< draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-06.txt		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-07.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 28, 2022 October 25, 2021		Expires: 8 September 2022 7 March 2022
	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-06		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-07
	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) make provision for optional trailing data. However, Route
	Monitoring messages (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing		Monitoring messages (which provide a snapshot of the monitored
	Information Base) and Peer Down messages (to indicate that a peering		Routing Information Base) and Peer Down messages (which indicate that
	session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV		a peering session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data
	format across all BMP message types allows for an homogeneous and		in TLV format across all BMP message types allows for a homogeneous
	extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use-		and extensible surface that would be useful for the most different
	cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station. While it		use-cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station.
	is not intended for this document to cover any specific utilization		While it is not intended for this document to cover any specific
	scenario, it defines a simple way to support optional TLV data in all		utilization scenario, it defines a simple way to support optional TLV
	message types.		data in all 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 28, 2022.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 September 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		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 Revised BSD License text as
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		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 Revised 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. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
			Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	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		prevents the transmission of characteristics of transported NLRIs
	(ie. to help stateless parsing) or to add vendor-specific data. In		(e.g. to help with stateless parsing) or of vendor-specific data. In
	the Peer Down case, this is limiting if matching TLVs sent with the		the Peer Down case, this prevents matching with TLVs previously sent
	Peer Up is desired. The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP		with the Peer Up message. The proposal of this document is to bump
	version, for backward compatibility, and allow all message types to		the BMP version, for backward compatibility, and allow all message
	provision for trailing TLV data.		types to make 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
	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.
	Route Monitoring messages may require per-NLRI TLVs, that is, there		Route Monitoring messages may require per-NLRI TLVs, that is, there
	may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs contained in the BGP Update		may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs contained in the BGP Update
	message, for example, to express additional characteristics of a		message, for example, to express additional characteristics of a
	specific NLRI. For this purpose specifically, TLVs in Route		specific NLRI. For this purpose specifically, TLVs in Route
	skipping to change at page 4, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 18 ¶
	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		Of the BMP message types defined so far, indexed TLVs apply only to
	to Route Monitoring messages and, for example, they do not apply to		Route Monitoring messages and, for example, they do not apply to
	Route Mirroring ones because the sender may not be aware of the		Route Mirroring messages because the sender may not be aware of the
	payload of the transported BGP Update message.		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], length MUST be 1
	boolean.		and value MUST be 0 for false and 1 for true.
	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], length MUST be 1 and value MUST be
			0 for false and 1 for true.
	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], length MUST be 1 and value
			MUST be 0 for false and 1 for true.
	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.
	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] already provide
	provision for TLV data. It is RECOMMENDED that all future BMP		for TLV data. It is RECOMMENDED that all future BMP message types
	message types will provision for trailing TLV data.		also provide for trailing TLV data.
	5. Security Considerations		5. Error handling
			When a BGP PDU is enclosed in BMP messages (always for Route
			Monitoring messages, in some cases for Peer Down messages),
			processing of optional trailing data is subject to proper decoding of
			a well-formed BGP message.
			Additionally, it is worth nothing that RFC8654 [RFC8654] permits BGP
			Updates and other messages to grow to a length of 65535 octets. This
			may cause a BMP PDU that attempts to encapsulate such long messages
			to overflow.
			6. 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. Operational Considerations		7. Operational Considerations
	In Route Monitoring messages, the number of TLVs can be bound to the		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		amount of NLRIs carried in the BGP Update message. This may degrade
	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		8. IANA Considerations
	This document defines the following new TLV types for BMP Route		This document requests the definition of two new registries "BMP
	Monitoring and Peer Down messages (Section 4.2):		Route Monitoring Information TLVs" and "BMP Peer Down Information
			TLVs". As part of the "BMP Route Monitoring Information TLVs"
			registry, the following new TLV types are defined (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 is set to 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the
	enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to		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 is set to 1 if
	boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route		the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was
	Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability.		encoded according to the capability.
	o Type = TBD3: Multiple Labels capability. The value field contains		* Type = TBD3: Multiple Labels capability. The value field is set
	a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route		to 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route Monitoring
	Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability.		message was encoded according to the capability.
	8. Normative References		9. 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>.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 13 ¶
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.
	[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>.
			[RFC8654] Bush, R., Patel, K., and D. Ward, "Extended Message
			Support for BGP", RFC 8654, DOI 10.17487/RFC8654, October
			2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8654>.
	Acknowledgements		Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas, Camilo Cardona, Thomas		The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas, Camilo Cardona, Thomas
	Graf and Pierre Francois for their valuable input. The authors would		Graf, Pierre Francois and Ben Maddison for their valuable input. The
	also like to thank Greg Skinner for his review.		authors would also like to thank Greg Skinner and Zongpeng Du for
			their 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
End of changes. 41 change blocks.
	88 lines changed or deleted		105 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/