< draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-09.txt   draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-10.txt >
Network Working Group C. Cardona Network Working Group C. Cardona
Internet-Draft P. Lucente Internet-Draft P. Lucente
Intended status: Standards Track NTT Intended status: Standards Track NTT
Expires: 12 May 2022 P. Francois Expires: 11 November 2022 P. Francois
INSA-Lyon INSA-Lyon
Y. Gu Y. Gu
Huawei Huawei
T. Graf T. Graf
Swisscom Swisscom
8 November 2021 10 May 2022
BMP Extension for Path Status TLV BMP Extension for Path Status TLV
draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-09 draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-10
Abstract Abstract
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) provides an interface for obtaining The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) provides an interface for obtaining
BGP Path information. BGP Path Information is conveyed within BMP BGP Path information. BGP Path Information is conveyed within BMP
Route Monitoring (RM) messages. This document proposes an extension Route Monitoring (RM) messages. This document proposes an extension
to BMP to convey the status of a BGP path before and after being to BMP to convey the status of a BGP path before and after being
processed by the BGP best-path selection algorithm. This extension processed by the BGP best-path selection algorithm. This extension
makes use of the TLV mechanims described in draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv makes use of the TLV mechanims described in draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv] and draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv] and draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 12 May 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 November 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Path Status TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Path Status TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. IANA-registered Path Status TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. IANA-registered Path Status TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Enterprise-specific Path Status TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Enterprise-specific Path Status TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
skipping to change at page 7, line 18 skipping to change at page 7, line 18
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. Normative References 6. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv] [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv]
Lucente, P. and Y. Gu, "TLV support for BMP Route Lucente, P. and Y. Gu, "TLV support for BMP Route
Monitoring and Peer Down Messages", Work in Progress, Monitoring and Peer Down Messages", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-06, 25 October Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-07, 7 March 2022,
2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-grow- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-
bmp-tlv-06.txt>. 07.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-best-external] [I-D.ietf-idr-best-external]
Marques, P., Fernando, R., Chen, E., Mohapatra, P., and H. Marques, P., Fernando, R., Chen, E., Mohapatra, P., and H.
Gredler, "Advertisement of the best external route in Gredler, "Advertisement of the best external route in
BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr- BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-
best-external-05, 3 January 2012, best-external-05, 3 January 2012,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-best- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-best-
external-05.txt>. external-05.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic] [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., and P. Mohapatra, "BGP Prefix Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., and P. Mohapatra, "BGP Prefix
Independent Convergence", Work in Progress, Internet- Independent Convergence", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-17, 12 October 2021, Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-18, 9 April 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-
17.txt>. 18.txt>.
[I-D.lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations] [I-D.lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations]
Lapukhov, P. and J. Tantsura, "Equal-Cost Multipath Lapukhov, P. and J. Tantsura, "Equal-Cost Multipath
Considerations for BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, Considerations for BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations-07, 30 June 2021, draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations-08, 5 January 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp- <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-
considerations-07.txt>. considerations-08.txt>.
[I-D.lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit] [I-D.lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit]
Lucente, P. and Y. Gu, "Support for Enterprise-specific Lucente, P. and Y. Gu, "Support for Enterprise-specific
TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol", Work in Progress, TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-01, 5 May Internet-Draft, draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-02, 17
2020, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-lucente-grow- January 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
bmp-tlv-ebit-01.txt>. lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-02.txt>.
[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. 
18 lines changed or deleted 18 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/