Internet DRAFT - draft-kengo-crisp-iris-rreg
draft-kengo-crisp-iris-rreg
Network Working Group K.Nagahashi
Internet-Draft The Univ. of Tokyo
Expires: April 24, 2006 T.Yoshida
NTT Communications
K.Kondo
Intec Netcore
October 24, 2005
IRIS - A Routing Registry (rreg) Type for the Internet Registry
Information Service
draft-kengo-crisp-iris-rreg-02
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents
that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he
or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in
accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 16, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document describes an IRIS registry schema for Internet Routing
information. The schema extends the necessary query and result
operations of IRIS to provide the
kengo, et al. Expires June 16, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft iris-rreg December 2004
functional information service needs for syntaxes and results used by
Internet Protocol address registries.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Feedback from Operators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 5
Kengo, et al. Expires August 14, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft iris-rreg December 2004
1. Introduction
This document describes an IRIS namespace for Internet routing
registries using an XML Schema [9] derived from and using the IRIS
[2] schema. This schema and registry type are provided to
demonstrate the extensibility of the IRIS framework beyond the use of
domains, a criteria defined in CRISP [4].
The schema given is this document is specified using the Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in XML [6], XML Schema
notation as described in XML_SD [8] and XML_SS [9], and XML
Namespaces as described in XML_NS [7].
1.1 Motivation
Our intention to apply CRISP framework into Routing
Registry is due to the current messy architecture
of routing registries.
They are scattered around the world but neither hierarchical
strcutre nor recursive look-up are
performed. This derives an inaccurate routing information
in Routing Registry.
We have strong motivation to improve accuracy of the routing
registries by introducing CRISP framework into routing registries.
2 steps must be taken to improve the situation , (1) defines
XML Schema for Routing Registry and (2)deploy CRISP enabled
Routing Registry.
This document only focuses on the definition of XML schema for
routing registries, and the deployment issues will be described
in another document.
Kengo, et al. Expires April 24, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft iris-rreg October 2005
2. Document Terminology
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 RFC2119.
3. Requirements and Consideration
3.1 Requirements
Like other iris schema e.g. areg, dreg, routing registry should
be defined XML schema which comprises query and responce.
The query and responce in routing registry is similer with
areg since main objective of routing registry is to manage
prefix, autonomous system and contact information.
Followings are architectual requirements for implementing rreg,
which is obviously different with other regs.
1)RREG is intended to adapt into IRR(Internet Routing Registry),
IRR offers various kinds of routing information such as
prefix related information say who maintain its prefix and
origin-as, or Autonomous System information, say, what's
policy AS represents like who imports, and export?
This syntax itself is defined by RPSL (Routing Policy
Specification Language) and requires not only to
interpret the language but also to support data transfer
way in current IRR architecture.
A current data transfer way in IRR is mirroring.
mirroring offers both advantages and disadvantages;
the most important advantage is to guarantee "local copy"
of all IRR databases. Unlike address or domain registry,
routing registry requires "guarantee for data access"
strictly. Suppose one ISP launches IRR database and
mirroring every 30 min, the ISP generates configuration
from IRR database, if all network from IRR database will be
down, no actual configurations are made. This story demands
for highly redundancy where even if network is isolated,
data access is still guaranteed.
2)root resolution
Since a routing registry are distributed without
strong relation, root resolution is a hard issue to solve.
One of straight forward solution is to decide the root
e.g. "rreg.nro.net" uniquely but it still requires to
discuss about it.
3)query and registration
A word "IRR" includes both query and registration,
however, scope of rreg is only for query mechanism, no
registration mechanism is comprised. A registration
protocol is standalized as EPP[11] and this will be described at 3.2.2.
Kengo, et al. Expires April 24, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft iris-rreg October 2005
3.2 Architectual Consideration
3.2.1 mirroring
mirroring is an extreme implementatation of high redundancy.
If all IRR databases are mirroring each other, every IRR database
can guarantee local data access. On the other hand, mirroring
lacks scalability; if a number of IRR database is increased,
mirrorring overhead is likely increased. In that context,
scalability and redundancy are trade-off parameters to
design routing registry architecture. 2 architectures can be
assumemed for providing redundant rreg;
1)to provide mirroring functionality into rreg
2)to employ redundancy mechanism in CRISP framework
As for 1), a simple idea is to define mirroring protocol
and put the protocol into rreg specification. The protocol
itself is not complicated; almost required function is to
provide data synchronisation with updating serial number.
In about 2), IRIS framework provides S-NAPTR[12] cohabitation,
this framework is not complete solution for "guarantee
for data access" but this is another candidate for
providing redundancy.
3.2.2 query and registration relation with EPP
As shown in requirement, data registration is another property
of IRR functions. However, rreg does not provide data registration
only provides query mechanism. 2 approaches can be assumed for
1)introducing registration function into rreg spec
2)out of scope with rreg spec
Since one of current issues in IRR is non-real time mirroring,
where due to non-real time update, all data does not propagate
correctly. This issue is not derived from registration but
from query mechanism. Our intention is to improve query mecanism
with employing CRISP framework. Thus data registration is
out of scope with rreg spec.
Kengo, et al. Expires April 24, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft iris-rreg October 2005
4.Feedbacks from Operators
TBD
5. References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[2] Newton, A., "Internet Registry Information Service",
draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core-07 (work in progress), July 2004.
[3] Newton, A., "Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) over
the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)",
draft-ietf-crisp-iris-beep-07 (work in progress), July 2004.
[4] Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP)
Requirements", RFC 3707, February 2004.
[5] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[6] World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language (XML)
1.0", W3C XML, February 1998,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210>.
[7] World Wide Web Consortium, "Namespaces in XML", W3C XML
Namespaces, January 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114>.
[8] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C
XML Schema, October 2000,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/>.
[9] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C
XML Schema, October 2000,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/>.
[10] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "ASSIGNED NUMBERS", RFC 1700, STD
2, October 1994.
[11] S. Hollenbeck,Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Mar 2004,RFC3730
[12] L. Daigle, A. Newton, Domain-Based Application Service Location
Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS)
Jan 2005, RFC3958
Kengo, et al. Expires April 24, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft iris-rreg October 2005
Authors' Addresses
Kengo Nagahashi
The University of Tokyo
403 3rd. Eng. Bldng.
7-6-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku
Japan
Phone: +81 3 5841 7465
EMail: kengo@nagahashi.org
Tomoya Yoshida
NTT Communications
Kuniaki Kondo
Intec Netcore
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
