<- BCP Index (1..100)
(also RFC 1930, RFC 6996, RFC 7300)
[Note that this file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]
Network Working Group J. Hawkinson
Request for Comments: 1930 BBN Planet
BCP: 6 T. Bates
Category: Best Current Practice MCI
March 1996
Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration
of an Autonomous System (AS)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This memo discusses when it is appropriate to register and utilize an
Autonomous System (AS), and lists criteria for such. ASes are the
unit of routing policy in the modern world of exterior routing, and
are specifically applicable to protocols like EGP (Exterior Gateway
Protocol, now at historical status; see [EGP]), BGP (Border Gateway
Protocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS routing; see
[BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol, which the
Internet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see [IDRP]).
It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the RDI, or
Routing Domain Identifier.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................ 2
2. Motivation .............................................. 2
3. Definitions ............................................. 2
4. Common errors in allocating ASes ........................ 5
5. Criteria for the decision -- do I need an AS? .......... 5
5.1 Sample Cases ........................................... 6
5.2 Other Factors .......................................... 7
6. Speculation ............................................. 7
7. One prefix, one origin AS ............................... 8
8. IGP issues .............................................. 8
9. AS Space exhaustion ..................................... 8
10. Reserved AS Numbers .................................... 9
11. Security Considerations ................................ 9
12. Acknowledgments ........................................ 9
13. References ............................................. 9
14. Authors' Addresses ..................................... 10
Hawkinson & Bates Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 1930 Guidelines for creation of an AS March 1996
1. Introduction
This memo discusses when it is appropriate to register and utilize an
Autonomous System (AS), and lists criteria for such. ASes are the
unit of routing policy in the modern world of exterior routing, and
are specifically applicable to protocols like EGP (Exterior Gateway
Protocol, now at historical status; see [EGP]), BGP (Border Gateway
Protocol, the current de facto standard for inter-AS routing; see
[BGP-4]), and IDRP (The OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol, which the
Internet is expected to adopt when BGP becomes obsolete; see [IDRP]).
It should be noted that the IDRP equivalent of an AS is the RDI, or
Routing Domain Identifier.
2. Motivation
This memo is aimed at network operators and service providers who
need to understand under what circumstances they should make use of
an AS. It is expected that the reader is familiar with routing
protocols and will be someone who configures and operates Internet
networks. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of confusion in how
ASes should be used today; this memo attempts to clear up some of
this confusion, as well as acting as a simple guide to today's
exterior routing.
3. Definitions
This document refers to the term "prefix" throughout. In the current
classless Internet (see [CIDR]), a block of class A, B, or C networks
may be referred to by merely a prefix and a mask, so long as such a
block of networks begins and ends on a power-of-two boundary. For
example, the networks:
192.168.0.0/24
192.168.1.0/24
192.168.2.0/24
192.168.3.0/24
can be simply referred to as:
192.168.0.0/22
The term "prefix" as it is used here is equivalent to "CIDR block",
and in simple terms may be thought of as a group of one or more
networks. We use the term "network" to mean classful network, or "A,
B, C network".
The definition of AS has been unclear and ambiguous for some time.
[BGP-4] states:
Hawkinson & Bates Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 1930 Guidelines for creation of an AS March 1996
The classic definition of an Autonomous System is a set of routers
under a single technical administration, using an interior gateway
protocol and common metrics to route packets within the AS, and
using an exterior gateway protocol to route packets to other ASes.
Since this classic definition was developed, it has become common
for a single AS to use several interior gateway protocols and
sometimes several sets of metrics within an AS. The use of the
term Autonomous System here stresses the fact that, even when
multiple IGPs and metrics are used, the administration of an AS
appears to other ASes to have a single coherent interior routing
plan and presents a consistent picture of what networks are
reachable through it.
To rephrase succinctly:
An AS is a connected group of one or more IP prefixes run by one
or more network operators which has a SINGLE and CLEARLY DEFINED
routing policy.
Routing policy here is defined as how routing decisions are made in
the Internet today. It is the exchange of routing information
between ASes that is subject to routing policies. Consider the case
of two ASes, X and Y exchanging routing information:
NET1 ...... ASX <---> ASY ....... NET2
ASX knows how to reach a prefix called NET1. It does not matter
whether NET1 belongs to ASX or to some other AS which exchanges
routing information with ASX, either directly or indirectly; we just
assume that ASX knows how to direct packets towards NET1. Likewise
ASY knows how to reach NET2.
In order for traffic from NET2 to NET1 to flow between ASX and ASY,
ASX has to announce NET1 to ASY using an exterior routing protocol;
this means that ASX is willing to accept traffic directed to NET1
from ASY. Policy comes into play when ASX decides to announce NET1 to
ASY.
For traffic to flow, ASY has to accept this routing information and
use it. It is ASY's privilege to either use or disregard the
information that it receives from ASX about NET1's reachability. ASY
might decide not to use this information if it does not want to send
traffic to NET1 at all or if it considers another route more
appropriate to reach NET1.
In order for traffic in the direction of NET1 to flow between ASX and
ASY, ASX must announce that route to ASY and ASY must accept it from
ASX:
Hawkinson & Bates Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 1930 Guidelines for creation of an AS March 1996
resulting packet flow towards NET1
<<===================================
|
|
announce NET1 | accept NET1
--------------> + ------------->
|
AS X | AS Y
|
<------------- + <--------------
accept NET2 | announce NET2
|
|
resulting packet flow towards NET2
===================================>>
Ideally, though seldom practically, the announcement and acceptance
policies of ASX and ASY are symmetrical.
In order for traffic towards NET2 to flow, announcement and
acceptance of NET2 must be in place (mirror image of NET1). For
almost all applications connectivity in just one direction is not
useful at all.
It should be noted that, in more complex topologies than this
example, traffic from NET1 to NET2 may not necessarily take the same
path as traffic from NET2 to NET1; this is called asymmetrical
routing. Asymmetrical routing is not inherently bad, but can often
cause performance problems for higher level protocols, such as TCP,
and should be used with caution and only when necessary. However,
assymetric routing may be a requirement for mobile hosts and
inherently asymmetric siutation, such a satelite download and a modem
upload connection.
Policies are not configured for each prefix separately but for groups
of prefixes. These groups of prefixes are ASes.
An AS has a globally unique number (sometimes referred to as an ASN,
or Autonomous System Number) associated with it; this number is used
in both the exchange of exterior routing information (between
neighboring ASes), and as an identifier of the AS itself.
In routing terms, an AS will normally use one or more interior
gateway protocols (IGPs) when exchanging reachability information
within its own AS. See "IGP Issues".
Hawkinson & Bates Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 1930 Guidelines for creation of an AS March 1996
4. Common errors in allocating ASes
The term AS is often confused or even misused as a convenient way of
grouping together a set of prefixes which belong under the same
administrative umbrella, even if within that group of prefixes there
are various different routing policies. Without exception, an AS must
have only one routing policy.
It is essential that careful consideration and coordination be
applied during the creation of an AS. Using an AS merely for the sake
of having an AS is to be avoided, as is the worst-case scenario of
one AS per classful network (the IDEAL situation is to have one
prefix, containing many longer prefixes, per AS). This may mean that
some re-engineering may be required in order to apply the criteria
and guidelines for creation and allocation of an AS that we list
below; nevertheless, doing so is probably the only way to implement
the desired routing policy.
If you are currently engineering an AS, careful thought should be
taken to register appropriately sized CIDR blocks with your
registration authority in order to minimize the number of advertised
prefixes from your AS. In the perfect world that number can, and
should, be as low as one.
Some router implementations use an AS number as a form of tagging to
identify interior as well as exterior routing processes. This tag
does not need to be unique unless routing information is indeed
exchanged with other ASes. See "IGP Issues".
5. Criteria for the decision -- do I need an AS?
* Exchange of external routing information
An AS must be used for exchanging external routing information
with other ASes through an exterior routing protocol. The cur-
rent recommended exterior routing protocol is BGP, the Border
Gateway Protocol. However, the exchange of external routing
information alone does not constitute the need for an AS. See
"Sample Cases" below.
* Many prefixes, one AS
As a general rule, one should try to place as many prefixes as
possible within a given AS, provided all of them conform to the
same routing policy.
Hawkinson & Bates Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 1930 Guidelines for creation of an AS March 1996
* Unique routing policy
An AS is only needed when you have a routing policy which is
different from that of your border gateway peers. Here routing
policy refers to how the rest of the Internet makes routing
decisions based on information from your AS. See "Sample
Cases" below to see exactly when this criteria will apply.
5.1 Sample Cases
* Single-homed site, single prefix
A separate AS is not needed; the prefix should be placed in an
AS of the provider. The site's prefix has exactly the same rout-
ing policy as the other customers of the site's service
provider, and there is no need to make any distinction in rout-
ing information.
This idea may at first seem slightly alien to some, but it high-
lights the clear distinction in the use of the AS number as a
representation of routing policy as opposed to some form of
administrative use.
In some situations, a single site, or piece of a site, may find
it necessary to have a policy different from that of its
provider, or the rest of the site. In such an instance, a sepa-
rate AS must be created for the affected prefixes. This situa-
tion is rare and should almost never happen. Very few stub sites
require different routing policies than their parents. Because
the AS is the unit of policy, however, this sometimes occurs.
* Single-homed site, multiple prefixes
Again, a separate AS is not needed; the prefixes should be
placed in an AS of the site's provider.
* Multi-homed site
Here multi-homed is taken to mean a prefix or group of prefixes
which connects to more than one service provider (i.e. more than
one AS with its own routing policy). It does not mean a network
multi-homed running an IGP for the purposes of resilience.
An AS is required; the site's prefixes should be part of a
single AS, distinct from the ASes of its service providers.
This allows the customer the ability to have a different repre-
sentation of policy and preference among the different service
providers.
Hawkinson & Bates Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 1930 Guidelines for creation of an AS March 1996
This is ALMOST THE ONLY case where a network operator should
create its own AS number. In this case, the site should ensure
that it has the necessary facilities to run appropriate routing
protocols, such as BGP4.
5.2 Other factors
* Topology
Routing policy decisions such as geography, AUP (Acceptable Use
Policy) compliance and network topology can influence decisions
of AS creation. However, all too often these are done without
consideration of whether or not an AS is needed in terms of
adding additional information for routing policy decisions by
the rest of the Internet. Careful consideration should be taken
when basing AS creation on these type of criteria.
* Transition / "future-proofing"
Often a site will be connected to a single service provider but
has plans to connect to another at some point in the future.
This is not enough of a reason to create an AS before you really
need it. The AS number space is finite and the limited amount
of re-engineering needed when you connect to another service
provider should be considered as a natural step in transition.
* History
AS number application forms have historically made no reference
to routing policy. All too often ASes have been created purely
because it was seen as "part of the process" of connecting to
the Internet. The document should be used as a reference from
future application forms to show clearly when an AS is needed.
6. Speculation
1) If provider A and provider B have a large presence in a
geographical area (or other routing domain), and many customers are
multi-homed between them, it makes sense for all of those customers
to be placed within the same AS. However, it is noted that case
should only be looked at if practical to do so and fully coordinated
between customers and service providers involved.
2) Sites should not be forced to place themselves in a separate AS
just so that someone else (externally) can make AS-based policy
decisions. Nevertheless, it may occasionally be necessary to split
up an AS or a prefix into two ASes for policy reasons. Those making
Hawkinson & Bates Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 1930 Guidelines for creation of an AS March 1996 external policy may request the network operators make such AS changes, but the final decision is up to those network operators who manage the prefixes in question, as well as the ASes containing them. This is, of course, a trade off -- it will not always be possible to implement all desired routing policies. 7. One prefix, one origin AS Generally, a prefix can should belong to only one AS. This is a direct consequence of the fact that at each point in the Internet there can be exactly one routing policy for traffic destined to each prefix. In the case of an prefix which is used in neighbor peering between two ASes, a conscious decision should be made as to which AS this prefix actually resides in. With the introduction of aggregation it should be noted that a prefix may be represented as residing in more than one AS, however, this is very much the exception rather than the rule. This happens when aggregating using the AS_SET attribute in BGP, wherein the concept of origin is lost. In some cases the origin AS is lost altogether if there is a less specific aggregate announcement setting the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute. 8. IGP Issues As stated above, many router vendors require an identifier for tagging their IGP processes. However, this tag does not need to be globally unique. In practice this information is never seen by exterior routing protocols. If already running an exterior routing protocol, it is perfectly reasonable to use your AS number as an IGP tag; if you do not, choosing from the private use range is also acceptable (see "Reserved AS Numbers"). Merely running an IGP is not grounds for registration of an AS number. With the advent of BGP4 it becomes necessary to use an IGP that can carry classless routes. Examples include OSPF [OSPF] and ISIS [ISIS]. 9. AS Space exhaustion The AS number space is a finite amount of address space. It is currently defined as a 16 bit integer and hence limited to 65535 unique AS numbers. At the time of writing some 5,100 ASes have been allocated and a little under 600 ASes are actively routed in the global Internet. It is clear that this growth needs to be continually monitored. However, if the criteria applied above are adhered to, then there is no immediate danger of AS space exhaustion. It is expected that IDRP will be deployed before this becomes an issue. IDRP does not have a fixed limit on the size of an RDI. Hawkinson & Bates Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 1930 Guidelines for creation of an AS March 1996
10. Reserved AS Numbers
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the
following block of AS numbers for private use (not to be advertised
on the global Internet):
64512 through 65535
11. Security Considerations
There are few security concerns regarding the selection of ASes.
AS number to owner mappings are public knowledge (in WHOIS), and
attempting to change that would serve only to confuse those people
attempting to route IP traffic on the Internet.
12. Acknowledgments
This document is largely based on [RIPE-109], and is intended to have
a wider scope than purely the RIPE community; this document would not
exist without [RIPE-109].
13. References
[RIPE-109]
Bates, T., Lord, A., "Autonomous System Number Application
Form & Supporting Notes", RIPE 109, RIPE NCC, 1 March 1994.
URL: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-109.txt.
[BGP-4]
Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
RFC 1654, T.J. Watson Research Center, cisco Systems, July 1994.
[EGP]
Mills, D., "Exterior Gateway Protocol Formal Specifications",
STD 18, RFC 904, International Telegraph and Telephone Co.,
April 1984.
[IDRP]
Kunzinger, C., Editor, "OSI Inter-Domain Routing Protocol
(IDRP)", ISO/IEC 10747, Work In Progress, October 1993.
[CIDR]
Fuller, V., T. Li, J. Yu, and K. Varadhan, "Classless
Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and
Aggregation Strategy", RFC 1519, BARRnet, cisco, MERIT, OARnet,
September 1993.
Hawkinson & Bates Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 1930 Guidelines for creation of an AS March 1996
[OSPF]
Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 1583, March 1994.
[ISIS]
Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Multi-
Protocol Environments", RFC 1195, Digital Equipment
Corporation, December 1990.
14. Authors' Addresses
John Hawkinson
BBN Planet Corporation
150 CambridgePark Drive
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: +1 617 873 3180
EMail: jhawk@bbnplanet.com
Tony Bates
MCI
2100 Reston Parkway
Reston, VA 22094
Phone: +1 703 715 7521
EMail: Tony.Bates@mci.net
Hawkinson & Bates Best Current Practice [Page 10]
=========================================================================
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Mitchell
Request for Comments: 6996 Microsoft Corporation
BCP: 6 July 2013
Updates: 1930
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
Autonomous System (AS) Reservation for Private Use
Abstract
This document describes the reservation of Autonomous System Numbers
(ASNs) that are for Private Use only, known as Private Use ASNs, and
provides operational guidance on their use. This document enlarges
the total space available for Private Use ASNs by documenting the
reservation of a second, larger range and updates RFC 1930 by
replacing Section 10 of that document.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6996.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Mitchell Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 6996 Private Use AS Reservation July 2013 1. Introduction The original IANA reservation of Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) for Private Use was a block of 1023 ASNs. This was also documented by the IETF in Section 10 of [RFC1930]. Since the time that the range was reserved, the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC4271] has seen deployment in new application domains, such as data center networks, which require a larger Private Use AS space. Since the introduction of "BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space" [RFC6793], the total size of ASN space has increased dramatically. A larger subset of the space is available to network operators to deploy in these Private Use cases. The existing range of Private Use ASNs is widely deployed, and the ability to renumber this resource in existing networks cannot be coordinated given that these ASNs, by definition, are not registered. Therefore, this RFC documents the existing Private Use ASN reservation while also introducing a second, larger range that can also be utilized. 2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 3. Private Use ASNs To allow the continued growth of BGP protocol usage in new network applications that utilize Private Use ASNs, two ranges of ASNs are reserved by Section 5 of this document. The first is part of the original 16-bit Autonomous System range previously defined in [RFC1930], and the second is a larger range out of the Four-Octet AS Number Space [RFC6793]. 4. Operational Considerations If Private Use ASNs are used and prefixes originate from these ASNs, Private Use ASNs MUST be removed from AS path attributes (including AS4_PATH if utilizing a four-octet AS number space) before being advertised to the global Internet. Operators SHOULD ensure that all External Border Gateway Protocol (EBGP) speakers support the extensions described in [RFC6793] and that implementation-specific features that recognize Private Use ASNs have been updated to recognize both ranges prior to making use of the newer, numerically higher range of Private Use ASNs in the four-octet AS number space. Some existing implementations that remove Private Use ASNs from the AS_PATH are known to not remove Private Use ASNs if the AS_PATH contains a mixture of Private Use and Non-Private Use ASNs. If such Mitchell Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 6996 Private Use AS Reservation July 2013
implementations have not been updated to recognize the new range of
ASNs in this document and a mix of old and new range Private Use ASNs
exist in the AS4_PATH, these implementations will likely cease to
remove any Private Use ASNs from either of the AS path attributes.
Normal AS path filtering MAY also be used to prevent prefixes
originating from Private Use ASNs from being advertised to the global
Internet.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has reserved, for Private Use, a contiguous block of 1023
Autonomous System numbers from the "16-bit Autonomous System Numbers"
registry, namely 64512 - 65534 inclusive.
IANA has also reserved, for Private Use, a contiguous block of
94,967,295 Autonomous System numbers from the "32-bit Autonomous
System Numbers" registry, namely 4200000000 - 4294967294 inclusive.
These reservations have been documented in the IANA "Autonomous
System (AS) Numbers" registry [IANA.AS].
6. Security Considerations
Private Use ASNs do not raise any unique security concerns. Loss of
connectivity might result from their inappropriate use, specifically
outside of a single organization, since they are not globally unique.
This loss of connectivity is limited to the organization using
Private Use ASNs inappropriately or without reference to Section 4.
General BGP security considerations are discussed in [RFC4271] and
[RFC4272]. Identification of the originator of a route with a
Private Use ASN in the AS path would have to be done by tracking the
route back to the neighboring globally unique AS in the path or by
inspecting other attributes.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793,
December 2012.
Mitchell Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 6996 Private Use AS Reservation July 2013
7.2. Informative References
[IANA.AS] IANA, "Autonomous System (AS) Numbers",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/>.
[RFC1930] Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation,
selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)",
BCP 6, RFC 1930, March 1996.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, January 2006.
8. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge Christopher Morrow, Jason
Schiller, and John Scudder for their advice on how to pursue this
change. The author would also like to thank Brian Dickson, David
Farmer, Jeffrey Haas, Nick Hilliard, Joel Jaeggli, Warren Kumari, and
Jeff Wheeler for their comments and suggestions.
Author's Address
Jon Mitchell
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
EMail: Jon.Mitchell@microsoft.com
Mitchell Best Current Practice [Page 4]
=========================================================================
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Haas
Request for Comments: 7300 Juniper Networks
BCP: 6 J. Mitchell
Updates: 1930 Microsoft Corporation
Category: Best Current Practice July 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721
Reservation of Last Autonomous System (AS) Numbers
Abstract
This document reserves two Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) at the
end of the 16-bit and 32-bit ranges, described in this document as
"Last ASNs", and provides guidance to implementers and operators on
their use. This document updates Section 10 of RFC 1930.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It has been approved for publication by the Internet
Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on BCPs is
available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7300.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Haas & Mitchell Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 7300 Last AS Reservation July 2014 1. Introduction Over a decade ago, IANA reserved the last Autonomous System Number (ASN) of the 16-bit ASN range, 65535, with the intention that it not be used by network operators running BGP [RFC4271]. Since the introduction of "BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space" [RFC6793], IANA has also reserved the last ASN of the 32-bit autonomous system number range, 4294967295. This reservation has been documented in the IANA "Autonomous System (AS) Numbers" registry [IANA.AS]. Although these "Last ASNs" border on Private Use ASN [RFC6996] ranges, they are not defined or reserved as Private Use ASNs by [IANA.AS]. This document describes the reasoning for reserving Last ASNs and provides guidance both to operators and to implementers on their use. 2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 3. Reasons for Reservation of the Last ASNs A subset of the BGP communities of ASN 65535, the last ASN of the 16-bit range, are reserved for use by Well-known Communities as described in [RFC1997] and [IANA.WK]. Although this is not currently true of ASN 4294967295, if there is a future need for another Special Use ASN that is not designed to be globally routable, or for the associated BGP communities of such an ASN, ASN 4294967295 could be a valid candidate for such purpose. This document does not prescribe any such Special Use to this ASN at the time of publication. 4. Operational Considerations Operators SHOULD NOT use these Last ASNs for any other purpose or as Private Use ASNs. Operational use of these Last ASNs could have undesirable results. For example; use of AS 65535 as if it were a Private Use ASN, may result in inadvertent use of BGP Well-known Community values [IANA.WK], causing undesirable routing behavior. Last ASNs MUST NOT be advertised to the global Internet within AS_PATH or AS4_PATH attributes. Operators SHOULD filter Last ASNs within the AS_PATH and AS4_PATH attributes. Haas & Mitchell Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 7300 Last AS Reservation July 2014
5. Implementation Considerations
While Last ASNs are reserved, they remain valid ASNs from a BGP
perspective. Therefore, implementations of BGP [RFC4271] SHOULD NOT
treat the use of Last ASNs as any type of protocol error. However,
if a Last ASN is configured as the local AS, implementations MAY
generate a warning message indicating improper use of a reserved ASN.
Implementations that provide tools that filter Private Use ASNs
within the AS_PATH and AS4_PATH attributes MAY also include Last
ASNs.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA has reserved last Autonomous System number 65535 from the
"16-bit Autonomous System Numbers" registry for the reasons described
in this document.
IANA has also reserved last Autonomous System number 4294967295 from
the "32-bit Autonomous System Numbers" registry for the reasons
described in this document.
These reservations have been documented in the IANA "Autonomous
System (AS) Numbers" registry [IANA.AS] and the IANA "Special-Purpose
Autonomous System (AS) Numbers" registry [IANA.SpecialAS].
7. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any additional security concerns in
regards to usage of Last ASNs. Although the BGP is designed to allow
usage of Last ASNs, security issues related to BGP implementation
errors could be triggered by Last ASN usage.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[IANA.AS] IANA, "Autonomous System (AS) Numbers",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/>.
[IANA.SpecialAS]
IANA, "Special-Purpose Autonomous System (AS) Numbers",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/
iana-as-numbers-special-registry/>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Haas & Mitchell Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 7300 Last AS Reservation July 2014
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, December
2012.
8.2. Informative References
[IANA.WK] IANA, "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Well-known
Communities", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
bgp-well-known-communities/>.
[RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP
Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.
[RFC6996] Mitchell, J., "Autonomous System (AS) Reservation for
Private Use", BCP 6, RFC 6996, July 2013.
Haas & Mitchell Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 7300 Last AS Reservation July 2014 Appendix A. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Michelle Cotton and Elwyn Davies for encouraging the proper documentation of the reservation of these ASNs, and David Farmer for his contributions to the document. Authors' Addresses Jeffrey Haas Juniper Networks EMail: jhaas@juniper.net Jon Mitchell Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 USA EMail: Jon.Mitchell@microsoft.com Haas & Mitchell Best Current Practice [Page 5]