draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-01.txt   draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-02.txt 
Global Routing Operations P. Lucente Global Routing Operations P. Lucente
Internet-Draft NTT Internet-Draft NTT
Updates: 7854 (if approved) Y. Gu Updates: 7854 (if approved) Y. Gu
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: April 17, 2020 H. Smit Expires: September 10, 2020 H. Smit
Independent Independent
October 15, 2019 March 9, 2020
TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-01 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-02
Abstract Abstract
Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol
(BMP) do provision for optional trailing data; however Route (BMP) do provision for optional trailing data. However, Route
Monitoring message (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing Monitoring messages (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing
Information Base) and Peer Down message (to indicate that a peering Information Base) and Peer Down messages (to indicate that a peering
session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV
format across all BMP message types allows for an homogeneous and format across all BMP message types allows for an homogeneous and
extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use- extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use-
cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station. While cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station. While it
this document does not want to cover any specific utilization is not intended for this document to cover any specific utilization
scenario, it defines a simple way to support optional TLV data in all scenario, it defines a simple way to support optional TLV data in all
message types. message types.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
The Peer Down Notification message consists of: The Peer Down Notification message consists of:
o Common Header o Common Header
o Per-Peer Header o Per-Peer Header
o Reason o Reason
o Data (only if Reason code is 1, 2 or 3) o Data (only if Reason code is 1, 2 or 3)
This means that both Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages have a This means that both Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages have a
non-extensible format. In the Route Monitoring case this is limiting non-extensible format. In the Route Monitoring case, this is
if wanting to transmit characteristics of transported NLRIs (ie. to limiting if transmitting characteristics of transported NLRIs is
help stateless parsing) or vendor-specific data; in the Peer Down desired (ie. to help stateless parsing) or vendor-specific data. In
case this is limiting if wanting to match TLVs shipped with the Peer the Peer Down case, this is limiting if matching TLVs sent with the
Up. The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP version, for Peer Up is desired. The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP
backward compatibility, and allow all message types to provision for version, for backward compatibility, and allow all message types to
trailing TLV data. provision for trailing TLV data.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they 14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here. appear in all capitals, as shown here.
3. TLV encoding 3. TLV encoding
TLV data type is already defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] for the The TLV data type is already defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] for
Initiation and Peer Up message types. A TLV consists of: the Initiation and Peer Up message types. A TLV consists of:
o 2 octets of TLV Type, o 2 octets of TLV Type,
o 2 octets of TLV Length, o 2 octets of TLV Length,
o 0 or more octets of TLV Value. o 0 or more octets of TLV Value.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | | Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value (variable, between, 0 and 65535 octets) | | Value (variable, between, 0 and 65535 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 Figure 1
TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their code point. Multiple TLVs of the same TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their code point. Multiple TLVs of the same
type can be repeated as part of the same message and it is left to type can be repeated as part of the same message, and it is left to
the specific use-cases whether all, any, the first or the last TLV the specific use-cases whether all, any, the first or the last TLV
should be considered. should be considered.
TLVs can be recursive and include sub-TLVs as their value.
4. BMP Message Format 4. BMP Message Format
4.1. Common Header 4.1. Common Header
Section 4.1 of [RFC7854] defines the Common Header. While the Section 4.1 of [RFC7854] defines the Common Header. While the
structure remains unaltered, the following two definitions are structure remains unaltered, the following two definitions are
changed: changed:
o Version: Indicates the BMP version. This is set to '4' for all o Version: Indicates the BMP version. This is set to '4' for all
messages. messages.
o Message Length: Length of the message in bytes (including headers, o Message Length: Length of the message in bytes (including headers,
data, encapsulated messages and TLV data if any) data, encapsulated messages and TLV data, if any)
4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring 4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring
The Route Monitoring message type is defined in Section 4.6 of The Route Monitoring message type is defined in Section 4.6 of
[RFC7854]. The BGP Update PDU Section 4.3 of [RFC4271] MAY be [RFC7854]. The BGP Update PDU Section 4.3 of [RFC4271] MAY be
followed by TLV data. This document defines the following new codes followed by TLV data. This document defines the following new codes
to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs: to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs:
o Type = TBD1: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with support for o Type = TBD1: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with support for the
4-octet AS number capability RFC 6793 [RFC6793], value MUST be 4-octet AS number capability RFC 6793 [RFC6793], value MUST be
boolean. boolean.
o Type = TBD2: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with ADD-PATH o Type = TBD2: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the ADD-PATH
capability RFC 7911 [RFC7911], value MUST be boolean. capability RFC 7911 [RFC7911], value MUST be boolean.
o Type = TBD3: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with Multiple Labels o Type = TBD3: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the Multiple
capability RFC 8277 [RFC8277], value MUST be boolean. Labels capability RFC 8277 [RFC8277], value MUST be boolean.
4.3. TLV data in Peer Down 4.3. TLV data in Peer Down
The Peer Down Notification message type is defined in Section 4.9 of The Peer Down Notification message type is defined in Section 4.9 of
[RFC7854]. In case of Reason code 1 and 3, a BGP Notification PDU [RFC7854]. For Reason codes 1 or 3, a BGP Notification PDU follows;
follows; the PDU MAY be followed by TLV data. In case of Reason code the PDU MAY be followed by TLV data. For Reason code 2, a 2-byte
2, a 2-byte field to give additional FSM info follows; this field MAY field to give additional FSM info follows; this field MAY be followed
be followed by TLV data. For all other Reason codes, TLV data MAY by TLV data. For all other Reason codes, TLV data MAY follow the
follow the Reason field. Reason field.
4.4. TLV data in other BMP messages 4.4. TLV data in other BMP messages
All other message types defined in RFC7854 [RFC7854] do already All other message types defined in RFC7854 [RFC7854] do already
provision for TLV data. It is RECOMMENDED that all future BMP provision for TLV data. It is RECOMMENDED that all future BMP
message types will provision for trailing TLV data. message types will provision for trailing TLV data.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
It is not believed that this document adds any additional security It is not believed that this document adds any additional security
considerations. considerations.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document defines the following new TLV types for BMP Route This document defines the following new TLV types for BMP Route
Monitoring and Peer Down messages (Section 4.2): Monitoring and Peer Down messages (Section 4.2):
o Type = TBD1: Support for 4-octet AS number capability. The value o Type = TBD1: Support for the 4-octet AS number capability. The
field contains a boolean value. 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed value field contains a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU
in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to the enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to
capability. the capability.
o Type = TBD2: ADD-PATH capability. The value field contains a o Type = TBD2: ADD-PATH capability. The value field contains a
boolean value. 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route
Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability. Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability.
o Type = TBD3: Multiple Labels capability. The value field contains o Type = TBD3: Multiple Labels capability. The value field contains
a boolean value. 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route
Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability. Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability.
7. Normative References 7. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
skipping to change at page 6, line 21 skipping to change at page 6, line 21
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas for his valuable input. The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas for his valuable input.
The authors would also like to thank Greg Skinner for his review.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Paolo Lucente Paolo Lucente
NTT NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72 Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp, WT 2132 Hoofddorp, WT 2132
NL NL
Email: paolo@ntt.net Email: paolo@ntt.net
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 39 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/