No row in the public ledger

RFC 7611 - BGP ACCEPT_OWN Community Attribute

Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 7611, the tests bound to it, and what a reader has verified about them. This summary is enrolled and gated by ./le rfc check.

Overview

Positive

what Ze has

Tested both ways0.0%0 of 0 binding obligations

a positive test proves Ze does what the requirement demands and a negative one proves it refuses what the requirement forbids

One polarity plus reason0.0%0 of 0 binding obligations

the requirement admits no counter-case, so one polarity plus a recorded reason is the whole proof available for it

One polarity, unexcused0.0%0 of 0 binding obligations

one direction is tested, the other is neither tested nor excused, and nothing states which

No test at all0.0%0 of 0 binding obligations

no test carries the requirement id, whether or not a gap states why

Proven by a recorded break0.0%0 of 0 tagged units

a red was observed once under a recorded procedure, and the unit, the claim and the producer it rested on still hash to what was recorded. The break is not re-run. A test pair is not a proof until one has been observed

Neutral

measures that are neither good news nor bad

Gated MUSTs5of 6 this summary declares

MUST-level requirements the gate HOLDS. A population, not a result: the shares beside it are what says how Ze stands

Out of scope5of 5 gated MUSTs

a {not-applicable} annotation says the obligation does not bind Ze. Scope, not coverage: it is in no share below

No card above is a share of a population, so there is nothing to add up.

How to read the colors

A color names what the measure MEANS, not how well Ze scores on it. Green is a good outcome at any value, red is a bad one, and neither a population nor a scope count is an outcome, so both take no color. The number under the label is what says how far Ze has got.

Card	Tone here	Why that color
Gated MUSTs	neutral	no color: a population is a scale, and a larger one is neither good news nor bad. It is the accounting total
Out of scope	neutral	no color: an obligation that never bound Ze is neither an achievement nor a failure, and counting it either way would be a claim
Tested both ways	ok	green at every value: a test pair is the outcome this gate exists to produce, and the share under the label is what says how far Ze has got
One polarity plus reason	ok	green at every value: where no counter-case exists, one polarity IS the complete answer, and a recorded reason is what the gate demands beside it
One polarity, unexcused	ok	green at zero, RED above it: half a proof with no reason for the other half
No test at all	ok	green at zero, RED above it: a binding obligation nothing exercises is a claim with nothing behind it, whether or not a reason is stated
Proven by a recorded break	ok	green at every value: an observed break is the outcome the discrimination gate exists to produce. The denominator is TAGGED UNITS, not obligations, so this share is not one of the parts above
Audit verdicts	warn	RED on the first weak, wrong or unimplemented verdict, amber while a verdict is no longer current or a gated MUST is unjudged, green when every one is judged sound and current

At a glance

Field	Value
Public status	No row in the public ledger
Enrolment	Enrolled
Requirements	6
Gated MUST-level	5
Obligations that bind Ze	0
Not applicable, so out of scope	5
Declared gaps	0
Gated with no test	0
Nightly-only evidence	0
Test tags	0
Tagged units	0
Recorded audit verdicts	0
Discrimination records	0
Summary	`rfc/short/rfc7611.md`
Requirement shard	`rfc/requirements/rfc7611.md`
RFC text	`rfc/full/rfc7611.txt`

Enrolment

Enrolled: BGP ACCEPT_OWN Community Attribute: five MUST-level requirements, all {not-applicable} to Ze. Ze does not implement the RFC 7611 ACCEPT_OWN mechanism -- it recognizes the ACCEPT_OWN community value only for text display (internal/core/bgp/attribute/community.go:59-61,112 CommunityAcceptOwn = 0xFFFF0001) and has no L3VPN VRF-import code path that would honor it. RFC7611-3-1 (all honoring conditions), RFC7611-3-2 (honor only on iBGP), RFC7611-3-3 (MUST NOT accept from eBGP): no honoring/VRF-import code path exists. RFC7611-3-4 (remove before re-advertising to eBGP): Ze neither sets nor honors ACCEPT_OWN, so it does not participate in the mechanism that requires stripping. RFC7611-3-5 (RR propagates unchanged): Ze RR forwards communities verbatim (generic transparency already gated under RFC 4456 / RFC 7947), with no ACCEPT_OWN-specific handling. The 5-1 SHOULD is not gated.

What the public ledger says

No row in the public ledger, so its summary declares `| Support | - |` and docs/features/rfc-status.md carries no row for RFC 7611.

Coverage

Bucket	Count	What it counts
Positive and negative tests	0	one part of the gated population
Annotated instead of tested	5	one part of the gated population
One polarity only	0	one part of the gated population
No test and no annotation	0	one part of the gated population
Evidence that runs nightly only	0	an overlay: each of these is also counted by the part it falls in
Gated MUST-level requirements	5	every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above

Annotated instead of tested (5): RFC7611-3-1, RFC7611-3-2, RFC7611-3-3, RFC7611-3-4, RFC7611-3-5

Requirements

Requirement	Level	Section	Tests
`RFC7611-3-1`	All conditions MUST hold for ACCEPT_OWN to be honored: community present, received from iBGP, own AS in AS_PATH, VPN route, targets different VRF (§3)
	MUST	3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: Ze does not implement the RFC 7611 ACCEPT_OWN mechanism. It recognizes the ACCEPT_OWN community value only for text display (internal/core/bgp/attribute/community.go:59-61,112 CommunityAcceptOwn = 0xFFFF0001) and has no L3VPN VRF-import code path that would honor it (no import of a self-originated VPN route into a different VRF; grep across internal/component/bgp/ and internal/core/bgp/ finds only the name definition), so none of the honoring conditions is ever evaluated.
`RFC7611-3-2`	ACCEPT_OWN MUST only be honored on routes received from iBGP peers (§3)
	MUST	3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: The "honored only on iBGP routes" restriction governs a router that honors ACCEPT_OWN via VRF import, which Ze does not implement (community.go:59-61 defines the value for display only; there is no VRF-import honoring path).
`RFC7611-3-3`	ACCEPT_OWN MUST NOT be accepted from eBGP peers (§3)
	MUST NOT	3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: Ze never honors ACCEPT_OWN from any peer (it has no VRF-import mechanism), so the "MUST NOT accept from eBGP" restriction has no applicable honoring code path -- the community is recognized only as a named value for display (community.go:112).
`RFC7611-3-4`	ACCEPT_OWN community MUST be removed before re-advertising to eBGP peers (§3)
	MUST	3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: Ze does not participate in the ACCEPT_OWN VPN mechanism -- it neither sets ACCEPT_OWN on VRF export nor honors it on import (community.go:59-61 is display-only) -- so the "remove before re-advertising to eBGP" obligation, which prevents a participating router from leaking the VPN-internal ACCEPT_OWN signal, has no applicable code path.
`RFC7611-3-5`	Route reflectors MUST propagate the ACCEPT_OWN community unchanged (§3)
	MUST	3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: Ze's route reflector forwards route communities verbatim and does not special-case ACCEPT_OWN, so a received ACCEPT_OWN would be reflected unchanged as a side effect of the generic community-transparent forwarding already gated under RFC 4456 / RFC 7947; Ze implements no ACCEPT_OWN VPN mechanism (community.go:59-61 is display-only), so this RR requirement has no ACCEPT_OWN-specific code path.
`RFC7611-5-1`	ACCEPT_OWN SHOULD be used with explicit configuration, not enabled by default (§5)
	SHOULD	5	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test

Gaps and untested MUSTs

Requirement	State	Reason
`RFC7611-3-1` All conditions MUST hold for ACCEPT_OWN to be honored: community present, received from iBGP, own AS in AS_PATH, VPN route, targets different VRF (§3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: Ze does not implement the RFC 7611 ACCEPT_OWN mechanism. It recognizes the ACCEPT_OWN community value only for text display (internal/core/bgp/attribute/community.go:59-61,112 CommunityAcceptOwn = 0xFFFF0001) and has no L3VPN VRF-import code path that would honor it (no import of a self-originated VPN route into a different VRF; grep across internal/component/bgp/ and internal/core/bgp/ finds only the name definition), so none of the honoring conditions is ever evaluated.
`RFC7611-3-2` ACCEPT_OWN MUST only be honored on routes received from iBGP peers (§3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: The "honored only on iBGP routes" restriction governs a router that honors ACCEPT_OWN via VRF import, which Ze does not implement (community.go:59-61 defines the value for display only; there is no VRF-import honoring path).
`RFC7611-3-3` ACCEPT_OWN MUST NOT be accepted from eBGP peers (§3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: Ze never honors ACCEPT_OWN from any peer (it has no VRF-import mechanism), so the "MUST NOT accept from eBGP" restriction has no applicable honoring code path -- the community is recognized only as a named value for display (community.go:112).
`RFC7611-3-4` ACCEPT_OWN community MUST be removed before re-advertising to eBGP peers (§3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: Ze does not participate in the ACCEPT_OWN VPN mechanism -- it neither sets ACCEPT_OWN on VRF export nor honors it on import (community.go:59-61 is display-only) -- so the "remove before re-advertising to eBGP" obligation, which prevents a participating router from leaking the VPN-internal ACCEPT_OWN signal, has no applicable code path.
`RFC7611-3-5` Route reflectors MUST propagate the ACCEPT_OWN community unchanged (§3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: Ze's route reflector forwards route communities verbatim and does not special-case ACCEPT_OWN, so a received ACCEPT_OWN would be reflected unchanged as a side effect of the generic community-transparent forwarding already gated under RFC 4456 / RFC 7947; Ze implements no ACCEPT_OWN VPN mechanism (community.go:59-61 is display-only), so this RR requirement has no ACCEPT_OWN-specific code path.

Proof state

A tagged unit reads unproven where no discrimination record exists for it: nothing in this tree has been observed to break it, so the claim its tag makes is unproven.

`RFC7611-3-1`

All conditions MUST hold for ACCEPT_OWN to be honored: community present, received from iBGP, own AS in AS_PATH, VPN route, targets different VRF (§3)

Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests

No test carries RFC7611-3-1, so no unit is bound to it.