draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-03.txt   draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-04.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: March 13, 2021 H. Smit Expires: May 20, 2021 H. Smit
Independent Independent
September 9, 2020 November 16, 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-03 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-04
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 messages (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing Monitoring messages (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing
Information Base) and Peer Down messages (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-
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 March 13, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. BMP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. BMP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. TLV data in Peer Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. TLV data in Peer Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. TLV data in other BMP messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.4. TLV data in other BMP messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) is defined in RFC 7854 [RFC7854]. The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) is defined in RFC 7854 [RFC7854].
The Route Monitoring message consists of: The Route Monitoring message consists of:
o Common Header o Common Header
o Per-Peer Header o Per-Peer Header
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
~ Value (variable) ~ ~ Value (variable) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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. This In Route Monitoring messages there may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs
approach can be useful to build container TLVs to better isolate a contained in the BGP Update message, for example, to express
group of TLVs for the same function from TLVs meant for different additional characteristics of a specific NLRI. For this purpose
functions. This scheme SHOULD be used whenever a certain function specifically TLVs in Route Monitoring messages can be optionally
requires a specific mapping related to the order of NLRIs contained indexed, with the index starting at zero to refer to the first NLRI,
in the Route Monitor BGP message. Here below an example of a TLV for and encoded as in the following figure:
fictional function 'FuncA' containing two sub-TLV types, 'X' and 'Y':
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 FuncA (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | | Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type X (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value (variable) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type Y (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value (variable) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type X (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value (variable) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type Y (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | | Index (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value (variable) ~ ~ Value (variable) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 Figure 2
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
skipping to change at page 5, line 37 skipping to change at page 5, line 25
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. Operational Considerations
In Route Monitoring messages, the number of TLVs can be bound to the
amount of NLRIs carried in the BGP Update message. This may degrade
the packing of information in such messages and have specific impacts
on the memory and CPU used in a BMP implementation. As a result of
that it should always be possible to disable such features to
mitigate their impact.
7. 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 the 4-octet AS number capability. The o Type = TBD1: Support for the 4-octet AS number capability. The
value field contains a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU value field contains a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU
enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to
the 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 of 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 of 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 8. 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
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
31 lines changed or deleted 28 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/