-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Adding route server support #31
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -299,15 +299,21 @@ REQUEST {#request} | |
1. ADD SESSION (CLIENT BATCHED REQUEST) | ||
|
||
|
||
* The initiator's client provides a set of: | ||
* The initiator's client provides a set of the following information, where local always refers to the receiver and peer always refers to the initiator: | ||
* Structure: | ||
1. Local ASN (receiver) | ||
1. Local ASN | ||
2. Local IP | ||
3. Peer ASN (initiator) | ||
3. Peer ASN | ||
4. Peer IP | ||
5. Peer Type (public or private) | ||
6. MD5 (optional with encoding agreed outside of this specification) | ||
7. Location (Commonly agreed identifier of the BGP speaker, e.g. PeeringDB IX lan ID) | ||
5. Local BGP Role according to {{?RFC9234}} | ||
6. Peer BGP Role according to {{?RFC9234}} | ||
8. Local insert ASN (optional to support route servers) | ||
9. Peer insert ASN (optional to support route servers) | ||
11. Local monitoring session (optional to support monitoring systems) | ||
12. Peer monitoring session (optional to support monitoring systems) | ||
10. Peer Type (public or private) | ||
11. Session Secret (optional with encoding agreed outside of this specification) | ||
12. Location (Commonly agreed identifier of the BGP speaker, e.g. PeeringDB IX lan ID) | ||
|
||
* The receiver's expected actions: | ||
* The server confirms requested clientASN in list of authorized ASNs. | ||
|
@@ -325,26 +331,34 @@ REQUEST {#request} | |
CLIENT CONFIGURATION {#clientconfig} | ||
-------------------- | ||
The client then configures the chosen peering sessions asynchronously using their internal mechanisms. | ||
The client SHOULD pull and use additional information on the new peering from public sources as required to ensure routing security, e.g., AS-SETs to configure appropriate filters. | ||
For every session that the server rejected, the client removes that session from the list to be configured. | ||
|
||
SERVER CONFIGURATION {#serverconfig} | ||
-------------------- | ||
The server configures all sessions that are in its list of approved peering sessions from its reply to the client. | ||
The server SHOULD pull and use additional information on the new peering from public sources to ensure routing security, e.g., AS-SETs to configure appropriate filters. | ||
|
||
MONITORING {#monitoring} | ||
---------- | ||
Both client and server wait for sessions to establish. | ||
At any point, client may send a "GET STATUS" request to the server, to request the status of the session (by session ID). | ||
The client will send a structure along with the request, as follows: | ||
|
||
* structure: | ||
* structure (where local refers to the server and peer refers to the client): | ||
* Session ID | ||
* Local ASN (server) | ||
* Local ASN | ||
* Local IP | ||
* Peer ASN (client) | ||
* Peer ASN | ||
* Peer IP | ||
* Local BGP Role ({{?RFC9234}}) | ||
* Peer BGP Role ({{?RFC9234}}) | ||
* Local insert ASN (optional, as defined above) | ||
* Peer insert ASN (optional, as defined above) | ||
* Local monitoring session (optional, as defined above) | ||
* Peer monitoring session (optional, as defined above) | ||
* Peer Type | ||
* MD5 (optional, as defined above) | ||
* Session secret (optional, as defined above) | ||
* Location | ||
* Status | ||
|
||
|
@@ -402,12 +416,24 @@ BGP Session | |
* local_ip (IP of requestor, v4 or v6) | ||
* peer_asn (server ASN) | ||
* peer_ip (server-side IP) | ||
* local_bgp_role (BGP role according to {{?RFC9234}}) | ||
* peer_bgp_role (BGP role according to {{?RFC9234}}) | ||
* local_insert_asn (optional, to support route servers, defaults to true) | ||
* peer_insert_asn (optional, to support route servers, defaults to true) | ||
* local_monitoring_session (optional, to support monitoring systems, defaults to false) | ||
* peer_monitoring_session (optional, to support monitoring systems, defaults to false) | ||
* peer_type (public or private) | ||
* md5 (optional, as defined above) | ||
* session_secret (optional, as defined above) | ||
* location (Peering Location, as defined above) | ||
* status (Session Status, as defined above) | ||
* session_id (of individual session and generated by the server) | ||
|
||
As not all elements are reflected in the {{autopeer}} OpenAPI definition to date, we define the missing fields here to be reflected in {{autopeer}} in the future. | ||
|
||
* local_bgp_role and peer_bgp_role: these field describe the BGP roles of the local and peer side of the session according to {{?RFC9234}} represented by an integer. The roles for both sides MUST be set in a way that does not violate role correctness as defined in Section 4.2 of {{?RFC9234}}. | ||
* local_insert_asn and peer_insert_asn: these fields define whether the local or peer side will insert their ASN into the AS path attribute of forwarded BGP routes. They are mostly relevant to route servers. The fields are boolean and optional. If not provided, they default to true. | ||
* local_monitoring_session and peer_monitoring_session: these fields define whether the local or peer side of the session will forward routes to other ASes or not. As the role of monitoring systems is not defined in {{?RFC9234}}, we add this role via a boolean, optional flag. If not provided, they default to false. local_monitoring_session and peer_monitoring_sessions MUST NOT be true at the same time for the same session to avoid a role mismatch. | ||
|
||
Error | ||
|
||
API Errors, for field validation errors in requests, and request-level errors. | ||
|
@@ -636,19 +662,13 @@ The API described in this document follows REST ({{rest}}) principles over an HT | |
|
||
Instead, this document proposes to address the message integrity property by cryptographically signing the parameters of the request with a key pair that creates a HTTP message signature to be included in the request ({{!RFC9421}}). The client application controls the lifecycle of this key pair. The authenticity property of the messages signed with such key pair is addressed by binding the public key of the pair to the JWT access token in one of its claims of the access token using a mechanism that demonstrates proof of possession of the private key {{!RFC9449}}. With these two mechanisms, the resource server should authenticate, authorize, and validate the integrity of the request using a JWT access token that can rightfully claim to represent a given ASN. | ||
|
||
Possible Extensions {#extensions} | ||
=================== | ||
|
||
The authors acknowledge that route-server configuration may also be of interest for this proposed API, and look forward to future discussions in this area. | ||
|
||
IANA Considerations {#iana} | ||
=================== | ||
|
||
This document has no IANA actions. | ||
|
||
--- back | ||
|
||
|
||
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments} | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Want to add yourself as well? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks, done. |
||
=============== | ||
|
||
|
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good.
As an aside, we should probably update the OpenAPI spec and move it in to the IETF draft as well (also brought up in #30), but that's outside the scope of this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that’s a very reasonable approach. RFCs should be self-contained. I’m happy to help with editing tasks like this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! We'd welcome the help.