draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-04.txt   draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-05.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: May 20, 2021 H. Smit Expires: 28 January 2022 27 July 2021
Independent
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-04 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-05
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 41
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 May 20, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 January 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
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. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 The Route Monitoring
message consists of: The Peer Down Notification message consists of:
The Route Monitoring message consists of: RFC 7854 [RFC7854].
o Common Header
o Per-Peer Header * Common Header
o BGP Update PDU * Per-Peer Header
The Peer Down Notification message consists of: * BGP Update PDU
o Common Header * Common Header
o Per-Peer Header * Per-Peer Header
o Reason * Reason
o Data (only if Reason code is 1, 2 or 3) * 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 non-extensible format. In the Route Monitoring case, this is
limiting if wanting to transmit characteristics of transported NLRIs limiting if wanting to transmit characteristics of transported NLRIs
(ie. to help stateless parsing) or to add vendor-specific data. In (ie. to help stateless parsing) or to add vendor-specific data. In
the Peer Down case, this is limiting if matching TLVs sent with the the Peer Down case, this is limiting if matching TLVs sent with the
Peer Up is desired. The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP Peer Up is desired. The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP
version, for backward compatibility, and allow all message types to version, for backward compatibility, and allow all message types to
provision for trailing TLV data. provision for trailing TLV data.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
skipping to change at page 3, line 26 skipping to change at page 3, line 26
"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
The TLV data type is already defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] for The TLV data type is already defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] for
the 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, * 2 octets of TLV Type,
o 2 octets of TLV Length, * 2 octets of TLV Length,
o 0 or more octets of TLV Value. * 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) ~ ~ 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.
In Route Monitoring messages there may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs Route Monitoring messages may require per-NLRI TLVs, that is, there
contained in the BGP Update message, for example, to express may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs contained in the BGP Update
additional characteristics of a specific NLRI. For this purpose message, for example, to express additional characteristics of a
specifically TLVs in Route Monitoring messages can be optionally specific NLRI. For this purpose specifically, TLVs in Route
indexed, with the index starting at zero to refer to the first NLRI, Monitoring messages can be optionally indexed, with the index
and encoded as in the following figure: starting at zero to refer to the first NLRI, and encoded as in the
following figure:
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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Index (2 octets) | | Index (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value (variable) ~ ~ Value (variable) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 Figure 2
Of the BMP message types defined so far, indexed TLVs do apply only
to Route Monitoring messages and, for example, they do not apply to
Route Mirroring ones because the sender may not be aware of the
payload of the transported BGP Update message.
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 * Version: Indicates the BMP version. This is set to '4' for all
messages. messages.
o Message Length: Total length of the message in bytes (including * Message Length: Total length of the message in bytes (including
headers, encapsulated BGP message and optional data) headers, encapsulated BGP message and optional data)
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 code followed by TLV data. This document defines the following new code
points to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs: points to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs:
o Type = TBD1: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with support for the * 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 the ADD-PATH * 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 the Multiple * Type = TBD3: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the Multiple
Labels 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]. For Reason codes 1 or 3, a BGP Notification PDU follows; [RFC7854]. For Reason codes 1 or 3, a BGP Notification PDU follows;
the PDU MAY be followed by TLV data. For Reason code 2, a 2-byte the PDU MAY be followed by TLV data. For Reason code 2, a 2-byte
field to give additional FSM info follows; this field MAY be followed field to give additional FSM info follows; this field MAY be followed
by TLV data. For all other Reason codes, TLV data MAY follow the by TLV data. For all other Reason codes, TLV data MAY follow the
Reason field. Reason field.
skipping to change at page 5, line 39 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
the packing of information in such messages and have specific impacts 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 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 that it should always be possible to disable such features to
mitigate their impact. mitigate their impact.
7. IANA Considerations 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 * 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 * 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 * 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.
8. 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>.
skipping to change at page 6, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 46
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
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 and Camilo Cardona for The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas, Camilo Cardona, Thomas
their valuable input. The authors would also like to thank Greg Graf and Pierre Francois for their valuable input. The authors would
Skinner for his review. 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 2132 Hoofddorp
NL Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net Email: paolo@ntt.net
Yunan Gu Yunan Gu
Huawei Huawei
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing
100095
China China
Email: guyunan@huawei.com Email: guyunan@huawei.com
Henk Smit
Independent
NL
Email: hhw.smit@xs4all.nl
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
51 lines changed or deleted 53 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/