idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-07.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 231. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 202. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 209. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 215. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 5 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 6 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2858 (ref. 'BGP-MP') (Obsoleted by RFC 4760) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4020 (Obsoleted by RFC 7120) Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Enke Chen 3 Internet Draft Cisco Systems 4 Expiration Date: July 2006 Vincent Gillet 5 France Telecom 7 Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message 9 draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-07.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 Abstract 36 This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION 37 message that would provide more information to aid network operators 38 in correlating network events and diagnosing BGP peering issues. 40 1. Specification of Requirements 42 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 43 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 44 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119]. 46 2. Introduction 48 This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION 49 message that would provide more information to aid network operators 50 in correlating network events and diagnosing BGP peering issues. It 51 also recommends that a BGP speaker implement a backoff mechanism in 52 re-trying a BGP connection after the speaker receives a NOTIFICATION 53 message with certain CEASE subcode. 55 3. Subcode Definition 57 The following subcodes are defined for the Cease NOTIFICATION 58 message: 60 Subcode Symbolic Name 62 1 Maximum Number of Prefixes Reached 63 2 Administrative Shutdown 64 3 Peer De-configured 65 4 Administrative Reset 66 5 Connection Rejected 67 6 Other Configuration Change 68 7 Connection Collision Resolution 69 8 Out of Resources 71 4. Subcode Usage 73 If a BGP speaker decides to terminate its peering with a neighbor 74 because the number of address prefixes received from the neighbor 75 exceeds a locally configured upper bound (as described in [BGP-4]), 76 then the speaker MUST send to the neighbor a NOTIFICATION message 77 with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Maximum Number of 78 Prefixes Reached". The message MAY optionally include the Address 79 Family information [BGP-MP] and the upper bound in the "Data" field 80 as shown in Figure 1 where the meaning and use of the 81 tuple is the same as defined in [BGP-MP, sect. 7]. 83 +-------------------------------+ 84 | AFI (2 octets) | 85 +-------------------------------+ 86 | SAFI (1 octet) | 87 +-------------------------------+ 88 | Prefix upper bound (4 octets) | 89 +-------------------------------+ 91 Figure 1 Optional Data Field 93 If a BGP speaker decides to administratively shut down its peering 94 with a neighbor, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message 95 with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Administrative 96 Shutdown". 98 If a BGP speaker decides to de-configure a peer, then the speaker 99 SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code Cease, and the 100 Error Subcode "Peer De-configured". 102 If a BGP speaker decides to administratively reset the peering with a 103 neighbor, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with 104 the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Administrative Reset". 106 If a BGP speaker decides to dis-allow a BGP connection (e.g., the 107 peer is not configured locally) after the speaker accepts a transport 108 protocol connection, then the BGP speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION 109 message with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Connection 110 Rejected". 112 If a BGP speaker decides to administratively reset the peering with a 113 neighbor due to a configuration change other than the ones described 114 above, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with the 115 Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Other Configuration Change". 117 If a BGP speaker decides to send a NOTIFICATION message with the 118 Error Code Cease as a result of the collision resolution procedure 119 (as described in [BGP-4]), then the subcode SHOULD be set to 120 "Connection Collision Resolution". 122 If a BGP speaker runs out of resources (e.g., memory) and decides to 123 reset a session, then the speaker MAY send a NOTIFICATION message 124 with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Out of Resources". 126 It is RECOMMENDED that a BGP speaker behave as though the 127 DampPeerOscillations attribute [BGP-4] was true for this peer when 128 re-trying a BGP connection after the speaker receives a Cease 129 NOTIFICATION message with subcode of "Administrative Shutdown", or 130 "Peer De-configured", or "Connection Rejected", or "Out of 131 Resources". An implementation SHOULD impose an upper bound on the 132 number of consecutive automatic retries. Once this bound is reached, 133 the implementation would stop re-trying any BGP connections until 134 some administrative intervention, i.e., set the AllowAutomaticStart 135 attribute [BGP-4] to FALSE. 137 5. IANA Considerations 139 This document defines the subcodes 1 - 8 for the BGP Cease 140 NOTIFICATION message. Future assignments are to be made using either 141 the Standards Action process defined in [RFC-2434], or the Early IANA 142 Allocation process defined in [RFC-4020]. Assignments consist of a 143 name and the value. 145 6. Security Considerations 147 This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues 148 inherent in the existing BGP. 150 7. Acknowledgments 152 The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter, Pedro Marques, Andrew 153 Lange and Don Goodspeed for their review and suggestions. 155 8. References 157 8.1. Normative References 159 [BGP-4] Y. Rekhter, T. Li and S. Hares, Eds., "A Border Gateway 160 Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. 162 [BGP-MP] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter, 163 "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000. 165 [RFC-2434] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an 166 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998. 168 [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 169 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 171 8.2. Informative References 173 [RFC-4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of 174 Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005. 176 9. Author Information 178 Enke Chen 179 Cisco Systems, Inc. 180 170 W. Tasman Dr. 181 San Jose, CA 95134 182 USA 184 Email: enkechen@cisco.com 186 Vincent Gillet 187 France Telecom Longues Distances 188 61, rue des Archives 189 75003 Paris FRANCE 191 Email: vgi@opentransit.net 193 10. Intellectual Property Considerations 195 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 196 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 197 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 198 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 199 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 200 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 201 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 202 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 204 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 205 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 206 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 207 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 208 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 209 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 211 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 212 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 213 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 214 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 215 ipr@ietf.org. 217 11. Full Copyright Notice 219 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 221 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 222 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 223 retain all their rights. 225 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 226 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 227 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 228 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 229 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 230 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 231 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.