Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Errata] [Info page]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Updated by:4012,7909Errata Exist
Network Working Group                                   C. AlaettinogluRequest for Comments: 2622           USC/Information Sciences InstituteObsoletes:2280                                           C. VillamizarCategory: Standards Track                                 Avici Systems                                                              E. Gerich                                                        At Home Network                                                             D. Kessens                                                   Qwest Communications                                                               D. Meyer                                                   University of Oregon                                                               T. Bates                                                          Cisco Systems                                                          D. Karrenberg                                                               RIPE NCC                                                            M. Terpstra                                                           Bay Networks                                                              June 1999Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)Status of this Memo   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for   improvements.  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 Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.Abstract   RPSL allows a network operator to be able to specify routing policies   at various levels in the Internet hierarchy; for example at the   Autonomous System (AS) level.  At the same time, policies can be   specified with sufficient detail in RPSL so that low level router   configurations can be generated from them.  RPSL is extensible; new   routing protocols and new protocol features can be introduced at any   time.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999Table of Contents   1 Introduction                                                      3   2 RPSL Names, Reserved Words, and Representation                    4   3 Contact Information                                               73.1 mntner Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73.2 person Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103.3 role Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11   4 route Class                                                      12   5 Set Classes                                                      135.1 as-set Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145.2 route-set Class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155.3 Predefined Set Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175.4 Filters and filter-set Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175.5 rtr-set Class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225.6 Peerings and peering-set Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24   6 aut-num Class                                                    276.1 import Attribute:  Import Policy Specification . . . . . . .276.1.1 Action Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .286.2 export Attribute:  Export Policy Specification . . . . . . .29      6.3 Other Routing Protocols, Multi-Protocol Routing Protocols,       and Injecting Routes Between Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . .296.4 Ambiguity Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316.5 default Attribute: Default Policy Specification  . . . . . .336.6 Structured Policy Specification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33   7 dictionary Class                                                 37     7.1 Initial RPSL Dictionary and Example Policy Actions and       Filters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41   8 Advanced route Class                                             458.1 Specifying Aggregate Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45       8.1.1Interaction with policies in aut-num class. . . . . . . .49       8.1.2Ambiguity resolution with overlapping aggregates. . . . .508.2 Specifying Static Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52   9 inet-rtr Class                                                   52   10 Extending RPSL                                                  5410.1 Extensions by changing the dictionary class . . . . . . . .5410.2 Extensions by adding new attributes to existing classes . .5510.3 Extensions by adding new classes  . . . . . . . . . . . . .55     10.4 Extensions by changing the syntax of existing RPSL        attributes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55   11 Security Considerations                                         56   12 Acknowledgements                                                56   References                                                         56   A Routing Registry Sites                                           59   B Grammar Rules                                                    59   C Changes fromRFC 2280                                            67   D Authors' Addresses                                               68   Full Copyright Statement                                           69Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19991 Introduction   This memo is the reference document for the Routing Policy   Specification Language (RPSL).  RPSL allows a network operator to be   able to specify routing policies at various levels in the Internet   hierarchy; for example at the Autonomous System (AS) level.  At the   same time, policies can be specified with sufficient detail in RPSL   so that low level router configurations can be generated from them.   RPSL is extensible; new routing protocols and new protocol features   can be introduced at any time.   RPSL is a replacement for the current Internet policy specification   language known as RIPE-181 [6] orRFC-1786 [7].  RIPE-81 [8] was the   first language deployed in the Internet for specifying routing   policies.  It was later replaced by RIPE-181 [6].  Through   operational use of RIPE-181 it has become apparent that certain   policies cannot be specified and a need for an enhanced and more   generalized language is needed.  RPSL addresses RIPE-181's   limitations.   RPSL was designed so that a view of the global routing policy can be   contained in a single cooperatively maintained distributed database   to improve the integrity of Internet's routing.  RPSL is not designed   to be a router configuration language.  RPSL is designed so that   router configurations can be generated from the description of the   policy for one autonomous system (aut-num class) combined with the   description of a router (inet-rtr class), mainly providing router ID,   autonomous system number of the router, interfaces and peers of the   router, and combined with a global database mappings from AS sets to   ASes (as-set class), and from origin ASes and route sets to route   prefixes (route and route-set classes).  The accurate population of   the RPSL database can help contribute toward such goals as router   configurations that protect against accidental (or malicious)   distribution of inaccurate routing information, verification of   Internet's routing, and aggregation boundaries beyond a single AS.   RPSL is object oriented; that is, objects contain pieces of policy   and administrative information.  These objects are registered in the   Internet Routing Registry (IRR) by the authorized organizations.  The   registration process is beyond the scope of this document.  Please   refer to [1,17,4] for more details on the IRR.   In the following sections, we present the classes that are used to   define various policy and administrative objects.  The "mntner" class   defines entities authorized to add, delete and modify a set of   objects.  The "person" and "role" classes describes technical and   administrative contact personnel.  Autonomous systems (ASes) are   specified using the "aut-num" class.  Routes are specified using theAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   "route" class.  Sets of objects can be defined using the "as-set",   "route-set", "filter-set", "peering-set", and "rtr-set" classes.  The   "dictionary" class provides the extensibility to the language.  The   "inet-rtr" class is used to specify routers.  Many of these classes   were originally defined in earlier documents [6,13,16,12,5] and   have all been enhanced.   This document is self-contained.  However, the reader is encouraged   to read RIPE-181 [7] and the associated documents [13,16,12,5] as   they provide significant background as to the motivation and   underlying principles behind RIPE-181 and consequently, RPSL. For a   tutorial on RPSL, the reader should read the RPSL applications   document [4].2 RPSL Names, Reserved Words, and Representation   Each class has a set of attributes which store a piece of information   about the objects of the class.  Attributes can be mandatory or   optional: A mandatory attribute has to be defined for all objects of   the class; optional attributes can be skipped.  Attributes can also   be single or multiple valued.  Each object is uniquely identified by   a set of attributes, referred to as the class "key".   The value of an attribute has a type.  The following types are most   widely used.  Note that RPSL is case insensitive and only the   characters from the ASCII character set can be used.   <object-name>      Many objects in RPSL have a name.  An <object-name> is made up of      letters, digits, the character underscore "_", and the character      hyphen "-"; the first character of a name must be a letter, and      the last character of a name must be a letter or a digit.  The      following words are reserved by RPSL, and they can not be used as      names:          any as-any rs-any peeras          and or not          atomic from to at action accept announce except refine          networks into inbound outbound      Names starting with certain prefixes are reserved for certain      object types.  Names starting with "as-" are reserved for as set      names.  Names starting with "rs-" are reserved for route set      names.  Names starting with "rtrs-" are reserved for router set      names.  Names starting with "fltr-" are reserved for filter set      names.  Names starting with "prng-" are reserved for peering set      names.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   <as-number> An AS number x is represented as the string "ASx".  That      is, the AS 226 is represented as AS226.   <ipv4-address> An IPv4 address is represented as a sequence of four      integers in the range from 0 to 255 separated by the character dot      ".".  For example, 128.9.128.5 represents a valid IPv4 address.      In the rest of this document, we may refer to IPv4 addresses as IP      addresses.   <address-prefix> An address prefix is represented as an IPv4 address      followed by the character slash "/" followed by an integer in the      range from 0 to 32.  The following are valid address prefixes:      128.9.128.5/32, 128.9.0.0/16, 0.0.0.0/0; and the following address      prefixes are invalid:  0/0, 128.9/16 since 0 or 128.9 are not      strings containing four integers.   <address-prefix-range> An address prefix range is an address prefix      followed by an optional range operator.  The range operators are:   ^- is the exclusive more specifics operator; it stands for the more      specifics of the address prefix excluding the address prefix      itself.  For example, 128.9.0.0/16^- contains all the more      specifics of 128.9.0.0/16 excluding 128.9.0.0/16.   ^+ is the inclusive more specifics operator; it stands for the more      specifics of the address prefix including the address prefix      itself.  For example, 5.0.0.0/8^+ contains all the more specifics      of 5.0.0.0/8 including 5.0.0.0/8.   ^n where n is an integer, stands for all the length n specifics of      the address prefix.  For example, 30.0.0.0/8^16 contains all the      more specifics of 30.0.0.0/8 which are of length 16 such as      30.9.0.0/16.   ^n-m where n and m are integers, stands for all the length n to      length m specifics of the address prefix.  For example,      30.0.0.0/8^24-32 contains all the more specifics of 30.0.0.0/8      which are of length 24 to 32 such as 30.9.9.96/28.   Range operators can also be applied to address prefix sets.  In this   case, they distribute over the members of the set.  For example, for   a route-set (defined later) rs-foo, rs-foo^+ contains all the   inclusive more specifics of all the prefixes in rs-foo.   It is an error to follow a range operator with another one (e.g.   30.0.0.0/8^24-28^+ is an error).  However, a range operator can be   applied to an address prefix set that has address prefix ranges in it   (e.g. {30.0.0.0/8^24-28}^27-30 is not an error).  In this case, theAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   outer operator ^n-m distributes over the inner operator ^k-l and   becomes the operator ^max(n,k)-m if m is greater than or equal to   max(n,k), or otherwise, the prefix is deleted from the set.  Note   that the operator ^n is equivalent to ^n-n; prefix/l^+ is equivalent   to prefix/l^l-32; prefix/l^- is equivalent to prefix/l^(l+1)-32;   {prefix/l^n-m}^+ is equivalent to {prefix/l^n-32}; and {prefix/l^n-   m}^- is equivalent to {prefix/l^(n+1)-32}.  For example,                {128.9.0.0/16^+}^-     == {128.9.0.0/16^-}                {128.9.0.0/16^-}^+     == {128.9.0.0/16^-}                {128.9.0.0/16^17}^24   == {128.9.0.0/16^24}                {128.9.0.0/16^20-24}^26-28 == {128.9.0.0/16^26-28}                {128.9.0.0/16^20-24}^22-28 == {128.9.0.0/16^22-28}                {128.9.0.0/16^20-24}^18-28 == {128.9.0.0/16^20-28}                {128.9.0.0/16^20-24}^18-22 == {128.9.0.0/16^20-22}                {128.9.0.0/16^20-24}^18-19 == {}   <date>      A date is represented as an eight digit integer of the form      YYYYMMDD where YYYY represents the year, MM represents the month      of the year (01 through 12), and DD represents the day of the      month (01 through 31).  All dates are in UTC unless otherwise      specified.  For example, June 24, 1996 is represented as 19960624.   <email-address>is as described inRFC-822 [10].   <dns-name>is as described inRFC-1034 [17].   <nic-handle> is a uniquely assigned identifier word used by routing,      address allocation, and other registries to unambiguously refer to      contact information.  Person and role classes map NIC handles to      actual person names, and contact information.   <free-form>is a sequence of ASCII characters.   <X-name> is a name of an object of type X. That is <mntner-name> is a      name of a mntner object.   <registry-name> is a name of an IRR registry.  The routing registries      are listed inAppendix A.   A value of an attribute may also be a list of one of these types.  A   list is represented by separating the list members by commas ",".   For example, "AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4" is a list of AS numbers.  Note that   being list valued and being multiple valued are orthogonal.  A   multiple valued attribute has more than one value, each of which may   or may not be a list.  On the other hand a single valued attribute   may have a list value.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   An RPSL object is textually represented as a list of attribute-value   pairs.  Each attribute-value pair is written on a separate line.  The   attribute name starts at column 0, followed by character ":" and   followed by the value of the attribute.  The attribute which has the   same name as the object's class should be specified first.  The   object's representation ends when a blank line is encountered.  An   attribute's value can be split over multiple lines, by having a   space, a tab or a plus ('+') character as the first character of the   continuation lines.  The character "+" for line continuation allows   attribute values to contain blank lines.  More spaces may optionally   be used after the continuation character to increase readability.   The order of attribute-value pairs is significant.   An object's description may contain comments.  A comment can be   anywhere in an object's definition, it starts at the first "#"   character on a line and ends at the first end-of-line character.   White space characters can be used to improve readability.   An integer can be specified using (1) the C programming language   notation (e.g. 1, 12345); (2) sequence of four 1-octet integers (in   the range from 0 to 255) separated by the character dot "."  (e.g.   1.1.1.1, 255.255.0.0), in this case a 4-octet integer is formed by   concatenating these 1-octet integers in the most significant to least   significant order; (3) sequence of two 2-octet integers (in the range   from 0 to 65535) separated by the character colon ":" (e.g. 3561:70,   3582:10), in this case a 4-octet integer is formed by concatenating   these 2-octet integers in the most significant to least significant   order.3 Contact Information   The mntner, person and role classes, admin-c, tech-c, mnt-by,   changed, and source attributes of all classes describe contact   information.  The mntner class also specifies authenticaiton   information required to create, delete and update other objects.   These classes do not specify routing policies and each registry may   have different or additional requirements on them.  Here we present   the common denominator for completeness which is the RIPE database   implementation [16].  Please consult your routing registry for the   latest specification of these classes and attributes.  The "Routing   Policy System Security" document [20] describes the authenticaiton   and authorization model in more detail.3.1 mntner Class   The mntner class specifies authenticaiton information required to   create, delete and update RPSL objects.  A provider, before he/she   can create RPSL objects, first needs to create a mntner object.  TheAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   attributes of the mntner class are shown in Figure 1.  The mntner   class was first described in [13].   The mntner attribute is mandatory and is the class key.  Its value is   an RPSL name.  The auth attribute specifies the scheme that will be   used to identify and authenticate update requests from this   maintainer.  It has the following syntax:   auth: <scheme-id> <auth-info>   E.g.          auth: NONE  Attribute  Value                   Type  mntner     <object-name>           mandatory, single-valued, class key  descr      <free-form>             mandatory, single-valued  auth       see description in text mandatory, multi-valued  upd-to     <email-address>         mandatory, multi-valued  mnt-nfy    <email-address>         optional, multi-valued  tech-c     <nic-handle>            mandatory, multi-valued  admin-c    <nic-handle>            optional, multi-valued  remarks    <free-form>             optional, multi-valued  notify     <email-address>         optional, multi-valued  mnt-by     list of <mntner-name>   mandatory, multi-valued  changed    <email-address> <date>  mandatory, multi-valued  source     <registry-name>         mandatory, single-valued                     Figure 1:  mntner Class Attributes          auth: CRYPT-PW dhjsdfhruewf          auth: MAIL-FROM .*@ripe\.net   The <scheme-id>'s currently defined are: NONE, MAIL-FROM, PGP-KEY and   CRYPT-PW. The <auth-info> is additional information required by a   particular scheme: in the case of MAIL-FROM, it is a regular   expression matching valid email addresses; in the case of CRYPT-PW,   it is a password in UNIX crypt format; and in the case of PGP-KEY, it   is a pointer to key-certif object [22] containing the PGP public key   of the user.  If multiple auth attributes are specified, an update   request satisfying any one of them is authenticated to be from the   maintainer.   The upd-to attribute is an email address.  On an unauthorized update   attempt of an object maintained by this maintainer, an email message   will be sent to this address.  The mnt-nfy attribute is an email   address.  A notification message will be forwarded to this emailAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   address whenever an object maintained by this maintainer is added,   changed or deleted.   The descr attribute is a short, free-form textual description of the   object.  The tech-c attribute is a technical contact NIC handle.   This is someone to be contacted for technical problems such as   misconfiguration.  The admin-c attribute is an administrative contact   NIC handle.  The remarks attribute is a free text explanation or   clarification.  The notify attribute is an email address to which   notifications of changes to this object should be sent.  The mnt-by   attribute is a list of mntner object names.  The authorization for   changes to this object is governed by any of the maintainer objects   referenced.  The changed attribute documents who last changed this   object, and when this change was made.  Its syntax has the following   form:   changed: <email-address> <YYYYMMDD>   E.g.   changed: johndoe@terabit-labs.nn 19900401   The <email-address> identifies the person who made the last change.   <YYYYMMDD> is the date of the change.  The source attribute specifies   the registry where the object is registered.  Figure 2 shows an   example mntner object.  In the example, UNIX crypt format password   authentication is used.   mntner:      RIPE-NCC-MNT   descr:       RIPE-NCC Maintainer   admin-c:     DK58   tech-c:      OPS4-RIPE   upd-to:      ops@ripe.net   mnt-nfy:     ops-fyi@ripe.net   auth:        CRYPT-PW lz1A7/JnfkTtI   mnt-by:      RIPE-NCC-MNT   changed:     ripe-dbm@ripe.net 19970820   source:      RIPE                    Figure 2:  An example mntner object.   The descr, tech-c, admin-c, remarks, notify, mnt-by, changed and   source attributes are attributes of all RPSL classes.  Their syntax,   semantics, and mandatory, optional, multi-valued, or single-valued   status are the same for for all RPSL classes.  Only exception to this   is the admin-c attribute which is mandatory for the aut-num class.   We do not further discuss them in other sections.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19993.2 person Class   A person class is used to describe information about people.  Even   though it does not describe routing policy, we still describe it here   briefly since many policy objects make reference to person objects.   The person class was first described in [15].   The attributes of the person class are shown in Figure 3.  The person   attribute is the full name of the person.  The phone and the fax-no   attributes have the following syntax:      phone: +<country-code> <city> <subscriber> [ext. <extension>]   E.g.:      phone: +31 20 12334676  Attribute  Value                   Type  person     <free-form>             mandatory, single-valued  nic-hdl    <nic-handle>            mandatory, single-valued, class key  address    <free-form>             mandatory, multi-valued  phone      see description in text mandatory, multi-valued  fax-no     same as phone           optional, multi-valued  e-mail     <email-address>         mandatory, multi-valued                     Figure 3:  person Class Attributes      phone: +44 123 987654 ext. 4711   Figure 4 shows an example person object.   person:      Daniel Karrenberg   address:     RIPE Network Coordination Centre (NCC)   address:     Singel 258   address:     NL-1016 AB  Amsterdam   address:     Netherlands   phone:       +31 20 535 4444   fax-no:      +31 20 535 4445   e-mail:      Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net   nic-hdl:     DK58   changed:     Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net 19970616   source:      RIPE                    Figure 4:  An example person object.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19993.3 role Class   The role class is similar to the person object.  However, instead of   describing a human being, it describes a role performed by one or   more human beings.  Examples include help desks, network monitoring   centers, system administrators, etc.  Role object is particularly   useful since often a person performing a role may change, however the   role itself remains.   The attributes of the role class are shown in Figure 5.  The nic-hdl   attributes of the person and role classes share the same name space.   The trouble attribute of role object may contain additional contact   information to be used when a problem arises in any object that   references this role object.  Figure 6 shows an example role object.  Attribute  Value                    Type  role       <free-form>              mandatory, single-valued  nic-hdl    <nic-handle>             mandatory, single-valued,                                      class key  trouble    <free-form>              optional, multi-valued  address    <free-form>              mandatory, multi-valued  phone      see description in text  mandatory, multi-valued  fax-no     same as phone            optional, multi-valued  e-mail     <email-address>          mandatory, multi-valued                      Figure 5:  role Class Attributes   role:        RIPE NCC Operations   trouble:   address:     Singel 258   address:     1016 AB Amsterdam   address:     The Netherlands   phone:       +31 20 535 4444   fax-no:      +31 20 545 4445   e-mail:      ops@ripe.net   admin-c:     CO19-RIPE   tech-c:      RW488-RIPE   tech-c:      JLSD1-RIPE   nic-hdl:     OPS4-RIPE   notify:      ops@ripe.net   changed:     roderik@ripe.net 19970926   source:      RIPE                     Figure 6:  An example role object.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19994 route Class   Each interAS route (also referred to as an interdomain route)   originated by an AS is specified using a route object.  The   attributes of the route class are shown in Figure 7.  The route   attribute is the address prefix of the route and the origin attribute   is the AS number of the AS that originates the route into the interAS   routing system.  The route and origin attribute pair is the class   key.   Figure 8 shows examples of four route objects (we do not include   contact attributes such as admin-c, tech-c for brevity).  Note that   the last two route objects have the same address prefix, namely   128.8.0.0/16.  However, they are different route objects since they   are originated by different ASes (i.e. they have different keys).   Attribute     Value                      Type   route         <address-prefix>           mandatory, single-valued,                                            class key   origin        <as-number>                mandatory, single-valued,                                            class key   member-of     list of <route-set-names>  optional, multi-valued                 seeSection 5   inject        seeSection 8              optional, multi-valued   components    seeSection 8              optional, single-valued   aggr-bndry    seeSection 8              optional, single-valued   aggr-mtd      seeSection 8              optional, single-valued   export-comps  seeSection 8              optional, single-valued   holes         seeSection 8              optional, multi-valued                        Figure 7:  route Class Attributes      route: 128.9.0.0/16      origin: AS226      route: 128.99.0.0/16      origin: AS226      route: 128.8.0.0/16      origin: AS1      route: 128.8.0.0/16      origin: AS2                             Figure 8:  Route ObjectsAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19995 Set Classes   To specify policies, it is often useful to define sets of objects.   For this purpose we define as-set, route-set, rtr-set, filter-set,   and peering-set classes.  These classes define a named set.  The   members of these sets can be specified either directly by listing   them in the sets' definition, or indirectly by having member objects   refer to the sets' names, or a combination of both methods.   A set's name is an rpsl word with the following restrictions: All   as-set names start with prefix "as-".  All route-set names start with   prefix "rs-".  All rtr-set names start with prefix "rtrs-".  All   filter-set names start with prefix "fltr-".  All peering-set names   start with prefix "prng-".  For example, as-foo is a valid as-set   name.   Set names can also be hierarchical.  A hierarchical set name is a   sequence of set names and AS numbers separated by colons ":".  At   least one component of such a name must be an actual set name (i.e.   start with one of the prefixes above).  All the set name components   of an hierarchical name has to be of the same type.  For example, the   following names are valid: AS1:AS-CUSTOMERS, AS1:RS-EXPORT:AS2, RS-   EXCEPTIONS:RS-BOGUS.   The purpose of an hierarchical set name is to partition the set name   space so that the maintainers of the set X1 controls the whole set   name space underneath, i.e. X1:...:Xn-1.  Thus, a set object with   name X1:...:Xn-1:Xn can only be created by the maintainer of the   object with name X1:...:Xn-1.  That is, only the maintainer of AS1   can create a set with name AS1:AS-FOO; and only the maintainer of   AS1:AS-FOO can create a set with name AS1:AS-FOO:AS-BAR. Please see   RPS Security Document [20] for details.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19995.1 as-set Class   The attributes of the as-set class are shown in Figure 9.  The as-set   attribute defines the name of the set.  It is an RPSL name that   starts with "as-".  The members attribute lists the members of the   set.  The members attribute is a list of AS numbers, or other as-set   names.      Attribute    Value                    Type      as-set       <object-name>            mandatory, single-valued,                                            class key      members      list of <as-numbers> or  optional, multi-valued                   <as-set-names>      mbrs-by-ref  list of <mntner-names>   optional, multi-valued                     Figure 9:  as-set Class Attributes   Figure 10 presents two as-set objects.  The set as-foo contains two   ASes, namely AS1 and AS2.  The set as-bar contains the members of the   set as-foo and AS3, that is it contains AS1, AS2, AS3.  The set as-   empty contains no members. as-set: as-foo           as-set: as-bar                as-set: as-empty members: AS1, AS2        members: AS3, as-foo                        Figure 10:  as-set objects.   The mbrs-by-ref attribute is a list of maintainer names or the   keyword ANY.  If this attribute is used, the AS set also includes   ASes whose aut-num objects are registered by one of these maintainers   and whose member-of attribute refers to the name of this AS set.  If   the value of a mbrs-by-ref attribute is ANY, any AS object referring   to the AS set is a member of the set.  If the mbrs-by-ref attribute   is missing, only the ASes listed in the members attribute are members   of the set.    as-set: as-foo    members: AS1, AS2    mbrs-by-ref: MNTR-ME    aut-num: AS3                          aut-num: AS4    member-of: as-foo                     member-of: as-foo    mnt-by: MNTR-ME                       mnt-by: MNTR-OTHER                           Figure 11:  as-set objects.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   Figure 11 presents an example as-set object that uses the mbrs-by-ref   attribute.  The set as-foo contains AS1, AS2 and AS3.  AS4 is not a   member of the set as-foo even though the aut-num object references   as-foo.  This is because MNTR-OTHER is not listed in the as-foo's   mbrs-by-ref attribute.5.2 route-set Class   The attributes of the route-set class are shown in Figure 12.  The   route-set attribute defines the name of the set.  It is an RPSL name   that starts with "rs-".  The members attribute lists the members of   the set.  The members attribute is a list of address prefixes or   other route-set names.  Note that, the route-set class is a set of   route prefixes, not of RPSL route objects. Attribute    Value                              Type route-set    <object-name>                      mandatory,                                                 single-valued,                                                 class key members      list of <address-prefix-range> or  optional, multi-valued              <route-set-name> or              <route-set-name><range-operator> mbrs-by-ref  list of <mntner-names>             optional, multi-valued                   Figure 12:  route-set Class Attributes   Figure 13 presents some example route-set objects.  The set rs-foo   contains two address prefixes, namely 128.9.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/24.   The set rs-bar contains the members of the set rs-foo and the address   prefix 128.7.0.0/16.   An address prefix or a route-set name in a members attribute can be   optionally followed by a range operator.  For example, the following   set:   route-set: rs-foo   members: 128.9.0.0/16, 128.9.0.0/24   route-set: rs-bar   members: 128.7.0.0/16, rs-foo                       Figure 13:  route-set ObjectsAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   route-set: rs-bar   members: 5.0.0.0/8^+, 30.0.0.0/8^24-32, rs-foo^+   contains all the more specifics of 5.0.0.0/8 including 5.0.0.0/8, all   the more specifics of 30.0.0.0/8 which are of length 24 to 32 such as   30.9.9.96/28, and all the more specifics of address prefixes in route   set rs-foo.   The mbrs-by-ref attribute is a list of maintainer names or the   keyword ANY.  If this attribute is used, the route set also includes   address prefixes whose route objects are registered by one of these   maintainers and whose member-of attribute refers to the name of this   route set.  If the value of a mbrs-by-ref attribute is ANY, any route   object referring to the route set name is a member.  If the mbrs-by-   ref attribute is missing, only the address prefixes listed in the   members attribute are members of the set.   route-set: rs-foo   mbrs-by-ref: MNTR-ME, MNTR-YOU   route-set: rs-bar   members: 128.7.0.0/16   mbrs-by-ref: MNTR-YOU   route: 128.9.0.0/16   origin: AS1   member-of: rs-foo   mnt-by: MNTR-ME   route: 128.8.0.0/16   origin: AS2   member-of: rs-foo, rs-bar   mnt-by: MNTR-YOU                       Figure 14:  route-set objects.   Figure 14 presents example route-set objects that use the mbrs-by-ref   attribute.  The set rs-foo contains two address prefixes, namely   128.8.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/16 since the route objects for   128.8.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/16 refer to the set name rs-foo in their   member-of attribute.  The set rs-bar contains the address prefixes   128.7.0.0/16 and 128.8.0.0/16.  The route 128.7.0.0/16 is explicitly   listed in the members attribute of rs-bar, and the route object for   128.8.0.0/16 refer to the set name rs-bar in its member-of attribute.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 16]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   Note that, if an address prefix is listed in a members attribute of a   route set, it is a member of that route set.  The route object   corresponding to this address prefix does not need to contain a   member-of attribute referring to this set name.  The member-of   attribute of the route class is an additional mechanism for   specifying the members indirectly.5.3 Predefined Set Objects   In a context that expects a route set (e.g.  members attribute of the   route-set class), an AS number ASx defines the set of routes that are   originated by ASx; and an as-set AS-X defines the set of routes that   are originated by the ASes in AS-X. A route p is said to be   originated by ASx if there is a route object for p with ASx as the   value of the origin attribute.  For example, in Figure 15, the route   set rs-special contains 128.9.0.0/16, routes of AS1 and AS2, and   routes of the ASes in AS set AS-FOO.   route-set: rs-special   members: 128.9.0.0/16, AS1, AS2, AS-FOO          Figure 15:  Use of AS numbers and AS sets in route sets.   The set rs-any contains all routes registered in IRR. The set as-any   contains all ASes registered in IRR.5.4 Filters and filter-set Class   The attributes of the filter-set class are shown in Figure 16.  A   filter-set object defines a set of routes that are matched by its   filter.  The filter-set attribute defines the name of the filter.  It   is an RPSL name that starts with "fltr-".       Attribute   Value         Type       filter-set  <object-name> mandatory, single-valued, class key       filter      <filter>      mandatory, single-valued                    Figure 16:  filter Class Attributes      filter-set: fltr-foo      filter: { 5.0.0.0/8, 6.0.0.0/8 }      filter-set: fltr-bar      filter: (AS1 or fltr-foo) and <AS2>                      Figure 17:  filter-set objects.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 17]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   The filter attribute defines the set's policy filter.  A policy   filter is a logical expression which when applied to a set of routes   returns a subset of these routes.  We say that the policy filter   matches the subset returned.  The policy filter can match routes   using any BGP path attribute, such as the destination address prefix   (or NLRI), AS-path, or community attributes.   The policy filters can be composite by using the operators AND, OR,   and NOT.  The following policy filters can be used to select a subset   of routes:   ANY      The keyword ANY matches all routes.   Address-Prefix Set This is an explicit list of address prefixes      enclosed in braces '{' and '}'.  The policy filter matches the set      of routes whose destination address-prefix is in the set.  For      example:        { 0.0.0.0/0 }        { 128.9.0.0/16, 128.8.0.0/16, 128.7.128.0/17, 5.0.0.0/8 }        { }   An address prefix can be optionally followed by a range operator   (i.e.      { 5.0.0.0/8^+, 128.9.0.0/16^-, 30.0.0.0/8^16, 30.0.0.0/8^24-32 }   contains all the more specifics of 5.0.0.0/8 including 5.0.0.0/8, all   the more specifics of 128.9.0.0/16 excluding 128.9.0.0/16, all the   more specifics of 30.0.0.0/8 which are of length 16 such as   30.9.0.0/16, and all the more specifics of 30.0.0.0/8 which are of   length 24 to 32 such as 30.9.9.96/28.   Route Set Name  A route set name matches the set of routes that are   members of the set.  A route set name may be a name of a route-set   object, an AS number, or a name of an as-set object (AS numbers and   as-set names implicitly define route sets; please seeSection 5.3).   For example:      aut-num: AS1      import: from AS2 accept AS2      import: from AS2 accept AS-FOO      import: from AS2 accept RS-FOOAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 18]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   The keyword PeerAS can be used instead of the AS number of the peer   AS.  PeerAS is particularly useful when the peering is specified   using an AS expression.  For example:      as-set: AS-FOO      members: AS2, AS3      aut-num: AS1      import: from AS-FOO accept PeerAS   is same as:      aut-num: AS1      import: from AS2 accept AS2      import: from AS3 accept AS3   A route set name can also be followed by one of the operators '^-',   '^+', example, { 5.0.0.0/8, 6.0.0.0/8 }^+ equals { 5.0.0.0/8^+,   6.0.0.0/8^+ }, and AS1^- equals all the exclusive more specifics of   routes originated by AS1.   AS Path Regular Expressions      An AS-path regular expression can be used as a policy filter by      enclosing the expression in `<' and `>'.  An AS-path policy filter      matches the set of routes which traverses a sequence of ASes      matched by the AS-path regular expression.  A router can check      this using the AS_PATH attribute in the Border Gateway Protocol      [19], or the RD_PATH attribute in the Inter-Domain Routing      Protocol [18].      AS-path Regular Expressions are POSIX compliant regular      expressions over the alphabet of AS numbers.  The regular      expression constructs are as follows:   ASN      where ASN is an AS number.  ASN matches the AS-path that is of      length 1 and contains the corresponding AS number (e.g.  AS-path      regular expression AS1 matches the AS-path "1").      The keyword PeerAS can be used instead of the AS number of the      peer AS.   AS-set      where AS-set is an AS set name.  AS-set matches the AS-paths that      is matched by one of the ASes in the AS-set.   .      matches the AS-paths matched by any AS number.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   [...]      is an AS number set.  It matches the AS-paths matched by the AS      numbers listed between the brackets.  The AS numbers in the set      are separated by white space characters.  If a `-' is used between      two AS numbers in this set, all AS numbers between the two AS      numbers are included in the set.  If an as-set name is listed, all      AS numbers in the as-set are included.   [^...]      is a complemented AS number set.  It matches any AS-path which is      not matched by the AS numbers in the set.   ^      Matches the empty string at the beginning of an AS-path.   $      Matches the empty string at the end of an AS-path.   We next list the regular expression operators in the decreasing order   of evaluation.  These operators are left associative, i.e. performed   left to right.   Unary postfix operators * + ?  {m} {m,n} {m,}      For a regular expression A, A* matches zero or more occurrences of      A; A+ matches one or more occurrences of A; A?  matches zero or      one occurrence of A; A{m} matches m occurrence of A; A{m,n}      matches m to n occurrence of A; A{m,} matches m or more occurrence      of A. For example, [AS1 AS2]{2} matches AS1 AS1, AS1 AS2, AS2 AS1,      and AS2 AS2.   Unary postfix operators ~* ~+ ~{m} ~{m,n} ~{m,}      These operators have similar functionality as the corresponding      operators listed above, but all occurrences of the regular      expression has to match the same pattern.  For example, [AS1      AS2]~{2} matches AS1 AS1 and AS2 AS2, but it does not match AS1      AS2 and AS2 AS1.   Binary catenation operator      This is an implicit operator and exists between two regular      expressions A and B when no other explicit operator is specified.      The resulting expression A B matches an AS-path if A matches some      prefix of the AS-path and B matches the rest of the AS-path.   Binary alternative (or) operator |      For a regular expressions A and B, A | B matches any AS-path that      is matched by A or B.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 20]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   Parenthesis can be used to override the default order of evaluation.   White spaces can be used to increase readability.   The following are examples of AS-path filters:   <AS3>   <^AS1>   <AS2$>   <^AS1 AS2 AS3$>   <^AS1 .* AS2$>.   The first example matches any route whose AS-path contains AS3, the   second matches routes whose AS-path starts with AS1, the third   matches routes whose AS-path ends with AS2, the fourth matches routes   whose AS-path is exactly "1 2 3", and the fifth matches routes whose   AS-path starts with AS1 and ends in AS2 with any number of AS numbers   in between.   Composite Policy Filters The following operators (in decreasing order   of evaluation) can be used to form composite policy filters:   NOT Given a policy filter x, NOT x matches the set of routes that       are not matched by x.  That is it is the negation of policy       filter x.   AND Given two policy filters x and y, x AND y matches the intersection       of the routes that are matched by x and that are matched by y.   OR  Given two policy filters x and y, x OR y matches the union of the       routes that are matched by x and that are matched by y.   Note that an OR operator can be implicit, that is `x y' is equivalent   to `x OR y'.  E.g.    NOT {128.9.0.0/16, 128.8.0.0/16}    AS226 AS227 OR AS228    AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16}    AS226 AND {0.0.0.0/0^0-18}   The first example matches any route except 128.9.0.0/16 and   128.8.0.0/16.  The second example matches the routes of AS226, AS227   and AS228.  The third example matches the routes of AS226 except   128.9.0.0/16.  The fourth example matches the routes of AS226 whose   length are not longer than 18.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 21]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   Routing Policy Attributes Policy filters can also use the values of   other attributes for comparison.  The attributes whose values can be   used in policy filters are specified in the RPSL dictionary.  Please   refer toSection 7 for details.  An example using the the BGP   community attribute is shown below:    aut-num: AS1    export: to AS2 announce AS1 AND NOT community(NO_EXPORT)   Filters using the routing policy attributes defined in the dictionary   are evaluated before evaluating the operators AND, OR and NOT.   Filter Set Name      A filter set name matches the set of routes that are matched by      its filter attribute.  Note that the filter attribute of a filter      set, can recursively refer to other filter set names.  For example      in Figure 17, fltr-foo matches { 5.0.0.0/8, 6.0.0.0/8 }, and      fltr-bar matches AS1'S routes or { 5.0.0.0/8, 6.0.0.0/8 } if their      as path contained AS2.5.5 rtr-set Class   The attributes of the rtr-set class are shown in Figure 18.  The   rtr-set attribute defines the name of the set.  It is an RPSL name   that starts with "rtrs-".  The members attribute lists the members of   the set.  The members attribute is a list of inet-rtr names,   ipv4_addresses or other rtr-set names.    Attribute    Value                        Type    rtr-set      <object-name>                mandatory, single-valued,                                              class key    members      list of <inet-rtr-names> or  optional, multi-valued                 <rtr-set-names>                 or <ipv4_addresses>    mbrs-by-ref  list of <mntner-names>       optional, multi-valued                    Figure 18:  rtr-set Class AttributesAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 22]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   Figure 19 presents two rtr-set objects.  The set rtrs-foo contains   two routers, namely rtr1.isp.net and rtr2.isp.net.  The set rtrs-bar   contains the members of the set rtrs-foo and rtr3.isp.net, that is it   contains rtr1.isp.net, rtr2.isp.net, rtr3.isp.net. rtr-set: rtrs-foo                     rtr-set: rtrs-bar members: rtr1.isp.net, rtr2.isp.net   members: rtr3.isp.net, rtrs-foo                        Figure 19:  rtr-set objects.   The mbrs-by-ref attribute is a list of maintainer names or the   keyword ANY.  If this attribute is used, the router set also includes   routers whose inet-rtr objects are registered by one of these   maintainers and whose member-of attribute refers to the name of this   router set.  If the value of a mbrs-by-ref attribute is ANY, any   inet-rtr object referring to the router set is a member of the set.   If the mbrs-by-ref attribute is missing, only the routers listed in   the members attribute are members of the set.       rtr-set: rtrs-foo       members: rtr1.isp.net, rtr2.isp.net       mbrs-by-ref: MNTR-ME       inet-rtr: rtr3.isp.net       local-as: as1       ifaddr: 1.1.1.1 masklen 30       member-of: rtrs-foo       mnt-by: MNTR-ME                              Figure 20:  rtr-set objects.   Figure 20 presents an example rtr-set object that uses the mbrs-by-   ref attribute.  The set rtrs-foo contains rtr1.isp.net, rtr2.isp.net   and rtr3.isp.net.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 23]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19995.6 Peerings and peering-set Class   The attributes of the peering-set class are shown in Figure 21.  A   peering-set object defines a set of peerings that are listed in its   peering attributes.  The peering-set attribute defines the name of   the set.  It is an RPSL name that starts with "prng-".      Attribute    Value          Type      peering-set  <object-name>  mandatory, single-valued, class key      peering      <peering>      mandatory, multi-valued                    Figure 21:  filter Class Attributes   The peering attribute defines a peering that can be used for   importing or     ----------------------                   ----------------------     |            7.7.7.1 |-------|   |-------| 7.7.7.2            |     |                    |     ========      |                    |     |   AS1              |      EX1  |-------| 7.7.7.3     AS2    |     |                    |                   |                    |     |            9.9.9.1 |------       ------| 9.9.9.2            |     ----------------------     |       |     ----------------------                               ===========                                   |    EX2     ----------------------        |     |            9.9.9.3 |---------     |                    |     |   AS3              |     ----------------------  Figure 22: Example topology consisting of three ASes, AS1, AS2, and        AS3; two exchange points, EX1 and EX2; and six routers.   exporting routes.      In describing peerings, we are going to use the topology of Figure      22.  In this topology, there are three ASes, AS1, AS2, and AS3;      two exchange points, EX1 and EX2; and six routers.  Routers      connected to the same exchange point peer with each other and      exchange routing information.  That is, 7.7.7.1, 7.7.7.2 and      7.7.7.3 peer with each other; 9.9.9.1, 9.9.9.2 and 9.9.9.3 peer      with each other.      The syntax of a peering specification is:      <as-expression> [<router-expression-1>] [at <router-expression-2>]     | <peering-set-name>Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 24]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999      where <as-expression> is an expression over AS numbers and AS sets      using operators AND, OR, and EXCEPT, and <router-expression-1> and      <router-expression-2> are expressions over router IP addresses,      inet-rtr names, and rtr-set names using operators AND, OR, and      EXCEPT.  The binary "EXCEPT" operator is the set subtraction      operator and has the same precedence as the operator AND (it is      semantically equivalent to "AND NOT" combination).  That is "(AS1      OR AS2) EXCEPT AS2" equals "AS1".      This form identifies all the peerings between any local router in      <router-expression-2> to any of their peer routers in <router-      expression-1> in the ASes in <as-expression>.  If <router-      expression-2> is not specified, it defaults to all routers of the      local AS that peer with ASes in <as-expression>.  If <router-      expression-1> is not specified, it defaults to all routers of the      peer ASes in <as-expression> that peer with the local AS.      If a <peering-set-name> is used, the peerings are listed in the      corresponding peering-set object.  Note that the peering-set      objects can be recursive.      Many special forms of this general peering specification is      possible.  The following examples illustrate the most common      cases, using the import attribute of the aut-num class.  In the      following example 7.7.7.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 7.7.7.2. (1) aut-num: AS1     import: from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }   In the following example 7.7.7.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 7.7.7.2   and 7.7.7.3. (2) aut-num: AS1     import: from AS2 at 7.7.7.1 accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }   In the following example 7.7.7.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 7.7.7.2   and 7.7.7.3, and 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2. (3) aut-num: AS1     import: from AS2 accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }   In the following example 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2   and 9.9.9.3.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 25]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999 (4) as-set: AS-FOO     members: AS2, AS3     aut-num: AS1     import: from AS-FOO      at 9.9.9.1 accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }   In the following example 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2   and 9.9.9.3, and 7.7.7.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 7.7.7.2 and   7.7.7.3. (5) aut-num: AS1     import: from AS-FOO                 accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }   In the following example AS1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from AS3 at router   9.9.9.1 (6) aut-num: AS1     import: from AS-FOO and not AS2 at not 7.7.7.1             accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }   This is because "AS-FOO and not AS2" equals AS3 and "not 7.7.7.1"   equals 9.9.9.1.   In the following example 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2   and 9.9.9.3. (7) peering-set: prng-bar     peering: AS1 at 9.9.9.1     peering-set: prng-foo     peering: prng-bar     peering: AS2 at 9.9.9.1     aut-num: AS1     import: from prng-foo accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 26]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19996 aut-num Class   Routing policies are specified using the aut-num class.  The   attributes of the aut-num class are shown in Figure 23.  The value of   the aut-num attribute is the AS number of the AS described by this   object.  The as-name attribute is a symbolic name (in RPSL name   syntax) of the AS. The import, export and default routing policies of   the AS are specified using import, export and default attributes   respectively.   Attribute  Value                  Type   aut-num    <as-number>            mandatory, single-valued, class key   as-name    <object-name>          mandatory, single-valued   member-of  list of <as-set-names> optional, multi-valued   import     seeSection 6.1        optional, multi valued   export     seeSection 6.2        optional, multi valued   default    seeSection 6.5        optional, multi valued                    Figure 23:  aut-num Class Attributes6.1 import Attribute:Import Policy Specification   In RPSL, an import policy is divided into import policy expressions.   Each import policy expression is specified using an import attribute.   The import attribute has the following syntax (we will extend this   syntax later in Sections6.3 and6.6):   import: from <peering-1> [action <action-1>]            . . .            from <peering-N> [action <action-N>]            accept <filter>   The action specification is optional.  The semantics of an import   attribute is as follows: the set of routes that are matched by   <filter> are imported from all the peers in <peerings>; while   importing routes at <peering-M>, <action-M> is executed.  E.g.    aut-num: AS1    import: from AS2 action pref = 1; accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }   This example states that the route 128.9.0.0/16 is accepted from AS2   with preference 1.  We already presented how peerings (seeSection5.6) and filters (seeSection 5.4) are specified.  We next present   how to specify actions.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 27]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19996.1.1 Action Specification   Policy actions in RPSL either set or modify route attributes, such as   assigning a preference to a route, adding a BGP community to the BGP   community path attribute, or setting the MULTI-EXIT-DISCRIMINATOR   attribute.  Policy actions can also instruct routers to perform   special operations, such as route flap damping.   The routing policy attributes whose values can be modified in policy   actions are specified in the RPSL dictionary.  Please refer toSection 7 for a list of these attributes.  Each action in RPSL is   terminated by the semicolon character (';').  It is possible to form   composite policy actions by listing them one after the other.  In a   composite policy action, the actions are executed left to right.  For   example, aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2         action pref = 10; med = 0; community.append(10250, 3561:10);         accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }   sets pref to 10, med to 0, and then appends 10250 and 3561:10 to the   BGP community path attribute.  The pref attribute is the inverse of   the local-pref attribute (i.e. local-pref == 65535 - pref).  A route   with a local-pref attribute is always preferred over a route without   one. aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2 action pref = 1;         from AS3 action pref = 2;         accept AS4   The above example states that AS4's routes are accepted from AS2 with   preference 1, and from AS3 with preference 2 (routes with lower   integer preference values are preferred over routes with higher   integer preference values). aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 1;         from AS2                    action pref = 2;         accept AS4   The above example states that AS4's routes are accepted from AS2 on   peering 7.7.7.1-7.7.7.2 with preference 1, and on any other peering   with AS2 with preference 2.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 28]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19996.2 export Attribute:Export Policy Specification   Similarly, an export policy expression is specified using an export   attribute.  The export attribute has the following syntax:    export: to <peering-1> [action <action-1>]            . . .            to <peering-N> [action <action-N>]            announce <filter>   The action specification is optional.  The semantics of an export   attribute is as follows:  the set of routes that are matched by   <filter> are exported to all the peers specified in <peerings>; while   exporting routes at <peering-M>, <action-M> is executed.  E.g.    aut-num: AS1    export: to AS2 action med = 5; community .= { 70 };            announce AS4   In this example, AS4's routes are announced to AS2 with the med   attribute's value set to 5 and community 70 added to the community   list.   Example:    aut-num: AS1    export: to AS-FOO announce ANY   In this example, AS1 announces all of its routes to the ASes in the   set AS-FOO.6.3 Other Routing Protocols, Multi-Protocol Routing Protocols, and   Injecting Routes Between Protocols   The more complete syntax of the import and export attributes are as   follows:    import: [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]            from <peering-1> [action <action-1>]            . . .            from <peering-N> [action <action-N>]            accept <filter>    export: [protocol <protocol-1>] [into <protocol-2>]            to <peering-1> [action <action-1>]            . . .            to <peering-N> [action <action-N>]            announce <filter>Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 29]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   Where the optional protocol specifications can be used for specifying   policies for other routing protocols, or for injecting routes of one   protocol into another protocol, or for multi-protocol routing   policies.  The valid protocol names are defined in the dictionary.   The <protocol-1> is the name of the protocol whose routes are being   exchanged.  The <protocol-2> is the name of the protocol which is   receiving these routes.  Both <protocol-1> and <protocol-2> default   to the Internet Exterior Gateway Protocol, currently BGP.   In the following example, all interAS routes are injected into RIP. aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2 accept AS2 export: protocol BGP4 into RIP         to AS1 announce ANY   In the following example, AS1 accepts AS2's routes including any more   specifics of AS2's routes, but does not inject these extra more   specific routes into OSPF. aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2 accept AS2^+ export: protocol BGP4 into OSPF         to AS1 announce AS2   In the following example, AS1 injects its static routes (routes which   are members of the set AS1:RS-STATIC-ROUTES) to the interAS routing   protocol and appends AS1 twice to their AS paths. aut-num: AS1 import: protocol STATIC into BGP4         from AS1 action aspath.prepend(AS1, AS1);         accept AS1:RS-STATIC-ROUTES   In the following example, AS1 imports different set of unicast routes   for multicast reverse path forwarding from AS2: aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2 accept AS2 import: protocol IDMR         from AS2 accept AS2:RS-RPF-ROUTESAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 30]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19996.4 Ambiguity Resolution   It is possible that the same peering can be covered by more that one   peering specification in a policy expression.  For example: aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 2;         from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 1;         accept AS4   This is not an error, though definitely not desirable.  To break the   ambiguity, the action corresponding to the first peering   specification is used.  That is the routes are accepted with   preference 2.  We call this rule as the specification-order rule.   Consider the example: aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2                    action pref = 2;         from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 1; dpa = 5;         accept AS4   where both peering specifications cover the peering 7.7.7.1-7.7.7.2,   though the second one covers it more specifically.  The specification   order rule still applies, and only the action "pref = 2" is executed.   In fact, the second peering-action pair has no use since the first   peering-action pair always covers it.  If the intended policy was to   accept these routes with preference 1 on this particular peering and   with preference 2 in all other peerings, the user should have   specified: aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 1; dpa = 5;         from AS2                    action pref = 2;         accept AS4   It is also possible that more than one policy expression can cover   the same set of routes for the same peering.  For example: aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS4 import: from AS2 action pref = 1; accept AS4   In this case, the specification-order rule is still used.  That is,   AS4's routes are accepted from AS2 with preference 2.  If the filters   were overlapping but not exactly the same:Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 31]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999 aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS4 import: from AS2 action pref = 1; accept AS4 OR AS5   the AS4's routes are accepted from AS2 with preference 2 and however   AS5's routes are also accepted, but with preference 1.   We next give the general specification order rule for the benefit of   the RPSL implementors.  Consider two policy expressions: aut-num: AS1 import: from peerings-1 action action-1 accept filter-1 import: from peerings-2 action action-2 accept filter-2   The above policy expressions are equivalent to the following three   expressions where there is no ambiguity: aut-num: AS1 import: from peerings-1 action action-1 accept filter-1 import: from peerings-3 action action-2 accept filter-2 AND NOT filter-1 import: from peerings-4 action action-2 accept filter-2   where peerings-3 are those that are covered by both peerings-1 and   peerings-2, and peerings-4 are those that are covered by peerings-2   but not by peerings-1 ("filter-2 AND NOT filter-1" matches the routes   that are matched by filter-2 but not by filter-1).   Example: aut-num: AS1 import: from AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1         action pref = 2;         accept {128.9.0.0/16} import: from AS2         action pref = 1;         accept {128.9.0.0/16, 75.0.0.0/8}   Lets consider two peerings with AS2, 7.7.7.1-7.7.7.2 and 9.9.9.1-   9.9.9.2.  Both policy expressions cover 7.7.7.1-7.7.7.2.  On this   peering, the route 128.9.0.0/16 is accepted with preference 2, and   the route 75.0.0.0/8 is accepted with preference 1.  The peering   9.9.9.1-9.9.9.2 is only covered by the second policy expressions.   Hence, both the route 128.9.0.0/16 and the route 75.0.0.0/8 are   accepted with preference 1 on peering 9.9.9.1-9.9.9.2.   Note that the same ambiguity resolution rules also apply to export   and default policy expressions.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 32]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 19996.5 default Attribute:Default Policy Specification   Default routing policies are specified using the default attribute.   The default attribute has the following syntax:    default: to <peering> [action <action>] [networks <filter>]   The <action> and <filter> specifications are optional.  The semantics   are as follows:  The <peering> specification indicates the AS (and   the router if present) is being defaulted to; the <action>   specification, if present, indicates various attributes of   defaulting, for example a relative preference if multiple defaults   are specified; and the <filter> specifications, if present, is a   policy filter.  A router only uses the default policy if it received   the routes matched by <filter> from this peer.   In the following example, AS1 defaults to AS2 for routing. aut-num: AS1 default: to AS2   In the following example, router 7.7.7.1 in AS1 defaults to router   7.7.7.2 in AS2. aut-num: AS1 default: to AS2 7.7.7.2 at 7.7.7.1   In the following example, AS1 defaults to AS2 and AS3, but prefers   AS2 over AS3. aut-num: AS1 default: to AS2 action pref = 1; default: to AS3 action pref = 2;   In the following example, AS1 defaults to AS2 and uses 128.9.0.0/16   as the default network. aut-num: AS1 default: to AS2 networks { 128.9.0.0/16 }6.6 Structured Policy Specification   The import and export policies can be structured.  We only reccomend   structured policies to advanced RPSL users.  Please feel free to skip   this section.   The syntax for a structured policy specification is the following:Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 33]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   <import-factor> ::= from <peering-1> [action <action-1>]                       . . .                       from <peering-N> [action <action-N>]                       accept <filter>;   <import-term> ::=  <import-factor> |                      LEFT-BRACE                      <import-factor>                      . . .                      <import-factor>                      RIGHT-BRACE   <import-expression> ::= <import-term>                            |                           <import-term> EXCEPT <import-expression> |                           <import-term> REFINE <import-expression>   import: [protocol <protocol1>] [into <protocol2>]           <import-expression>   Please note the semicolon at the end of an <import-factor>.  If the   policy specification is not structured (as in all the examples in   other sections), this semicolon is optional.  The syntax and   semantics for an <import-factor> is already defined inSection 6.1.   An <import-term> is either a sequence of <import-factor>'s enclosed   within matching braces (i.e. `{' and `}') or just a single <import-   factor>.  The semantics of an <import-term> is the union of <import-   factor>'s using the specification order rule.  An <import-expression>   is either a single <import-term> or an <import-term> followed by one   of the keywords "except" and "refine", followed by another <import-   expression>.  Note that our definition allows nested expressions.   Hence there can be exceptions to exceptions, refinements to   refinements, or even refinements to exceptions, and so on.   The semantics for the except operator is as follows: The result of an   except operation is another <import-term>.  The resulting policy set   contains the policies of the right hand side but their filters are   modified to only include the routes also matched by the left hand   side.  The policies of the left hand side are included afterwards and   their filters are modified to exclude the routes matched by the right   hand side.  Please note that the filters are modified during this   process but the actions are copied verbatim.  When there are multiple   levels of nesting, the operations (both except and refine) are   performed right to left.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 34]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   Consider the following example: import: from AS1 action pref = 1; accept as-foo;         except {            from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS226;            except {               from AS3 action pref = 3; accept {128.9.0.0/16};            }         }   where the route 128.9.0.0/16 is originated by AS226, and AS226 is a   member of the as set as-foo.  In this example, the route 128.9.0.0/16   is accepted from AS3, any other route (not 128.9.0.0/16) originated   by AS226 is accepted from AS2, and any other ASes' routes in as-foo   is accepted from AS1.   We can come to the same conclusion using the algebra defined above.   Consider the inner exception specification:   from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS226;   except {      from AS3 action pref = 3; accept {128.9.0.0/16};   } is equivalent to  {   from AS3 action pref = 3; accept AS226 AND {128.9.0.0/16};   from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16};  } Hence, the original expression is equivalent to: import: from AS1 action pref = 1; accept as-foo;         except {            from AS3 action pref = 3; accept AS226 AND {128.9.0.0/16};            from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16};         } which is equivalent toimport: {Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 35]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   from AS3 action pref = 3;            accept as-foo AND AS226 AND {128.9.0.0/16};   from AS2 action pref = 2;            accept as-foo AND AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16};   from AS1 action pref = 1;            accept as-foo AND NOT              (AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16} OR AS226 AND {128.9.0.0/16});   } Since AS226 is in as-foo and 128.9.0.0/16 is in AS226, it simplifies to:import: {          from AS3 action pref = 3; accept {128.9.0.0/16};          from AS2 action pref = 2; accept AS226 AND NOT {128.9.0.0/16};          from AS1 action pref = 1; accept as-foo AND NOT AS226;        }   In the case of the refine operator, the resulting set is constructed   by taking the cartasian product of the two sides as follows:  for   each policy l in the left hand side and for each policy r in the   right hand side, the peerings of the resulting policy are the   peerings common to both r and l; the filter of the resulting policy   is the intersection of l's filter and r's filter; and action of the   resulting policy is l's action followed by r's action.  If there are   no common peerings, or if the intersection of filters is empty, a   resulting policy is not generated.   Consider the following example: import: { from AS-ANY action pref = 1; accept community(3560:10);           from AS-ANY action pref = 2; accept community(3560:20);         } refine {            from AS1 accept AS1;            from AS2 accept AS2;            from AS3 accept AS3;         }   Here, any route with community 3560:10 is assigned a preference of 1   and any route with community 3560:20 is assigned a preference of 2   regardless of whom they are imported from.  However, only AS1's   routes are imported from AS1, and only AS2's routes are imported from   AS2, and only AS3's routes are imported form AS3, and no routes are   imported from any other AS. We can reach the same conclusion using   the above algebra.  That is, our example is equivalent to:Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 36]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999 import: {   from AS1 action pref = 1; accept community(3560:10) AND AS1;   from AS1 action pref = 2; accept community(3560:20) AND AS1;   from AS2 action pref = 1; accept community(3560:10) AND AS2;   from AS2 action pref = 2; accept community(3560:20) AND AS2;   from AS3 action pref = 1; accept community(3560:10) AND AS3;   from AS3 action pref = 2; accept community(3560:20) AND AS3; }   Note that the common peerings between "from AS1" and "from AS-ANY"   are those peerings in "from AS1".  Even though we do not formally   define "common peerings", it is straight forward to deduce the   definition from the definitions of peerings (please seeSection 5.6).   Consider the following example: import: {   from AS-ANY action med = 0; accept {0.0.0.0/0^0-18};   } refine {        from AS1 at 7.7.7.1 action pref = 1; accept AS1;        from AS1            action pref = 2; accept AS1;     }   where only routes of length 0 to 18 are accepted and med's value is   set to 0 to disable med's effect for all peerings; In addition, from   AS1 only AS1's routes are imported, and AS1's routes imported at   7.7.7.1 are preferred over other peerings.  This is equivalent to: import: {      from AS1 at 7.7.7.1 action med=0; pref=1; accept {0.0.0.0/0^0-18} AND AS1;    from  AS1             action med=0; pref=2; accept {0.0.0.0/0^0-18} AND AS1; }   The above syntax and semantics also apply equally to structured   export policies with "from" replaced with "to" and "accept" is   replaced with "announce".7 dictionary Class   The dictionary class provides extensibility to RPSL. Dictionary   objects define routing policy attributes, types, and routing   protocols.  Routing policy attributes, henceforth called rp-   attributes, may correspond to actual protocol attributes, such as the   BGP path attributes (e.g. community, dpa, and AS-path), or they may   correspond to router features (e.g. BGP route flap damping).  As new   protocols, new protocol attributes, or new router features areAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 37]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   introduced, the dictionary object is updated to include appropriate   rp-attribute and protocol definitions.   An rp-attribute is an abstract class; that is a data representation   is not available.  Instead, they are accessed through access methods.   For example, the rp-attribute for the BGP AS-path attribute is called   aspath; and it has an access method called prepend which stuffs extra   AS numbers to the AS-path attributes.  Access methods can take   arguments.  Arguments are strongly typed.  For example, the method   prepend above takes AS numbers as arguments.   Once an rp-attribute is defined in the dictionary, it can be used to   describe policy filters and actions.  Policy analysis tools are   required to fetch the dictionary object and recognize newly defined   rp-attributes, types, and protocols.  The analysis tools may   approximate policy analyses on rp-attributes that they do not   understand:  a filter method may always match, and an action method   may always perform no-operation.  Analysis tools may even download   code to perform appropriate operations using mechanisms outside the   scope of RPSL.   We next describe the syntax and semantics of the dictionary class.   This description is not essential for understanding dictionary   objects (but it is essential for creating one).  Please feel free to   skip to the RPSL Initial Dictionary subsection (Section 7.1).   The attributes of the dictionary class are shown in Figure 24.  The   dictionary attribute is the name of the dictionary object, obeying   the RPSL naming rules.  There can be many dictionary objects, however   there is always one well-known dictionary object "RPSL". All tools   use this dictionary by default. Attribute     Value                   Type dictionary    <object-name>           mandatory, single-valued,                                       class key rp-attribute  see description in text optional, multi valued typedef       see description in text optional, multi valued protocol      see description in text optional, multi valued                  Figure 24:  dictionary Class Attributes   The rp-attribute attribute has the following syntax:   rp-attribute: <name>      <method-1>(<type-1-1>, ..., <type-1-N1> [, "..."])      ...      <method-M>(<type-M-1>, ..., <type-M-NM> [, "..."])Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 38]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   where <name> is the name of the rp-attribute; and <method-i> is the   name of an access method for the rp-attribute, taking Ni arguments   where the j-th argument is of type <type-i-j>.  A method name is   either an RPSL name or one of the operators defined in Figure 25.   The operator methods with the exception of operator() and operator[]   can take only one argument.   operator=           operator==   operator<<=         operator<   operator>>=         operator>   operator+=          operator>=   operator-=          operator<=   operator*=          operator!=   operator/=          operator()   operator.=          operator[]                           Figure 25:  Operators   An rp-attribute can have many methods defined for it.  Some of the   methods may even have the same name, in which case their arguments   are of different types.  If the argument list is followed by "...",   the method takes a variable number of arguments.  In this case, the   actual arguments after the Nth argument are of type <type-N>.   Arguments are strongly typed.  A <type> in RPSL is either a   predefined type, a union type, a list type, or a dictionary defined   type.  The predefined types are listed in Figure 26.   integer[lower, upper]              ipv4_address   real[lower, upper]                 address_prefix   enum[name, name, ...]              address_prefix_range   string                             dns_name   boolean                            filter   rpsl_word                          as_set_name   free_text                          route_set_name   email                              rtr_set_name   as_number                          filter_set_name                                      peering_set_name                        Figure 26:  Predefined Types   The integer and the real predefined types can be followed by a lower   and an upper bound to specify the set of valid values of the   argument.  The range specification is optional.  We use the ANSI C   language conventions for representing integer, real and string   values.  The enum type is followed by a list of RPSL names which areAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 39]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   the valid values of the type.  The boolean type can take the values   true or false.  as_number, ipv4_address, address_prefix and dns_name   types are as inSection 2.  filter type is a policy filter as inSection 6.  The value of filter type is suggested to be enclosed in   parenthesis.   The syntax of a union type is as follows:    union <type-1>, ... , <type-N>   where <type-i> is an RPSL type.  The union type is either of the   types <type-1> through <type-N> (analogous to unions in C[14]).   The syntax of a list type is as follows:   list [<min_elems>:<max_elems>] of <type>   In this case, the list elements are of <type> and the list contains   at least <min_elems> and at most <max_elems> elements.  The size   specification is optional.  If it is not specified, there is no   restriction in the number of list elements.  A value of a list type   is represented as a sequence of elements separated by the character   "," and enclosed by the characters "{" and "}".   The typedef attribute in the dictionary defines named types as   follows:   typedef: <name> <type>   where <name> is a name for type <type>.  typedef attribute is   paticularly useful when the type defined is not a predefined type   (e.g. list of unions, list of lists, etc.).   A protocol attribute of the dictionary class defines a protocol and a   set of peering parameters for that protocol (which are used in inet-   rtr class inSection 9).  Its syntax is as follows:   protocol: <name>    MANDATORY | OPTIONAL <parameter-1>(<type-1-1>,...,                         <type-1-N1> [,"..."])      ...    MANDATORY | OPTIONAL <parameter-M>(<type-M-1>,...,                         <type-M-NM> [,"..."])   where <name> is the name of the protocol; MANDATORY and OPTIONAL are   keywords; and <parameter-i> is a peering parameter for this protocol,   taking Ni many arguments.  The syntax and semantics of the arguments   are as in the rp-attribute.  If the keyword MANDATORY is used, theAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 40]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   parameter is mandatory and needs to be specified for each peering of   this protocol.  If the keyword OPTIONAL is used, the parameter can be   skipped.7.1 Initial RPSL Dictionary and Example Policy Actions and Filtersdictionary:   RPSLrp-attribute: # preference, smaller values represent higher preferences              pref              operator=(integer[0, 65535])rp-attribute: # BGP multi_exit_discriminator attribute              med              # to set med to 10: med = 10;              # to set med to the IGP metric: med = igp_cost;              operator=(union integer[0, 65535], enum[igp_cost])rp-attribute: # BGP destination preference attribute (dpa)              dpa              operator=(integer[0, 65535])rp-attribute: # BGP aspath attribute              aspath              # prepends AS numbers from last to first order              prepend(as_number, ...)typedef:      # a community value in RPSL is either              #  - a 4 byte integer (ok to use 3561:70 notation)              #  - internet, no_export, no_advertise (seeRFC-1997)              community_elm union                  integer[1, 4294967295],                  enum[internet, no_export, no_advertise],typedef:      # list of community values { 40, no_export, 3561:70 }              community_list list of community_elmrp-attribute: # BGP community attribute              community              # set to a list of communities              operator=(community_list)              # append community values              operator.=(community_list)              append(community_elm, ...)              # delete community values              delete(community_elm, ...)              # a filter: true if one of community values is contained              contains(community_elm, ...)              # shortcut to contains: community(no_export, 3561:70)              operator()(community_elm, ...)              # order independent equality comparison              operator==(community_list)rp-attribute: # next hop router in a static route              next-hop              # to set to 7.7.7.7: next-hop = 7.7.7.7;Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 41]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999              # to set to router's own address: next-hop = self;              operator=(union ipv4_address, enum[self])rp-attribute: # cost of a static route              cost              operator=(integer[0, 65535])protocol: BGP4          # as number of the peer router          MANDATORY asno(as_number)          # enable flap damping          OPTIONAL flap_damp()          OPTIONAL flap_damp(integer[0,65535],                             # penalty per flap                             integer[0,65535],                             # penalty value for supression                             integer[0,65535],                             # penalty value for reuse                             integer[0,65535],                             # halflife in secs when up                             integer[0,65535],                             # halflife in secs when down                             integer[0,65535])                             # maximum penaltyprotocol: OSPFprotocol: RIPprotocol: IGRPprotocol: IS-ISprotocol: STATICprotocol: RIPngprotocol: DVMRPprotocol: PIM-DMprotocol: PIM-SMprotocol: CBTprotocol: MOSPF                        Figure 27:  RPSL Dictionary   Figure 27 shows the initial RPSL dictionary.  It has seven rp-   attributes:  pref to assign local preference to the routes accepted;   med to assign a value to the MULTI_EXIT_DISCRIMINATOR BGP attribute;   dpa to assign a value to the DPA BGP attribute; aspath to prepend a   value to the AS_PATH BGP attribute; community to assign a value to or   to check the value of the community BGP attribute; next-hop to assign   next hop routers to static routes; and cost to assign a cost to   static routes.  The dictionary defines two types:  community_elm and   community_list.  community_elm type is either a 4-byte unsigned   integer, or one of the keywords internet, no_export or no_advertise   (defined in [9]).  An integer can be specified using two 2-byteAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 42]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   integers seperated by ":"  to partition the community number space so   that a provider can use its AS number as the first two bytes, and   assigns a semantics of its choice to the last two bytes.   The initial dictionary (Figure 27) defines only options for the   Border Gateway Protocol:  asno and flap_damp.  The mandatory asno   option is the AS number of the peer router.  The optional flap_damp   option instructs the router to damp route flaps [21] when importing   routes from the peer router.   It can be specified with or without parameters.  If parameters are   missing, they default to:   flap_damp(1000, 2000, 750, 900, 900, 20000)   That is, a penalty of 1000 is assigned at each route flap, the route   is suppressed when penalty reaches 2000.  The penalty is reduced in   half after 15 minutes (900 seconds) of stability regardless of   whether the route is up or down.  A supressed route is reused when   the penalty falls below 750.  The maximum penalty a route can be   assigned is 20,000 (i.e. the maximum suppress time after a route   becomes stable is about 75 minutes).  These parameters are consistent   with the default flap damping parameters in several routers.Policy Actions and Filters Using RP-Attributes   The syntax of a policy action or a filter using an rp-attribute x is   as follows:    x.method(arguments)    x "op" argument   where method is a method and "op" is an operator method of the rp-   attribute x.  If an operator method is used in specifying a composite   policy filter, it evaluates earlier than the composite policy filter   operators (i.e. AND, OR, NOT, and implicit or operator).   The pref rp-attribute can be assigned a positive integer as follows:   pref = 10;   The med rp-attribute can be assigned either a positive integer or the   word "igp_cost" as follows:   med = 0;   med = igp_cost;   The dpa rp-attribute can be assigned a positive integer as follows:Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 43]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   dpa = 100;   The BGP community attribute is list-valued, that is it is a list of   4-byte integers each representing a "community".  The following   examples demonstrate how to add communities to this rp-attribute:   community .= { 100 };   community .= { NO_EXPORT };   community .= { 3561:10 };   In the last case, a 4-byte integer is constructed where the more   significant two bytes equal 3561 and the less significant two bytes   equal 10.  The following examples demonstrate how to delete   communities from the community rp-attribute:   community.delete(100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10);   Filters that use the community rp-attribute can be defined as   demonstrated by the following examples:   community.contains(100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10);   community(100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10);             # shortcut   The community rp-attribute can be set to a list of communities as   follows:   community = {100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10, 200};   community = {};   In this first case, the community rp-attribute contains the   communities 100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10, and 200.  In the latter case,   the community rp-attribute is cleared.  The community rp-attribute   can be compared against a list of communities as follows:   community == {100, NO_EXPORT, 3561:10, 200};   # exact match   To influence the route selection, the BGP as_path rp-attribute can be   made longer by prepending AS numbers to it as follows:   aspath.prepend(AS1);   aspath.prepend(AS1, AS1, AS1);   The following examples are invalid:   med = -50;                     # -50 is not in the range   med = igp;                     # igp is not one of the enum values   med.assign(10);                # method assign is not defined   community.append(AS3561:20);   # the first argument should be 3561Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 44]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   Figure 28 shows a more advanced example using the rp-attribute   community.  In this example, AS3561 bases its route selection   preference on the community attribute.  Other ASes may indirectly   affect AS3561's route selection by including the appropriate   communities in their route announcements.    aut-num: AS1    export: to AS2 action community.={3561:90};            to AS3 action community.={3561:80};            announce AS1    as-set: AS3561:AS-PEERS    members: AS2, AS3    aut-num: AS3561    import: from AS3561:AS-PEERS            action pref = 10;            accept community(3561:90)    import: from AS3561:AS-PEERS            action pref = 20;            accept community(3561:80)    import: from AS3561:AS-PEERS            action pref = 20;            accept community(3561:70)    import: from AS3561:AS-PEERS            action pref = 0;            accept ANY           Figure 28:  Policy example using the community rp-attribute.8 Advanced route Class8.1 Specifying Aggregate Routes   The components, aggr-bndry, aggr-mtd, export-comps, inject, and holes   attributes are used for specifying aggregate routes [11].  A route   object specifies an aggregate route if any of these attributes, with   the exception of inject, is specified.  The origin attribute for an   aggregate route is the AS performing the aggregation, i.e. the   aggregator AS. In this section, we used the term "aggregate" to refer   to the route generated, the term "component" to refer to the routes   used to generate the path attributes of the aggregate, and the term   "more specifics" to refer to any route which is a more specific of   the aggregate regardless of whether it was used to form the path   attributes.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 45]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   The components attribute defines what component routes are used to   form the aggregate.  Its syntax is as follows:   components: [ATOMIC] [[<filter>] [protocol <protocol> <filter> ...]]   where <protocol> is a routing protocol name such as BGP4, OSPF or RIP   (valid names are defined in the dictionary) and <filter> is a policy   expression.  The routes that match one of these filters and are   learned from the corresponding protocol are used to form the   aggregate.  If <protocol> is omitted, it defaults to any protocol.   <filter> implicitly contains an "AND" term with the more specifics of   the aggregate so that only the component routes are selected.  If the   keyword ATOMIC is used, the aggregation is done atomically [11].  If   a <filter> is not specified it defaults to more specifics.  If the   components attribute is missing, all more specifics without the   ATOMIC keyword is used.   route: 128.8.0.0/15   origin: AS1   components: <^AS2>   route: 128.8.0.0/15   origin: AS1   components: protocol BGP4 {128.8.0.0/16^+}               protocol OSPF {128.9.0.0/16^+}                  Figure 29:  Two aggregate route objects.   Figure 29 shows two route objects.  In the first example, more   specifics of 128.8.0.0/15 with AS paths starting with AS2 are   aggregated.  In the second example, some routes learned from BGP and   some routes learned form OSPF are aggregated.   The aggr-bndry attribute is an AS expression over AS numbers and sets   (seeSection 5.6).  The result defines the set of ASes which form the   aggregation boundary.  If the aggr-bndry attribute is missing, the   origin AS is the sole aggregation boundary.  Outside the aggregation   boundary, only the aggregate is exported and more specifics are   suppressed.  However, within the boundary, the more specifics are   also exchanged.   The aggr-mtd attribute specifies how the aggregate is generated.  Its   syntax is as follows:  aggr-mtd: inbound          | outbound [<as-expression>]Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 46]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   where <as-expression> is an expression over AS numbers and sets (seeSection 5.6).  If <as-expression> is missing, it defaults to AS-ANY.   If outbound aggregation is specified, the more specifics of the   aggregate will be present within the AS and the aggregate will be   formed at all inter-AS boundaries with ASes in <as-expression> before   export, except for ASes that are within the aggregating boundary   (i.e. aggr-bndry is enforced regardless of <as-expression>).  If   inbound aggregation is specified, the aggregate is formed at all   inter-AS boundaries prior to importing routes into the aggregator AS.   Note that <as-expression> can not be specified with inbound   aggregation.  If aggr-mtd attribute is missing, it defaults to   "outbound AS-ANY".   route:      128.8.0.0/15            route:      128.8.0.0/15   origin:     AS1                     origin:     AS2   components: {128.8.0.0/15^-}        components: {128.8.0.0/15^-}   aggr-bndry: AS1 OR AS2              aggr-bndry: AS1 OR AS2   aggr-mtd:   outbound AS-ANY         aggr-mtd:   outbound AS-ANY             Figure 30:  Outbound multi-AS aggregation example.   Figure 30 shows an example of an outbound aggregation.  In this   example, AS1 and AS2 are coordinating aggregation and announcing only   the less specific 128.8.0.0/15 to outside world, but exchanging more   specifics between each other.  This form of aggregation is useful   when some of the components are within AS1 and some are within AS2.   When a set of routes are aggregated, the intent is to export only the   aggregate route and suppress exporting of the more specifics outside   the aggregation boundary.  However, to satisfy certain policy and   topology constraints (e.g. a multi-homed component), it is often   required to export some of the components.  The export-comps   attribute equals an RPSL filter that matches the more specifics that   need to be exported outside the aggregation boundary.  If this   attribute is missing, more specifics are not exported outside the   aggregation boundary.  Note that, the export-comps filter contains an   implicit "AND" term with the more specifics of the aggregate.   Figure 31 shows an example of an outbound aggregation.  In this   example, the more specific 128.8.8.0/24 is exported outside AS1 in   addition to the aggregate.  This is useful, when 128.8.8.0/24 is   multi-homed site to AS1 with some other AS.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 47]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999      route:      128.8.0.0/15      origin:     AS1      components: {128.8.0.0/15^-}      aggr-mtd:   outbound AS-ANY      export-comps: {128.8.8.0/24}             Figure 31:  Outbound aggregation with export exception.   The inject attribute specifies which routers perform the aggregation   and when they perform it.  Its syntax is as follow:  inject: [at <router-expression>] ...          [action <action>]          [upon <condition>]   where <action> is an action specification (seeSection 6.1.1),   <condition> is a boolean expression described below, and <router-   expression> is as described inSection 5.6.   All routers in <router-expression> and in the aggregator AS perform   the aggregation.  If a <router-expression> is not specified, all   routers inside the aggregator AS perform the aggregation.  The   <action> specification may set path attributes of the aggregate, such   as assign a preferences to the aggregate.   The upon clause is a boolean condition.  The aggregate is generated   if and only if this condition is true.  <condition> is a boolean   expression using the logical operators AND and OR (i.e. operator NOT   is not allowed) over:   HAVE-COMPONENTS { list of prefixes }   EXCLUDE { list of prefixes }   STATIC   The list of prefixes in HAVE-COMPONENTS can only be more specifics of   the aggregate.  It evaluates to true when all the prefixes listed are   present in the routing table of the aggregating router.  The list can   also include prefix ranges (i.e. using operators ^-, ^+, ^n, and ^n-   m).  In this case, at least one prefix from each prefix range needs   to be present in the routing table for the condition to be true.  The   list of prefixes in EXCLUDE can be arbitrary.  It evaluates to true   when none of the prefixes listed is present in the routing table.   The list can also include prefix ranges, and no prefix in that range   should be present in the routing table.  The keyword static always   evaluates to true.  If no upon clause is specified the aggregate is   generated if an only if there is a component in the routing table   (i.e. a more specific that matches the filter in the componentsAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 48]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   attribute).   route:      128.8.0.0/15   origin:     AS1   components: {128.8.0.0/15^-}   aggr-mtd:   outbound AS-ANY   inject:     at 1.1.1.1 action dpa = 100;   inject:     at 1.1.1.2 action dpa = 110;   route:      128.8.0.0/15   origin:     AS1   components: {128.8.0.0/15^-}   aggr-mtd:   outbound AS-ANY   inject:     upon HAVE-COMPONENTS {128.8.0.0/16, 128.9.0.0/16}   holes:      128.8.8.0/24                      Figure 32:  Examples of inject.   Figure 32 shows two examples.  In the first case, the aggregate is   injected at two routers each one setting the dpa path attribute   differently.  In the second case, the aggregate is generated only if   both 128.8.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/16 are present in the routing table,   as opposed to the first case where the presence of just one of them   is sufficient for injection.   The holes attribute lists the component address prefixes which are   not reachable through the aggregate route (perhaps that part of the   address space is unallocated).  The holes attribute is useful for   diagnosis purposes.  In Figure 32, the second example has a hole,   namely 128.8.8.0/24.  This may be due to a customer changing   providers and taking this part of the address space with it.8.1.1 Interaction with policies in aut-num class   An aggregate formed is announced to other ASes only if the export   policies of the AS allows exporting the aggregate.  When the   aggregate is formed, the more specifics are suppressed from being   exported except to the ASes in aggr-bndry and except the components   in export-comps.  For such exceptions to happen, the export policies   of the AS should explicitly allow exporting of these exceptions.   If an aggregate is not formed (due to the upon clause), then the more   specifics of the aggregate can be exported to other ASes, but only if   the export policies of the AS allows it.  In other words, before a   route (aggregate or more specific) is exported it is filtered twice,   once based on the route objects, and once based on the export   policies of the AS.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 49]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   route:        128.8.0.0/16   origin:       AS1   route:        128.9.0.0/16   origin:       AS1   route:        128.8.0.0/15   origin:       AS1   aggr-bndry:   AS1 or AS2 or AS3   aggr-mtd:     outbound AS3 or AS4 or AS5   components:   {128.8.0.0/16, 128.9.0.0/16}   inject:       upon HAVE-COMPONENTS {128.9.0.0/16, 128.8.0.0/16}   aut-num: AS1   export:  to AS2 announce AS1   export:  to AS3 announce AS1 and not {128.9.0.0/16}   export:  to AS4 announce AS1   export:  to AS5 announce AS1   export:  to AS6 announce AS1          Figure 33:  Interaction with policies in aut-num class.   In Figure 33 shows an interaction example.  By examining the route   objects, the more specifics 128.8.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/16 should be   exchanged between AS1, AS2 and AS3 (i.e. the aggregation boundary).   Outbound aggregation is done to AS4 and AS5 and not to AS3, since AS3   is in the aggregation boundary.  The aut-num object allows exporting   both components to AS2, but only the component 128.8.0.0/16 to AS3.   The aggregate can only be formed if both components are available.   In this case, only the aggregate is announced to AS4 and AS5.   However, if one of the components is not available the aggregate will   not be formed, and any available component or more specific will be   exported to AS4 and AS5.  Regardless of aggregation is performed or   not, only the more specifics will be exported to AS6 (it is not   listed in the aggr-mtd attribute).   When doing an inbound aggregation, configuration generators may   eliminating the aggregation statements on routers where import policy   of the AS prohibits importing of any more specifics.8.1.2 Ambiguity resolution with overlapping aggregates   When several aggregate routes are specified and they overlap, i.e.   one is less specific of the other, they must be evaluated more   specific to less specific order.  When an outbound aggregation is   performed for a peer, the aggregate and the components listed in the   export-comps attribute for that peer are available for generating theAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 50]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   next less specific aggregate.  The components that are not specified   in the export-comps attribute are not available.  A route is   exportable to an AS if it is the least specific aggregate exportable   to that AS or it is listed in the export-comps attribute of an   exportable route.  Note that this is a recursive definition.   route:        128.8.0.0/15   origin:       AS1   aggr-bndry:   AS1 or AS2   aggr-mtd:     outbound   inject:       upon HAVE-COMPONENTS {128.8.0.0/16, 128.9.0.0/16}   route:        128.10.0.0/15   origin:       AS1   aggr-bndry:   AS1 or AS3   aggr-mtd:     outbound   inject:       upon HAVE-COMPONENTS {128.10.0.0/16, 128.11.0.0/16}   export-comps: {128.11.0.0/16}   route:        128.8.0.0/14   origin:       AS1   aggr-bndry:   AS1 or AS2 or AS3   aggr-mtd:     outbound   inject:       upon HAVE-COMPONENTS {128.8.0.0/15, 128.10.0.0/15}   export-comps: {128.10.0.0/15}                   Figure 34:  Overlapping aggregations.   In Figure 34, AS1 together with AS2 aggregates 128.8.0.0/16 and   128.9.0.0/16 into 128.8.0.0/15.  Together with AS3, AS1 aggregates   128.10.0.0/16 and 128.11.0.0/16 into 128.10.0.0/15.  But altogether   they aggregate these four routes into 128.8.0.0/14.  Assuming all   four components are available, a router in AS1 for an outside AS, say   AS4, will first generate 128.8.0.0/15 and 128.10.0.0/15.  This will   make 128.8.0.0/15, 128.10.0.0/15 and its exception 128.11.0.0/16   available for generating 128.8.0.0/14.  The router will then generate   128.8.0.0/14 from these three routes.  Hence for AS4, 128.8.0.0/14   and its exception 128.10.0.0/15 and its exception 128.11.0.0/16 will   be exportable.   For AS2, a router in AS1 will only generate 128.10.0.0/15.  Hence,   128.10.0.0/15 and its exception 128.11.0.0/16 will be exportable.   Note that 128.8.0.0/16 and 128.9.0.0/16 are also exportable since   they did not participate in an aggregate exportable to AS2.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 51]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   Similarly, for AS3, a router in AS1 will only generate 128.8.0.0/15.   In this case 128.8.0.0/15, 128.10.0.0/16, 128.11.0.0/16 are   exportable.8.2 Specifying Static Routes   The inject attribute can be used to specify static routes by using   "upon static" as the condition:  inject: [at <router-expression>] ...          [action <action>]          upon static   In this case, the routers in <router-expression> executes the   <action> and injects the route to the interAS routing system   statically.  <action> may set certain route attributes such as a   next-hop router or a cost.   In the following example, the router 7.7.7.1 injects the route   128.7.0.0/16.  The next-hop routers (in this example, there are two   next-hop routers) for this route are 7.7.7.2 and 7.7.7.3 and the   route has a cost of 10 over 7.7.7.2 and 20 over 7.7.7.3.   route:  128.7.0.0/16   origin: AS1   inject: at 7.7.7.1 action next-hop = 7.7.7.2; cost = 10; upon static   inject: at 7.7.7.1 action next-hop = 7.7.7.3; cost = 20; upon static9 inet-rtr ClassRouters are specified using the inet-rtr class.  The attributes of theinet-rtr class are shown in Figure 35.  The inet-rtr attribute is a validDNS name of the router described.  Each alias attribute, if present, is acanonical DNS name for the router.  The local-as attribute specifies the ASnumber of the AS which owns/operates this router.  Attribute  Value                    Type  inet-rtr   <dns-name>               mandatory, single-valued, class key  alias      <dns-name>               optional, multi-valued  local-as   <as-number>              mandatory, single-valued  ifaddr     see description in text  mandatory, multi-valued  peer       see description in text  optional, multi-valued  member-of  list of <rtr-set-names>  optional, multi-valued                   Figure 35:  inet-rtr Class AttributesAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 52]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   The value of an ifaddr attribute has the following syntax:   <ipv4-address> masklen <integer> [action <action>]   The IP address and the mask length are mandatory for each interface.   Optionally an action can be specified to set other parameters of this   interface.   Figure 36 presents an example inet-rtr object.  The name of the   router is "amsterdam.ripe.net".  "amsterdam1.ripe.net" is a canonical   name for the router.  The router is connected to 4 networks.  Its IP   addresses and mask lengths in those networks are specified in the   ifaddr attributes.    inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net    alias:    amsterdam1.ripe.net    local-as: AS3333    ifaddr:   192.87.45.190 masklen 24    ifaddr:   192.87.4.28   masklen 24    ifaddr:   193.0.0.222   masklen 27    ifaddr:   193.0.0.158   masklen 27    peer:     BGP4 192.87.45.195 asno(AS3334), flap_damp()                           Figure 36:  inet-rtr Objects   Each peer attribute, if present, specifies a protocol peering with   another router.  The value of a peer attribute has the following   syntax:     <protocol> <ipv4-address>      <options>   | <protocol> <inet-rtr-name>     <options>   | <protocol> <rtr-set-name>      <options>   | <protocol> <peering-set-name>  <options>   where <protocol> is a protocol name, <ipv4-address> is the IP address   of the peer router, and <options> is a comma separated list of   peering options for <protocol>.  Instead of the peer's IP address,   its inet-rtr-name can be used.  Possible protocol names and   attributes are defined in the dictionary (please seeSection 7).  In   the above example, the router has a BGP peering with the router   192.87.45.195 in AS3334 and turns the flap damping on when importing   routes from this router.   Instead of a single peer, a group of peers can be specified by using   the <rtr-set-name> and <peering-set-name> forms.  If <peering-set-   name> form is being used only the peerings in the corresponding   peering set that are with this router are included.  Figure 37 showsAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 53]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   an example inet-rtr object with peering groups.    rtr-set: rtrs-ibgp-peers    members: 1.1.1.1, 2.2.2.2, 3.3.3.3    peering-set: prng-ebgp-peers    peering: AS3334 192.87.45.195    peering: AS3335 192.87.45.196    inet-rtr: Amsterdam.ripe.net    alias:    amsterdam1.ripe.net    local-as: AS3333    ifaddr:   192.87.45.190 masklen 24    ifaddr:   192.87.4.28   masklen 24    ifaddr:   193.0.0.222   masklen 27    ifaddr:   193.0.0.158   masklen 27    peer:     BGP4 rtrs-ibgp-peers asno(AS3333), flap_damp()    peer:     BGP4 prng-ebgp-peers asno(PeerAS), flap_damp()                 Figure 37:  inet-rtr Object with peering groups10 Extending RPSL   Our experience with earlier routing policy languages and data formats   (PRDB [2], RIPE-81 [8], and RIPE-181 [7]) taught us that RPSL had to   be extensible.  As a result, extensibility was a primary design goal   for RPSL.  New routing protocols or new features to existing routing   protocols can be easily handled using RPSL's dictionary class.  New   classes or new attributes to the existing classes can also be added.   This section provides guidelines for extending RPSL. These guidelines   are designed with an eye toward maintaining backward compatibility   with existing tools and databases.  We next list the available   options for extending RPSL from the most preferred to the least   preferred order.10.1 Extensions by changing the dictionary class   The dictionary class is the primary mechanism provided to extend   RPSL.  Dictionary objects define routing policy attributes, types,   and routing protocols.   We recommend updating the RPSL dictionary to include appropriate rp-   attribute and protocol definitions as new path attributes or router   features are introduced.  For example, in an earlier version of the   RPSL document, it was only possible to specify that a router performs   route flap damping on a peer, but it was not possible to specify theAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 54]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   parameters of route flap damping.  Later the parameters were added by   changing the dictionary.   When changing the dictionary, full compatibility should be   maintained.  For example, in our flap damping case, we made the   parameter specification optional in case this level of detail was not   desired by some ISPs.  This also achieved compatibility.  Any object   registered without the parameters will continue to be valid.  Any   tool based on RPSL is expected to do a default action on routing   policy attributes that they do not understand (e.g. issue a warning   and otherwise ignore).  Hence, old tools upon encountering a flap   damping specification with parameters will ignore the parameters.10.2 Extensions by adding new attributes to existing classes   New attributes can be added to any class.  To ensure full   compatibility, new attributes should not contradict the semantics of   the objects they are attached to.  Any tool that uses the IRR should   be designed so that it ignores attributes that it doesn't understand.   Most existing tools adhere to this design principle.   We recommend adding new attributes to existing classes when a new   aspect of a class is discovered.  For example, RPSL route class   extends its RIPE-181 predecessor by including several new attributes   that enable aggregate and static route specification.10.3 Extensions by adding new classes   New classes can be added to RPSL to store new types of policy data.   Providing full compatibility is straight forward as long as existing   classes are still understood.  Since a tool should only query the IRR   for the classes that it understand, full compatibility should not be   a problem in this case.   Before adding a new class, one should question if the information   contained in the objects of the new class could have better belonged   to some other class.  For example, if the geographic location of a   router needs to be stored in IRR, it may be tempting to add a new   class called, say router-location class.  However, the information   better belongs to the inet-rtr class, perhaps in a new attribute   called location.10.4 Extensions by changing the syntax of existing RPSL attributes   If all of the methods described above fail to provide the desired   extension, it may be necessary to change the syntax of RPSL. Any   change in RPSL syntax must provide backwards compatibility, and   should be considered only as a last resort since full compatibilityAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 55]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   may not be achievable.  However, we require that the old syntax to be   still valid.11 Security Considerations   This document describes RPSL, a language for expressing routing   policies.  The language defines a maintainer (mntner class) object   which is the entity which controls or "maintains" the objects stored   in a database expressed by RPSL. Requests from maintainers can be   authenticated with various techniques as defined by the "auth"   attribute of the maintainer object.   The exact protocols used by IRR's to communicate RPSL objects is   beyond the scope of this document, but it is envisioned that several   techniques may be used, ranging from interactive query/update   protocols to store and forward protocols similar to or based on   electronic mail (or even voice telephone calls).  Regardless of which   protocols are used in a given situation, it is expected that   appropriate security techniques such as IPSEC, TLS or PGP/MIME will   be utilized.12 Acknowledgements   We would like to thank Jessica Yu, Randy Bush, Alan Barrett, Bill   Manning, Sue Hares, Ramesh Govindan, Kannan Varadhan, Satish Kumar,   Craig Labovitz, Rusty Eddy, David J. LeRoy, David Whipple, Jon   Postel, Deborah Estrin, Elliot Schwartz, Joachim Schmitz, Mark Prior,   Tony Przygienda, David Woodgate, Rob Coltun, Sanjay Wadhwa, Ardas   Cilingiroglu, and the participants of the IETF RPS Working Group for   various comments and suggestions.References   [1] Internet routing registry. procedures.http://www.ra.net/RADB.tools.docs/,http://www.ripe.net/db/doc.html.   [2] Nsfnet policy routing database (prdb). Maintained by MERIT       Network Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. Contents available from       nic.merit.edu.:/nsfnet/announced.networks/nets.tag.now by       anonymous ftp.   [3] Alaettinouglu, C., Bates, T., Gerich, E., Karrenberg, D., Meyer,       D., Terpstra, M. and C. Villamizer, "Routing Policy Specification       Language (RPSL)",RFC 2280, January 1998.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 56]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999   [4] C. Alaettinouglu, D. Meyer, and J. Schmitz. Application of       routing policy specification language (rpsl) on the internet.       Work in Progress.   [5] T. Bates. Specifying an `internet router' in the routing       registry.  Technical Report RIPE-122, RIPE, RIPE NCC, Amsterdam,       Netherlands, October 1994.   [6] T. Bates, E. Gerich, L. Joncheray, J-M. Jouanigot, D. Karrenberg,       M. Terpstra, and J. Yu. Representation of ip routing policies in       a routing registry. Technical Report ripe-181, RIPE, RIPE NCC,       Amsterdam, Netherlands, October 1994.   [7] Bates, T., Gerich, E., Joncheray, L., Jouanigot, J-M.,       Karrenberg, D., Terpstra, M. and J. Yu, " Representation of IP       Routing Policies in a Routing Registry",RFC 1786, March 1995.   [8] T. Bates, J-M. Jouanigot, D. Karrenberg, P. Lothberg, and M.       Terpstra.  Representation of ip routing policies in the ripe       database. Technical Report ripe-81, RIPE, RIPE NCC, Amsterdam,       Netherlands, February 1993.   [9] Chandra, R., Traina, P. and T. Li, "BGP Communities Attribute",RFC 1997, August 1996.  [10] Crocker, D., "Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages", STD 11,RFC 822, August 1982.  [11] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J. and K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter-       Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation       Strategy",RFC 1519, September 1993.  [12] D. Karrenberg and T. Bates. Description of inter-as networks in       the ripe routing registry. Technical Report RIPE-104, RIPE, RIPE       NCC, Amsterdam, Netherlands, December 1993.  [13] D. Karrenberg and M. Terpstra. Authorisation and notification of       changes in the ripe database. Technical Report ripe-120, RIPE,       RIPE NCC, Amsterdam, Netherlands, October 1994.  [14] B. W. Kernighan and D. M. Ritchie. The C Programming Language.       Prentice-Hall, 1978.  [15] A. Lord and M. Terpstra. Ripe database template for networks and       persons. Technical Report ripe-119, RIPE, RIPE NCC, Amsterdam,       Netherlands, October 1994.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 57]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999  [16] A. M. R. Magee. Ripe ncc database documentation. Technical Report       RIPE-157, RIPE, RIPE NCC, Amsterdam, Netherlands, May 1997.  [17] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD       13,RFC 1034, November 1987.  [18] Y. Rekhter. Inter-domain routing protocol (idrp). Journal of       Internetworking Research and Experience, 4:61--80, 1993.  [19] Rekhter Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",RFC1771, March 1995.  [20] C. Villamizar, C. Alaettinouglu, D. Meyer, S. Murphy, and C.       Orange.  Routing policy system security", Work in Progress.  [21] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R. and R. Govindan, "BGP Route Flap       Damping",RFC 2439, November 1998.  [22] J. Zsako,"PGP authentication for ripe database updates", Work in       Progress.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 58]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999A Routing Registry Sites   The set of routing registries as of November 1996 are RIPE, RADB,   CANet, MCI and ANS. You may contact one of these registries to find   out the current list of registries.B Grammar Rules   In this section we provide formal grammar rules for RPSL. Basic data   types are defined inSection 2.  We do not provide formal grammar   rules for attributes whose values are of basic types or list of basic   types.  The rules are written using the input language of GNU Bison   parser.  Hence, they can be cut and pasted to that program.//**** Generic Attributes **********************************************changed_attribute: ATTR_CHANGED TKN_EMAIL TKN_INT//**** aut-num class ***************************************************//// as_expression /////////////////////////////////////////////////////opt_as_expression:| as_expressionas_expression: as_expression OP_OR as_expression_term| as_expression_termas_expression_term: as_expression_term OP_AND as_expression_factor| as_expression_term KEYW_EXCEPT as_expression_factor| as_expression_factoras_expression_factor: '(' as_expression ')'| as_expression_operandas_expression_operand: TKN_ASNO| TKN_ASNAME//// router_expression /////////////////////////////////////////////////opt_router_expression:| router_expressionopt_router_expression_with_at:| KEYW_AT router_expressionrouter_expression: router_expression OP_OR router_expression_term| router_expression_termAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 59]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999router_expression_term: router_expression_term OP_AND                        router_expression_factor| router_expression_term KEYW_EXCEPT router_expression_factor| router_expression_factorrouter_expression_factor: '(' router_expression ')'| router_expression_operandrouter_expression_operand: TKN_IPV4| TKN_DNS| TKN_RTRSNAME//// peering ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////peering: as_expression opt_router_expression opt_router_expression_with_at| TKN_PRNGNAME//// action ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////opt_action:| KEYW_ACTION actionaction: single_action| action single_actionsingle_action: TKN_RP_ATTR '.' TKN_WORD '(' generic_list ')' ';'| TKN_RP_ATTR TKN_OPERATOR list_item ';'| TKN_RP_ATTR '(' generic_list ')' ';'| TKN_RP_ATTR '[' generic_list ']' ';'| ';'//// filter ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////filter: filter OP_OR filter_term| filter filter_term %prec OP_OR| filter_termfilter_term : filter_term OP_AND filter_factor| filter_factorfilter_factor :  OP_NOT filter_factor| '(' filter ')'| filter_operandfilter_operand: KEYW_ANY| '<' filter_aspath '>'| filter_rp_attribute| TKN_FLTRNAME| filter_prefixAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 60]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999filter_prefix: filter_prefix_operand OP_MS|  filter_prefix_operandfilter_prefix_operand: TKN_ASNO| KEYW_PEERAS| TKN_ASNAME| TKN_RSNAME| '{' opt_filter_prefix_list '}'opt_filter_prefix_list:| filter_prefix_listfilter_prefix_list: filter_prefix_list_prefix| filter_prefix_list ',' filter_prefix_list_prefixfilter_prefix_list_prefix: TKN_PRFXV4| TKN_PRFXV4RNGfilter_aspath: filter_aspath '|' filter_aspath_term| filter_aspath_termfilter_aspath_term: filter_aspath_term filter_aspath_closure| filter_aspath_closurefilter_aspath_closure: filter_aspath_closure '*'| filter_aspath_closure '?'| filter_aspath_closure '+'| filter_aspath_factorfilter_aspath_factor: '^'| '$'| '(' filter_aspath ')'| filter_aspath_nofilter_aspath_no: TKN_ASNO| KEYW_PEERAS| TKN_ASNAME| '.'| '[' filter_aspath_range ']'| '[' '^' filter_aspath_range ']'filter_aspath_range:| filter_aspath_range TKN_ASNO| filter_aspath_range KEYW_PEERAS| filter_aspath_range '.'| filter_aspath_range TKN_ASNO '-' TKN_ASNO| filter_aspath_range TKN_ASNAMEAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 61]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999filter_rp_attribute: TKN_RP_ATTR '.' TKN_WORD '(' generic_list ')'| TKN_RP_ATTR TKN_OPERATOR list_item| TKN_RP_ATTR '(' generic_list ')'| TKN_RP_ATTR '[' generic_list ']'//// peering action pair ///////////////////////////////////////////////import_peering_action_list: KEYW_FROM peering opt_action| import_peering_action_list KEYW_FROM peering opt_actionexport_peering_action_list: KEYW_TO peering opt_action| export_peering_action_list KEYW_TO peering opt_action//// import/export factor //////////////////////////////////////////////import_factor: import_peering_action_list KEYW_ACCEPT filterimport_factor_list: import_factor ';'| import_factor_list import_factor ';'export_factor: export_peering_action_list KEYW_ANNOUNCE filterexport_factor_list: export_factor ';'| export_factor_list export_factor ';'//// import/export term ////////////////////////////////////////////////import_term: import_factor ';'| '{' import_factor_list '}'export_term: export_factor ';'| '{' export_factor_list '}'//// import/export expression //////////////////////////////////////////import_expression: import_term| import_term KEYW_REFINE import_expression| import_term KEYW_EXCEPT import_expressionexport_expression: export_term| export_term KEYW_REFINE export_expression| export_term KEYW_EXCEPT export_expression//// protocol ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////opt_protocol_from:| KEYW_PROTOCOL tkn_wordAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 62]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999opt_protocol_into:| KEYW_INTO tkn_word//**** import/export attributes ****************************************import_attribute: ATTR_IMPORT| ATTR_IMPORT opt_protocol_from opt_protocol_into import_factorexport_attribute: ATTR_EXPORT| ATTR_EXPORT opt_protocol_from opt_protocol_into export_factoropt_default_filter:| KEYW_NETWORKS filterdefault_attribute: ATTR_DEFAULT KEYW_TO peeringfilter_attribute: ATTR_FILTER filterpeering_attribute: ATTR_PEERING peering//**** inet-rtr class **************************************************ifaddr_attribute: ATTR_IFADDR TKN_IPV4 KEYW_MASKLEN TKN_INT opt_action//// peer attribute ////////////////////////////////////////////////////opt_peer_options:| peer_optionspeer_options: peer_option| peer_options ',' peer_optionpeer_option: tkn_word '(' generic_list ')'peer_id: TKN_IPV4| TKN_DNS| TKN_RTRSNAME| TKN_PRNGNAMEpeer_attribute: ATTR_PEER tkn_word peer_id opt_peer_options//**** route class *****************************************************aggr_bndry_attribute: ATTR_AGGR_BNDRY as_expressionaggr_mtd_attribute: ATTR_AGGR_MTD KEYW_INBOUND| ATTR_AGGR_MTD KEYW_OUTBOUND opt_as_expressionAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 63]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999//// inject attribute //////////////////////////////////////////////////opt_inject_expression:| KEYW_UPON inject_expressioninject_expression: inject_expression OP_OR inject_expression_term| inject_expression_terminject_expression_term: inject_expression_term OP_AND                        inject_expression_factor| inject_expression_factorinject_expression_factor: '(' inject_expression ')'| inject_expression_operandinject_expression_operand: KEYW_STATIC| KEYW_HAVE_COMPONENTS '{' opt_filter_prefix_list '}'| KEYW_EXCLUDE '{' opt_filter_prefix_list '}'inject_attribute: ATTR_INJECT opt_router_expression_with_at opt_action                              opt_inject_expression//// components attribute //////////////////////////////////////////////opt_atomic:| KEYW_ATOMICcomponents_list:| filter| components_list KEYW_PROTOCOL tkn_word filtercomponents_attribute: ATTR_COMPONENTS opt_atomic components_list//**** route-set *******************************************************opt_rs_members_list: /* empty list */| rs_members_listrs_members_list: rs_member| rs_members_list ',' rs_memberrs_member: TKN_ASNO| TKN_ASNO OP_MS| TKN_ASNAME| TKN_ASNAME OP_MS| TKN_RSNAME| TKN_RSNAME OP_MS| TKN_PRFXV4Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 64]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999| TKN_PRFXV4RNGrs_members_attribute: ATTR_RS_MEMBERS opt_rs_members_list//**** dictionary ******************************************************rpattr_attribute: ATTR_RP_ATTR TKN_WORD methods| ATTR_RP_ATTR TKN_RP_ATTR methodsmethods: method| methods methodmethod: TKN_WORD '(' ')'| TKN_WORD '(' typedef_type_list ')'| TKN_WORD '(' typedef_type_list ',' TKN_3DOTS ')'| KEYW_OPERATOR TKN_OPERATOR '(' typedef_type_list ')'| KEYW_OPERATOR TKN_OPERATOR '(' typedef_type_list ',' TKN_3DOTS ')'//// typedef attribute  ////////////////////////////////////////////////typedef_attribute: ATTR_TYPEDEF TKN_WORD typedef_typetypedef_type_list: typedef_type| typedef_type_list ',' typedef_typetypedef_type: KEYW_UNION typedef_type_list| KEYW_RANGE KEYW_OF typedef_type| TKN_WORD| TKN_WORD '[' TKN_INT ',' TKN_INT ']'| TKN_WORD '[' TKN_REAL ',' TKN_REAL ']'| TKN_WORD '[' enum_list ']'| KEYW_LIST '[' TKN_INT ':' TKN_INT ']' KEYW_OF typedef_type| KEYW_LIST KEYW_OF typedef_typeenum_list: tkn_word| enum_list ',' tkn_word//// protocol attribute ////////////////////////////////////////////////protocol_attribute: ATTR_PROTOCOL tkn_word protocol_optionsprotocol_options:| protocol_options protocol_optionprotocol_option: KEYW_MANDATORY method| KEYW_OPTIONAL method//**** Token Definitions ***********************************************Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 65]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999//// flex macros used in token definitions /////////////////////////////INT            [[:digit:]]+SINT           [+-]?{INT}REAL           [+-]?{INT}?\.{INT}({WS}*E{WS}*[+-]?{INT})?NAME           [[:alpha:]]([[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]])?ASNO           AS{INT}ASNAME         AS-[[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]]RSNAME         RS-[[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]]RTRSNAME       RTRS-[[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]]PRNGNAME       PRNG-[[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]]FLTRNAME       FLTR-[[:alnum:]_-]*[[:alnum:]]IPV4           [0-9]+(\.[0-9]+){3,3}PRFXV4         {IPV4}\/[0-9]+PRFXV4RNG      {PRFXV4}("^+"|"^-"|"^"{INT}|"^"{INT}-{INT})ENAMECHAR      [^()<>,;:\\\"\.[\] \t\r]ENAME          ({ENAMECHAR}+(\.{ENAMECHAR}+)*\.?)|(\"[^\"@\\\r\n]+\")DNAME          [[:alnum:]_-]+//// Token Definitions ////////////////////////////////////////////////TKN_INT         {SINT}TKN_INT         {INT}:{INT}             if each {INT} is two octetsTKN_INT         {INT}.{INT}.{INT}.{INT} if each {INT} is one octetTKN_REAL        {REAL}TKN_STRING      Same as in programming language CTKN_IPV4        {IPV4}TKN_PRFXV4      {PRFXV4}TKN_PRFXV4RNG   {PRFXV4RNG}TKN_ASNO        {ASNO}TKN_ASNAME      (({ASNO}|peeras|{ASNAME}):)*{ASNAME}\                (:({ASNO}|peeras|{ASNAME}))*TKN_RSNAME      (({ASNO}|peeras|{RSNAME}):)*{RSNAME}\                (:({ASNO}|peeras|{RSNAME}))*TKN_RTRSNAME    (({ASNO}|peeras|{RTRSNAME}):)*{RTRSNAME}\                (:({ASNO}|peeras|{RTRSNAME}))*TKN_PRNGNAME    (({ASNO}|peeras|{PRNGNAME}):)*{PRNGNAME}\                (:({ASNO}|peeras|{PRNGNAME}))*TKN_FLTRNAME    (({ASNO}|peeras|{FLTRNAME}):)*{FLTRNAME}\                (:({ASNO}|peeras|{FLTRNAME}))*TKN_BOOLEAN     true|falseTKN_RP_ATTR     {NAME} if defined in dictionaryTKN_WORD        {NAME}TKN_DNS         {DNAME}("."{DNAME})+TKN_EMAIL       {ENAME}@({DNAME}("."{DNAME})+|{IPV4})Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 66]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999C Changes fromRFC 2280RFC 2280 [3] contains an earlier version of RPSL. This section   summarizes the changes since then.  They are as follows:  o  It is now possible to write integers as sequence of four 1-octet     integers (e.g. 1.1.1.1) or as sequence of two 2-octet integers     (e.g.  3561:70).  Please seeSection 2.  o  The definition of address prefix range is extended so that an     address prefix is also an address prefix range.  Please seeSection2.  o  The semantics for a range operator applied to a set containing     address prefix ranges is defined (e.g. {30.0.0.0/8^24-28}^27-30).     Please seeSection 2.  o  All dates are now in UTC. Please seeSection 2.  o  Plus ('+') character is added to space and tab characters to split     an attribute's value to multiple lines (i.e. by starting the     following lines with a space, a tab or a plus ('+') character).     Please seeSection 2.  o  The withdrawn attribute of route class is removed from the     language.  o  filter-set class is introduced.  Please seeSection 5.4.  o  rtr-set class is introduced.  Please seeSection 5.5.  o  peering-set class is introduced.  Please seeSection 5.6.  o  Filters can now refer to filter-set names.  Please seeSection 5.4.  o  Peerings can now refer to peering-set, rtr-set names.  Both local     and peer routers can be specified using router expressions.  Please     seeSection 5.6.  o  The peer attribute of the inet-rtr class can refer to peering-set,     rtr-set names.  Please seeSection 9.  o  The syntax and semantics of union, and list types and typedef     attribute have changed.  Please seeSection 7.  o  In the initial dictionary, the typedef attribute defining the     community_elm, rp-attribute defining the community attribute has     changed.  Please seeSection 7.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 67]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999  o  Guideliness for extending RPSL is added.  Please seeSection 10.  o  Formal grammar rules are added.  Please seeAppendix B.D Authors' Addresses   Cengiz Alaettinoglu   USC/Information Sciences Institute   EMail: cengiz@isi.edu   Curtis Villamizar   Avici Systems   EMail: curtis@avici.com   Elise Gerich   At Home Network   EMail: epg@home.net   David Kessens   Qwest Communications   EMail: David.Kessens@qwest.net   David Meyer   University of Oregon   EMail: meyer@antc.uoregon.edu   Tony Bates   Cisco Systems, Inc.   EMail: tbates@cisco.com   Daniel Karrenberg   RIPE NCC   EMail: dfk@ripe.net   Marten Terpstra   c/o Bay Networks, Inc.   EMail: marten@BayNetworks.comAlaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 68]

RFC 2622                          RPSL                         June 1999Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  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 implmentation 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 of developing   Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined   in the Internet Standards process must be followed, 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 INFORMATION HEREIN   WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Alaettinoglu, et al.        Standards Track                    [Page 69]

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp