 41
参考 41
安全考虑 42
作者地址 42
1. 致谢
本文档初版是1991年10月的RFC1267,由Kirk Lougheed (cisco 系统) 和 Yakov
(RFC1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4))
本备忘录的状态
本文档讲述了一种Internet社区的Internet标准跟踪协议,它需要进一步进行讨论和
建议以得到改进。请参考最新版的“Internet正式协议标准” (STD1)来获得本协议的标准
化程度和状态。本备忘录的发布不受任何限制。
附录 1. BGP FSM 状态转换和行为 34
附录 2. 对比RFC1267 37
附录 3. 对比RFC1663 38
附录4. 对比 RFC 1105 38
附录5. BGP可能使用的TCP选项 39
附录6. 应用建议 39
6.1 每个消息的多网络前缀 39
6.2 使用流协议 40
由器服务为和别的AS的外出/进入点达成一致。这些信息可能通过内部网关协议通信到AS的
rfc中常用的测试协议
rfc中常用的测试协议引言在计算机网络领域中,为了确保网络协议的正确性和稳定性,测试协议起到了至关重要的作用。
RFC(Request for Comments)是一系列文件,用于描述互联网相关协议、过程和技术。
在RFC中,也包含了一些常用的测试协议,用于验证和评估网络协议的功能和性能。
本文将介绍RFC中常用的测试协议,并深入探讨其原理和应用。
二级标题1:PING协议三级标题1.1:概述PING协议是一种常用的网络测试协议,用于测试主机之间的连通性。
它基于ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol)协议,通过发送ICMP Echo Request报文并等待目标主机的ICMP Echo Reply报文来判断目标主机是否可达。
三级标题1.2:工作原理PING协议的工作原理如下: 1. 发送方主机生成一个ICMP Echo Request报文,并将目标主机的IP地址作为目的地。
2. 发送方主机将报文发送到网络中。
3.中间路由器收到报文后,将报文转发到下一跳路由器。
4. 目标主机收到ICMP Echo Request报文后,生成一个ICMP Echo Reply报文,并将其发送回发送方主机。
5. 发送方主机收到ICMP Echo Reply报文后,通过比较报文中的标识符和序列号等字段,判断目标主机是否可达。
三级标题1.3:应用场景PING协议在网络中的应用非常广泛,常用于以下场景: - 测试主机之间的连通性,判断网络是否正常工作。
- 测试网络延迟,通过计算ICMP Echo Request报文的往返时间来评估网络质量。
- 排查网络故障,通过检查ICMP Echo Reply报文中的错误码来定位故障原因。
二级标题2:Traceroute协议三级标题2.1:概述Traceroute协议用于跟踪数据包从源主机到目标主机经过的路径。
它通过发送一系列的UDP报文,并在每个报文中设置不同的TTL(Time to Live)值来实现。
IPV6和IPV4比较
1、概述互联网已经成为现代社会信息基础设施的重要组成部分,在国民经济发展和社会进步中起着举足轻重的作用,同时也成为当今高科技发展的重要支撑环境,互联网的巨大成功有目共睹。
现在被全球广泛使用的互联网协议IPv4(internet protocol version 4)是“互联网协议第四版”,已经有30年的历史。
从技术上看,尽管IPv4在过去的应用具有辉煌的业绩,但是现在看来已经露出很多弊端。
全球范围内WLAN、2.5G、3G无线移动数据网络的发展加快了以互联网为核心的通信模式的形成,由于移动通信用户的增长要比固定网用户快得多,特别是各种具有联网功能的移动终端的迅猛发展,考虑到随时随地的、任何形式、直接的个人多媒体通信的需要,现有的IPv4已经远远不能满足网络市场对地址空间、端到端的IP连接、服务质量、网络安全和移动性能的要求。
因此人们寄希望于新一代的IP协议来解决以上问题。
IPv6协议正是基于这一思想提出的,它是“互联网协议第六版”的缩写。
在设计IPv6时不仅仅扩充了IPv4的地址空间,而且对原IPv4协议各方面都进行了重新考虑,做了大量改进。
除了提出庞大的地址数量外,IPv6与IPv4相比,还有很多的工作正在进行以期得到更高的安全性、更好的可管理性,对QoS和多播技术的支持也更为良好。
下面的章节将从几个主要的方面探讨一下IPv6与IPv4的区别。
QOS: QoS(Quality of Service)服务质量,是网络的一种安全机制, 是用来解决网络延迟和阻塞等问题的一种技术。
在正常情况下,如果网络只用于特定的无时间限制的应用系统,并不需要QoS,比如Web应用,或E-mail设置等。
但是对关键应用和多媒体应用就十分必要。
当网络过载或拥塞时,QoS 能确保重要业务量不受延迟或丢弃,同时保证网络的高效运行。
2、IPv4与IPv6协议的比较2.1 报头格式IPv4报头如表1所示,包含20bit+选项,13个字段,包括3个指针。
TCPIP网络协议层对应的RFC文档
TCPIP⽹络协议层对应的RFC⽂档原⽂地址:作者:RFC - Request For Comments 请求注解TCP/IP层⽹络协议RFC⽂档Physical Layer Data Link Layer ARP - Address ResolutionProtocolRFC826 ( ) RARP - Reverse AddressResolution ProtocolRFC903 ( )Internet Protocol Layer IP - Internet Protocol RFC791 ( CN ) IP v6RFC2460 ( ) ICMP - Internet ControlMessage ProtocolRFC777 ( )RFC792 ( ) ICMP v6RFC2463 ( )RFC4443 ( )RFC4443 ( ) IGMP - Internet GroupManagement ProtocolRFC1112 ( ) IGMP v2RFC2236 ( ) IGMP v3RFC3376 ( ) OSPF - Open Shortest PathFirstRFC1245 ( )RFC1246 ( ) OSPF v2RFC1252 ( )RFC1253 ( )RFC1850 ( )RFC2178 ( )RFC2328 ( )RFC2329 ( )Transport Layer TCP - Transport ControlProtocolRFC793 ( CN ) UDP - User DatagramProtocolRFC768 ( CN ) FTP - File Transfer Protocol RFC959 ( CN ) SMTP - Simple Mail TransferProtocolRFC821 ( ) Telnet - Telnet ProtocolRFC698 ( )RFC779 ( )RFC854 ( )RFC855 ( )RFC856 ( )RFC857 ( )RFC858 ( )RFC859 ( )RFC860 ( )RFC861 ( ) HTTP v1.0 - HypertextTransfer ProtocolRFC1945 ( ) HTTP v1.1RFC2616 ( CN )RFC2617 ( CN ) POP3 - Post Office Protocol -Version 3RFC1939 ( ) BGP - Border GatewayProtocolRFC1105 ( )RFC1163 ( ) BGP v3RFC1267 ( ) BGP v4RFC1654 ( )RFC1771 ( )RFC4271 ( ) PPTP - Point-to-PointTunneling ProtocolRFC2637 ( )ApplicationLayer Tunneling ProtocolHTTP Over TLS RFC2818 ( )DNS - Domain Name SystemRFC881 ( CN )RFC882 ( CN )RFC883 ( CN )RFC1034 ( CN )RFC1035 ( CN )BOOTP - Bootstrap Protocol RFC951 ( )DHCP - Dynamic HostConfiguration ProtocolRFC1531 ( CN )RFC1541 ( CN )RFC2131 ( CN )DHCP v6RFC3315 ( CN )RFC4580 ( CN )RFC4649 ( CN )RFC4704 ( CN )TFTP v2 - Trivial FileTransfer ProtocolRFC783 ( CN )RFC1350 ( CN )SNMP - Simple NetworkManagement ProtocolRFC1067 ( CN )RFC1098 ( CN )RFC1157 ( CN )RIP - Routing InformationProtocolRFC1058 ( CN )RFC1923 ( CN )RIP v2 - Routing InformationProtocolRFC1387 ( CN )RFC1388 ( CN )RFC1389 ( CN )RFC1721 ( CN )RFC1722 ( CN )RFC1723 ( CN )RFC2082 ( CN )RFC2453 ( CN )RFC4822 ( CN )L2TP - Layer Two TunnelingProtocolRFC2661 ( CN )MIB-II - ManagementInformation BaseRFC1158 ( CN )RFC1213 ( CN )SNMP v2RFC2011 ( CN )RFC2012 ( CN )RFC2013 ( CN )RFC2452 ( CN )RFC2465 ( CN )RFC2466 ( CN )RFC4022 ( CN )PPP - Point-to-Point ProtocolRFC1134 ( )RFC1171 ( )RFC1172 ( )RFC1331 ( )RFC1334 ( ) PAPRFC1548 ( )RFC1570 ( )RFC1661 ( )RFC1994 ( ) CHAPRFC2284 ( )RFC2484 ( )RFC3748 ( )RFC5247 ( )PPP-MP - The PPP MultilinkProtocolRFC1717 ( CN )RFC1990 ( CN )HTML v2.0 - HypertextMarkup LanguageRFC1866 ( CN )NetBIOSRFC1001 ( CN )RFC1002 ( CN )MIME - Multipurpose InternetMail ExtensionsRFC1341 ( CN ) RFC1521 ( CN ) RFC1522 ( CN ) RFC2045 ( ) RFC2046 ( CN )RFC2047 ( CN ) RFC2048 ( CN ) RFC2049 ( CN )。
rfc中常用的测试协议
rfc中常用的测试协议摘要:1.RFC 简介2.RFC 中常用的测试协议a.网络协议测试1.网络数据包抓取和分析2.网络仿真和测试工具b.应用层协议测试1.HTTP 和HTTPS 测试2.FTP 和FTPS 测试3.SMTP 和SMTPS 测试c.安全协议测试1.TLS 和SSL 测试2.IPsec 测试d.传输协议测试1.TCP 和UDP 测试e.无线网络协议测试1.802.11 无线网络测试正文:RFC(Request for Comments)是一个用于讨论和记录互联网协议的标准文档系列。
在RFC 中,有许多常用的测试协议,这些协议用于确保互联网协议在实际应用中能够正常工作。
本文将详细介绍这些测试协议。
首先,RFC 中包含了大量的网络协议测试。
网络数据包抓取和分析是网络协议测试的基础,这对于诊断网络问题和优化网络性能至关重要。
此外,网络仿真和测试工具也是必不可少的,例如,网络模拟器(如NS-3)和测试平台(如Ixia)可以帮助工程师在实验室环境中模拟实际网络状况,从而对协议进行更严格的测试。
其次,应用层协议测试在RFC 中也占据重要地位。
HTTP 和HTTPS 是Web 应用中最常用的协议,有许多测试工具可以对它们的性能和安全性进行测试,例如,JMeter 和Locust 等负载测试工具。
此外,FTP 和FTPS、SMTP 和SMTPS 等传输协议也是常用的测试对象。
在安全协议方面,RFC 中包含了TLS 和SSL、IPsec 等协议的测试方法。
这些协议对于保护互联网数据传输的安全至关重要,因此需要进行严格的测试以确保其性能和安全性。
传输协议方面,TCP 和UDP 是互联网中最常用的传输协议,它们的测试方法也是RFC 中的重要内容。
TCP 测试关注可靠性和流量控制等方面,而UDP 测试则更注重数据传输速率和丢包率等指标。
最后,无线网络协议测试在RFC 中也有一定的比重。
例如,802.11 无线网络测试是评估无线局域网性能的关键。
bgp协议主要作用
竭诚为您提供优质文档/双击可除bgp协议主要作用篇一:bgp协议原理以及工作分析龙源期刊网.cnbgp协议原理以及工作分析作者:李良一来源:《硅谷》20xx年第07期摘要首先就bgp协议的概念以及特点作出分析,而后进一步针对其具体的工作流程展开讨论,对于深入了解bgp协议的工作机制和特征有着积极意义。
关键词bgp;协议;原理中图分类号:tp393文献标识码:a文章编号:1671-7597(20xx)07-0046-01当前信息化时代之下,数据传输已经成为了日常工作和生活必不可少的重要组成部分,网络服务的易得性和可靠性也因此得到广泛关注。
这其中负责网络正常工作的诸多协议,作为保证网络数据传输的有力支持,也成为了研究的重点对象。
1bgp协议的概念以及特点边界网关协议(bgp,bordergatewayprotocol),其职能在于实现数据传输过程中,不同因特网自治域系统间的路由实现,本质上看就是在不同的网络系统之间交换网络可达信息(nlRi,networklayerReachableinformation)。
随着网络发展的日益成熟,相应的拓扑结构以及网络自治域也随之呈现出日益复杂的特征,一方面自治域内部呈现出相对的独立特征,另一个方面其间的通信却呈现出越来越频繁的特征,并且对于通信质量的要求也有显著提升趋势。
所有这些都使得bgp协议的地位日益重要,这种频繁作用在互联网自治域边缘的通信协议,已经成为了网络路由体系的重要组成部分,其存在对于支持整个互联网数据传输工作的完成和实现,并且在一定程度上对于减少交换和路由设备的运行负荷都有积极意义。
从工作特点方面看,bgp协议能够实现对于无类型区域间路由(cidR,classlessinter—domainRouting)的良好支持,这种支持作用能够极大地抑制和缩减路由表本身的规模,并且对于提升路由效率等方面都有显著的作用。
并且在实现路由的过程中,bgp协议通过自治域(as,autonomoussystem)边界路由器展开作用,采用特定的策略和算法选择过滤路由,将诸如路由信息协议(Rip,Routerinformationprotocol)、开放式最短路径优先(ospF,openshortestpathFirst)以及bgp等路由信息发送到对应节点之上。
BGP协议
bgpBGP(Border Gateway Protocol )边界网关协议,用来连接Internet上独立系统的路由选择协议。
它是Internet工程任务组制定的一个加强的、完善的、可伸缩的协议。
BGP4支持CIDR寻址方案,该方案增加了Internet上的可用IP地址数量。
BGP是为取代最初的外部网关协议EGP设计的,也被认为是一个路径矢量协议。
目录BGP(Border Gateway Protocol)是一种在自治系统之间动态交换路由信息的路由协议。
一个自治系统的经典定义是在一个管理机构控制之下的一组路由器,它使用IGP和普通度量值向其他自治系统转发报文。
在BGP中使用自治系统这个术语是为了强调这样一个事实:一个自治系统的管理对于其他自治系统而言是提供一个统一的内部选路计划,它为那些通过它可以到达的网络提供了一个一致的描述。
BGP,边界网关协议,是自主网络系统中网关之间交换器路由信息的协议。
边界网关协议常常应用于互联网的网关之间。
路由表包含已知路由器的列表、路由器能够达到的地址以及到达每个路由器的路径的跳数。
使用边界网关协议的主机一般也使用传输控制协议(TCP)。
当网络检测到某台主机发出变化时,就会发送新的路由表。
BGP-4,边界网关协议的最新版本,允许网络管理员在策略描述下配置跳数的规格。
编辑本段扩展BGP是一种不同自治系统的路由器之间进行通信的外部网关协议。
BGP是ARPANET所使用的老EGP的取代品。
RFC1267[LougheedandRekhter1991]对第3版的BGP进行了描述。
RFC1268[RekhterandGross1991]描述了如何在Internet中使用BGP。
下面对于BGP的大部分描述都来自于这两个RFC文档。
同时,1993年开发第4版的BGP(见RFC1467[Topolcic1993]),以支持CIDR。
BGP系统与其他BGP系统之间交换网络可到达信息。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
Network Working Group K. Lougheed Request for Comments: 1267 cisco Systems Obsoletes RFCs: 1105, 1163 Y. Rekhter T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp. October 1991 A Border Gateway Protocol 3 (BGP-3)Status of this MemoThis memo, together with its companion document, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet", define an inter-autonomous system routing protocol for the Internet. This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requestsdiscussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to thecurrent edition of the "IAB Official Protocol Standards" for thestandardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution ofthis memo is unlimited.1. AcknowledgementsWe would like to express our thanks to Guy Almes (Rice University),Len Bosack (cisco Systems), Jeffrey C. Honig (Cornell Theory Center) and all members of the Interconnectivity Working Group of theInternet Engineering Task Force, chaired by Guy Almes, for theircontributions to this document.We like to explicitly thank Bob Braden (ISI) for the review of thisdocument as well as his constructive and valuable comments.We would also like to thank Bob Hinden, Director for Routing of theInternet Engineering Steering Group, and the team of reviewers heassembled to review earlier versions of this document. This team,consisting of Deborah Estrin, Milo Medin, John Moy, Radia Perlman,Martha Steenstrup, Mike St. Johns, and Paul Tsuchiya, acted with astrong combination of toughness, professionalism, and courtesy.2. IntroductionThe Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is an inter-Autonomous Systemrouting protocol. It is built on experience gained with EGP asdefined in RFC 904 [1] and EGP usage in the NSFNET Backbone asdescribed in RFC 1092 [2] and RFC 1093 [3].The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This networkreachability information includes information on the full path of Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 1]Autonomous Systems (ASs) that traffic must transit to reach thesenetworks. This information is sufficient to construct a graph of AS connectivity from which routing loops may be pruned and some policydecisions at the AS level may be enforced.To characterize the set of policy decisions that can be enforcedusing BGP, one must focus on the rule that an AS advertize to itsneighbor ASs only those routes that it itself uses. This rulereflects the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm generally used throughout the current Internet. Note that some policies cannot be supported by the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and thus require techniques such as source routing to enforce. For example, BGP does not enable one ASto send traffic to a neighbor AS intending that that traffic take adifferent route from that taken by traffic originating in theneighbor AS. On the other hand, BGP can support any policyconforming to the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm. Since the currentInternet uses only the "hop-by-hop" routing paradigm and since BGPcan support any policy that conforms to that paradigm, BGP is highly applicable as an inter-AS routing protocol for the current Internet.A more complete discussion of what policies can and cannot beenforced with BGP is outside the scope of this document (but refer to the companion document discussing BGP usage [5]).BGP runs over a reliable transport protocol. This eliminates theneed to implement explicit update fragmentation, retransmission,acknowledgement, and sequencing. Any authentication scheme used bythe transport protocol may be used in addition to BGP’s ownauthentication mechanisms. The error notification mechanism used in BGP assumes that the transport protocol supports a "graceful" close, i.e., that all outstanding data will be delivered before theconnection is closed.BGP uses TCP [4] as its transport protocol. TCP meets BGP’stransport requirements and is present in virtually all commercialrouters and hosts. In the following descriptions the phrase"transport protocol connection" can be understood to refer to a TCPconnection. BGP uses TCP port 179 for establishing its connections. This memo uses the term ‘Autonomous System’ (AS) throughout. Theclassic definition of an Autonomous System is a set of routers under a single technical administration, using an interior gateway protocol and common metrics to route packets within the AS, and using anexterior gateway protocol to route packets to other ASs. Since this classic definition was developed, it has become common for a singleAS to use several interior gateway protocols and sometimes severalsets of metrics within an AS. The use of the term Autonomous System here stresses the fact that, even when multiple IGPs and metrics are Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 2]used, the administration of an AS appears to other ASs to have asingle coherent interior routing plan and presents a consistentpicture of what networks are reachable through it. From thestandpoint of exterior routing, an AS can be viewed as monolithic:reachability to networks directly connected to the AS must beequivalent from all border gateways of the AS.The planned use of BGP in the Internet environment, including suchissues as topology, the interaction between BGP and IGPs, and theenforcement of routing policy rules is presented in a companiondocument [5]. This document is the first of a series of documentsplanned to explore various aspects of BGP application.Please send comments to the BGP mailing list (iwg@).3. Summary of OperationTwo systems form a transport protocol connection between one another. They exchange messages to open and confirm the connection parameters. The initial data flow is the entire BGP routing table. Incrementalupdates are sent as the routing tables change. BGP does not require periodic refresh of the entire BGP routing table. Therefore, a BGPspeaker must retain the current version of the entire BGP routingtables of all of its peers for the duration of the connection.KeepAlive messages are sent periodically to ensure the liveness ofthe connection. Notification messages are sent in response to errors or special conditions. If a connection encounters an errorcondition, a notification message is sent and the connection isclosed.The hosts executing the Border Gateway Protocol need not be routers.A non-routing host could exchange routing information with routersvia EGP or even an interior routing protocol. That non-routing host could then use BGP to exchange routing information with a borderrouter in another Autonomous System. The implications andapplications of this architecture are for further study.If a particular AS has multiple BGP speakers and is providing transit service for other ASs, then care must be taken to ensure a consistent view of routing within the AS. A consistent view of the interiorroutes of the AS is provided by the interior routing protocol. Aconsistent view of the routes exterior to the AS can be provided byhaving all BGP speakers within the AS maintain direct BGP connections with each other. Using a common set of policies, the BGP speakersarrive at an agreement as to which border routers will serve asexit/entry points for particular networks outside the AS. Thisinformation is communicated to the AS’s internal routers, possiblyvia the interior routing protocol. Care must be taken to ensure that Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 3]the interior routers have all been updated with transit informationbefore the BGP speakers announce to other ASs that transit service is being provided.Connections between BGP speakers of different ASs are referred to as "external" links. BGP connections between BGP speakers within thesame AS are referred to as "internal" links.4. Message FormatsThis section describes message formats used by BGP.Messages are sent over a reliable transport protocol connection. Amessage is processed only after it is entirely received. The maximum message size is 4096 octets. All implementations are required tosupport this maximum message size. The smallest message that may be sent consists of a BGP header without a data portion, or 19 octets.4.1 Message Header FormatEach message has a fixed-size header. There may or may not be a data portion following the header, depending on the message type. Thelayout of these fields is shown below:0 1 2 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| |+ +| |+ +| Marker |+ +| |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Length | Type |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Marker:This 16-octet field contains a value that the receiver of themessage can predict. If the Type of the message is OPEN, or ifthe Authentication Code used in the OPEN message of the connection is zero, then the Marker must be all ones. Otherwise, the valueof the marker can be predicted by some a computation specified as part of the authentication mechanism used. The Marker can be used to detect loss of synchronization between a pair of BGP peers, and to authenticate incoming BGP messages.Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 4]Length:This 2-octet unsigned integer indicates the total length of themessage, including the header, in octets. Thus, e.g., it allowsone to locate in the transport-level stream the (Marker field ofthe) next message. The value of the Length field must always beat least 19 and no greater than 4096, and may be furtherconstrained, depending on the message type. No "padding" of extra data after the message is allowed, so the Length field must havethe smallest value required given the rest of the message.Type:This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the type code of themessage. The following type codes are defined:1 - OPEN2 - UPDATE3 - NOTIFICATION4 - KEEPALIVE4.2 OPEN Message FormatAfter a transport protocol connection is established, the firstmessage sent by each side is an OPEN message. If the OPEN message is acceptable, a KEEPALIVE message confirming the OPEN is sent back.Once the OPEN is confirmed, UPDATE, KEEPALIVE, and NOTIFICATIONmessages may be exchanged.In addition to the fixed-size BGP header, the OPEN message containsthe following fields:Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 5]0 1 2 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Version |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| My Autonomous System |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Hold Time |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| BGP Identifier |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Auth. Code |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| || Authentication Data || |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Version:This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the protocol versionnumber of the message. The current BGP version number is 3.My Autonomous System:This 2-octet unsigned integer indicates the Autonomous Systemnumber of the sender.Hold Time:This 2-octet unsigned integer indicates the maximum number ofseconds that may elapse between the receipt of successiveKEEPALIVE and/or UPDATE and/or NOTIFICATION messages.BGP Identifier:This 4-octet unsigned integer indicates the BGP Identifier ofthe sender. A given BGP speaker sets the value of its BGPIdentifier to the IP address of one of its interfaces.The value of the BGP Identifier is determined on startupand is the same for every local interface and every BGP peer.Authentication Code:This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the authenticationmechanism being used. Whenever an authentication mechanism isspecified for use within BGP, three things must be included in the specification:Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 6]- the value of the Authentication Code which indicates use ofthe mechanism,- the form and meaning of the Authentication Data, and- the algorithm for computing values of Marker fields.Only one authentication mechanism is specified as part of thismemo:- its Authentication Code is zero,- its Authentication Data must be empty (of zero length), and- the Marker fields of all messages must be all ones.The semantics of non-zero Authentication Codes lies outside thescope of this memo.Note that a separate authentication mechanism may be used inestablishing the transport level connection.Authentication Data:The form and meaning of this field is a variable-length fielddepend on the Authentication Code. If the value of Authentication Code field is zero, the Authentication Data field must have zerolength. The semantics of the non-zero length Authentication Data field is outside the scope of this memo.Note that the length of the Authentication Data field can bedetermined from the message Length field by the formula:Message Length = 29 + Authentication Data LengthThe minimum length of the OPEN message is 29 octets (includingmessage header).4.3 UPDATE Message FormatUPDATE messages are used to transfer routing information between BGP peers. The information in the UPDATE packet can be used to construct a graph describing the relationships of the various AutonomousSystems. By applying rules to be discussed, routing informationloops and some other anomalies may be detected and removed frominter-AS routing.In addition to the fixed-size BGP header, the UPDATE message contains the following fields (note that all fields may have arbitraryalignment):Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 7]0 1 2 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Total Path Attributes Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| |/ Path Attributes // /+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Network 1 |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/ // /+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Network n |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Total Path Attribute Length:This 2-octet unsigned integer indicates the total length of thePath Attributes field in octets. Its value must allow the (non-negative integer) number of Network fields to be determined asspecified below.Path Attributes:A variable length sequence of path attributes is present in every UPDATE. Each path attribute is a triple <attribute type,attribute length, attribute value> of variable length.Attribute Type is a two-octet field that consists of the Attribute Flags octet followed by the Attribute Type Code octet.0 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Attr. Flags |Attr. Type Code|+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+The high-order bit (bit 0) of the Attribute Flags octet is theOptional bit. It defines whether the attribute is optional (ifset to 1) or well-known (if set to 0).The second high-order bit (bit 1) of the Attribute Flags octet is the Transitive bit. It defines whether an optional attribute istransitive (if set to 1) or non-transitive (if set to 0). Forwell-known attributes, the Transitive bit must be set to 1. (See Section 5 for a discussion of transitive attributes.)Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 8]The third high-order bit (bit 2) of the Attribute Flags octet isthe Partial bit. It defines whether the information contained in the optional transitive attribute is partial (if set to 1) orcomplete (if set to 0). For well-known attributes and foroptional non-transitive attributes the Partial bit must be set to 0.The fourth high-order bit (bit 3) of the Attribute Flags octet is the Extended Length bit. It defines whether the Attribute Length is one octet (if set to 0) or two octets (if set to 1). Extended Length may be used only if the length of the attribute value isgreater than 255 octets.The lower-order four bits of the Attribute Flags octet are unused. They must be zero (and must be ignored when received).The Attribute Type Code octet contains the Attribute Type Code.Currently defined Attribute Type Codes are discussed in Section 5. If the Extended Length bit of the Attribute Flags octet is set to 0, the third octet of the Path Attribute contains the length ofthe attribute data in octets.If the Extended Length bit of the Attribute Flags octet is set to 1, then the third and the fourth octets of the path attributecontain the length of the attribute data in octets.The remaining octets of the Path Attribute represent the attribute value and are interpreted according to the Attribute Flags and the Attribute Type Code.The meaning and handling of Path Attributes is discussed inSection 5.Network:Each 4-octet Internet network number indicates one network whoseInter-Autonomous System routing is described by the PathAttributes. Subnets and host addresses are specifically notallowed. The total number of Network fields in the UPDATE message can be determined by the formula:Message Length = 19 + Total Path Attribute Length + 4 * #NetsThe message Length field of the message header and the PathAttributes Length field of the UPDATE message must be such thatthe formula results in a non-negative integer number of Networkfields.Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 9]The minimum length of the UPDATE message is 37 octets (includingmessage header).4.4 KEEPALIVE Message FormatBGP does not use any transport protocol-based keep-alive mechanism to determine if peers are reachable. Instead, KEEPALIVE messages areexchanged between peers often enough as not to cause the hold time(as advertised in the OPEN message) to expire. A reasonable maximum time between KEEPALIVE messages would be one third of the Hold Timeinterval.KEEPALIVE message consists of only message header and has a length of 19 octets.4.5 NOTIFICATION Message FormatA NOTIFICATION message is sent when an error condition is detected.The BGP connection is closed immediately after sending it.In addition to the fixed-size BGP header, the NOTIFICATION messagecontains the following fields:0 1 2 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Error code | Error subcode | Data |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +| |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Error Code:This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the type of NOTIFICATION. The following Error Codes have been defined:Error Code Symbolic Name Reference1 Message Header Error Section 6.12 OPEN Message Error Section 6.23 UPDATE Message Error Section 6.34 Hold Timer Expired Section 6.55 Finite State Machine Error Section 6.66 Cease Section 6.7 Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 10]Error subcode:This 1-octet unsigned integer provides more specific informationabout the nature of the reported error. Each Error Code may have one or more Error Subcodes associated with it. If no appropriate Error Subcode is defined, then a zero (Unspecific) value is usedfor the Error Subcode field.Message Header Error subcodes:1 - Connection Not Synchronized.2 - Bad Message Length.3 - Bad Message Type.OPEN Message Error subcodes:1 - Unsupported Version Number.2 - Bad Peer AS.3 - Bad BGP Identifier.4 - Unsupported Authentication Code.5 - Authentication Failure.UPDATE Message Error subcodes:1 - Malformed Attribute List.2 - Unrecognized Well-known Attribute.3 - Missing Well-known Attribute.4 - Attribute Flags Error.5 - Attribute Length Error.6 - Invalid ORIGIN Attribute7 - AS Routing Loop.8 - Invalid NEXT_HOP Attribute.9 - Optional Attribute Error.10 - Invalid Network Field.Data:This variable-length field is used to diagnose the reason for the NOTIFICATION. The contents of the Data field depend upon theError Code and Error Subcode. See Section 6 below for moredetails.Note that the length of the Data field can be determined from the message Length field by the formula:Message Length = 21 + Data LengthLougheed & Rekhter [Page 11]The minimum length of the NOTIFICATION message is 21 octets(including message header).5. Path AttributesThis section discusses the path attributes of the UPDATE message.Path attributes fall into four separate categories:1. Well-known mandatory.2. Well-known discretionary.3. Optional transitive.4. Optional non-transitive.Well-known attributes must be recognized by all BGP implementations. Some of these attributes are mandatory and must be included in every UPDATE message. Others are discretionary and may or may not be sent in a particular UPDATE message. Which well-known attributes aremandatory or discretionary is noted in the table below.All well-known attributes must be passed along (after properupdating, if necessary) to other BGP peers.In addition to well-known attributes, each path may contain one ormore optional attributes. It is not required or expected that allBGP implementations support all optional attributes. The handling of an unrecognized optional attribute is determined by the setting ofthe Transitive bit in the attribute flags octet. Paths withunrecognized transitive optional attributes should be accepted. If a path with unrecognized transitive optional attribute is accepted and passed along to other BGP peers, then the unrecognized transitiveoptional attribute of that path must be passed along with the path to other BGP peers with the Partial bit in the Attribute Flags octet set to 1. If a path with recognized transitive optional attribute isaccepted and passed along to other BGP peers and the Partial bit inthe Attribute Flags octet is set to 1 by some previous AS, it is not set back to 0 by the current AS. Unrecognized non-transitive optional attributes must be quietly ignored and not passed along to other BGP peers.New transitive optional attributes may be attached to the path by the originator or by any other AS in the path. If they are not attached by the originator, the Partial bit in the Attribute Flags octet isset to 1. The rules for attaching new non-transitive optionalattributes will depend on the nature of the specific attribute. The documentation of each new non-transitive optional attribute will beexpected to include such rules. (The description of the INTER-ASMETRIC attribute gives an example.) All optional attributes (both Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 12]transitive and non-transitive) may be updated (if appropriate) by ASs in the path.The sender of an UPDATE message should order path attributes withinthe UPDATE message in ascending order of attribute type. Thereceiver of an UPDATE message must be prepared to handle pathattributes within the UPDATE message that are out of order.The same attribute cannot appear more than once within the PathAttributes field of a particular UPDATE message.Following table specifies attribute type code, attribute length, and attribute category for path attributes defined in this document:Attribute Name Type Code Length Attribute categoryORIGIN 1 1 well-known, mandatoryAS_PATH 2 variable well-known, mandatoryNEXT_HOP 3 4 well-known, mandatoryUNREACHABLE 4 0 well-known, discretionary INTER-AS METRIC 5 2 optional, non-transitiveORIGIN:The ORIGIN path attribute defines the origin of the pathinformation. The data octet can assume the following values:Value Meaning0 IGP - network(s) are interior to the originating AS1 EGP - network(s) learned via EGP2 INCOMPLETE - network(s) learned by some other meansAS_PATH:The AS_PATH attribute enumerates the ASs that must be traversed to reach the networks listed in the UPDATE message. Since an ASidentifier is 2 octets, the length of an AS_PATH attribute istwice the number of ASs in the path. Rules for constructing anAS_PATH attribute are discussed in Section 9.If a previously advertised route has become unreachable, thenthe AS_PATH path attribute of the unreachable route may betruncated when passed in the UPDATE message. Truncation isachieved by constructing the AS_PATH path attribute that consists of only the autonomous system of the sender of the UPDATE message. To make the truncated AS_PATH semantically correct, the senderalso sends the ORIGIN path attribute with the value INCOMPLETE.Note that truncation may be done only over external BGP links. Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 13]NEXT_HOP:The NEXT_HOP path attribute defines the IP address of the borderrouter that should be used as the next hop to the networks listed in the UPDATE message. If this border router belongs to the same AS as the BGP peer that advertises it, it is called an internalborder router. If this border router belongs to a different ASthan the one that the BGP peer that advertises it, it is called an external border router. A BGP speaker can advertise any internalborder router as the next hop provided that the interfaceassociated with the IP address of this border router (asspecified in the NEXT_HOP path attribute) shares a common subnetwith both the local and remote BGP speakers. A BGP speaker canadvertise any external border router as the next hop, providedthat the IP address of this border router was learned from oneof the BGP speaker’s peers, and the interface associated withthe IP address of this border router (as specified in theNEXT_HOP path attribute) shares a common subnet with the localand remote BGP speakers. A BGP speaker needs to be able tosupport disabling advertisement of external border routers.The NEXT_HOP path attribute has meaning only on external BGPlinks. However, presence of the NEXT_HOP path attribute in theUPDATE message received via an internal BGP link does notconstitute an error.UNREACHABLE:The UNREACHABLE attribute is used to notify a BGP peer that someof the previously advertised routes have become unreachable.INTER-AS METRIC:The INTER-AS METRIC attribute may be used on external (inter-AS)links to discriminate between multiple exit or entry points to the same neighboring AS. The value of the INTER-AS METRIC attributeis a 2-octet unsigned number which is called a metric. All other factors being equal, the exit or entry point with lower metricshould be preferred. If received over external links, the INTER- AS METRIC attribute may be propagated over internal links to other BGP speaker within the same AS. The INTER-AS METRIC attribute is never propagated to other BGP speakers in neighboring AS’s.If a previously advertised route has become unreachable, thenthe INTER-AS METRIC path attribute may be omitted from the UPDATE message.Lougheed & Rekhter [Page 14]。