idnits 2.17.1 draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-info-tlv-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([I-D.grow-bmp-tlv]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (July 12, 2020) is 1383 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-00 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group C. Cardona 3 Internet-Draft P. Lucente 4 Intended status: Standards Track NTT 5 Expires: January 13, 2021 P. Francois 6 INSA-Lyon 7 Y. Gu 8 Huawei 9 T. Graf 10 Swisscom 11 July 12, 2020 13 BMP Extension for Path Information TLV 14 draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-info-tlv-00 16 Abstract 18 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) provides an interface for obtaining 19 BGP path information. BGP Path Information is conveyed within BMP 20 Route Monitoring (RM) messages. This document proposes an extension 21 to BMP to convey additional path information that is not already 22 encapsulated in the BGP Update PDU, e.g., BPG path status. This 23 extension makes use of the TLV mechanims described in draft-grow-bmp- 24 tlv [I-D.grow-bmp-tlv]. 26 Requirements Language 28 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 29 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 30 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 31 14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they 32 appear in all capitals, as shown here. 34 Status of This Memo 36 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 37 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 39 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 40 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 41 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 42 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 44 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 45 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 46 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 47 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 48 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2021. 50 Copyright Notice 52 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 53 document authors. All rights reserved. 55 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 56 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 57 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 58 publication of this document. Please review these documents 59 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 60 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 61 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 62 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 63 described in the Simplified BSD License. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 68 2. Path Information TLV for the RM Message . . . . . . . . . . . 2 69 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 71 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 74 1. Introduction 76 BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC7854 [RFC7854] is used to monitor 77 BGP sessions. Additional information is allowed to be carried in the 78 format of TLV with the BMP Initiation, Peer Up, and Termination 79 Messages RFC7854 [RFC7854] draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up 80 [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up]. draft-grow-bmp-tlv [I-D.grow-bmp-tlv] 81 provides the capability of conveying optional data in TLV format in 82 BMP Route Monitoring (RM) and Peer Down Messages, and such TLV types 83 are to be defined for each application. This document defines the 84 Path Information TLV, making use of the TLV mechanism defined for BMP 85 RM Message draft-grow-bmp-tlv [I-D.grow-bmp-tlv]. The Path 86 Information TLV is used to describe the path information, e.g., path 87 status (best, best-external), out interface, and so on. Specific 88 path information can be defined as sub-TLVs encapsulated within the 89 Path Information TLV. 91 2. Path Information TLV for the RM Message 93 The Path Information TLV is defined as follows. 95 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 96 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 97 | Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | 98 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 99 | Count (2 octets) | 100 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 101 | Path Information value(variable) | 102 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 104 Figure 1: Path Information TLV 106 o Type = TBD1 (2 Octets): indicates that it's the Path Information 107 TLV. 109 o Length (2 Octets): indicates the length of the value field of the 110 Path Information TLV. 112 o Count (2 Octets): indicates the number of sub TLVs followed in the 113 Path Information Value field. 115 o Path Information value (Variable): indicates the value of the Path 116 Informtion TLV, which consists of one or multiple sub TLVs. 118 Each RM Message allows at most one Path Information TLV. As stated 119 in Appendix F.1 of RFC4271 [RFC4271], multiple address prefixes 120 (i.e., NLRI) with the same path attributes are allowed to be 121 specified in one BGP message. However, such multiple prefixes may 122 have different path information. Thus, to distinguish the sub-TLV 123 for different prefixes, the order of the sub-TLVs MUST be in 124 accordance with the prefix order encapsulated in the Update PDU. 126 3. IANA Considerations 128 This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters 129 to the BMP parameters name space. 131 Type = TBD1 (2 Octets): indicates that it's the Path Information TLV. 133 4. Security Considerations 135 It is not believed that this document adds any additional security 136 considerations. 138 5. Normative References 140 [I-D.grow-bmp-tlv] 141 Lucente, P., Gu, Y., and H. Smit, "TLV support for BMP 142 Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages", draft-grow-bmp- 143 tlv-00 (work in progress), September 2019. 145 [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up] 146 Scudder, J., "BMP Peer Up Message Namespace", draft-ietf- 147 grow-bmp-peer-up-00 (work in progress), July 2019. 149 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 150 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 151 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 152 . 154 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 155 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 156 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 157 . 159 [RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP 160 Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, 161 DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, 162 . 164 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 165 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 166 May 2017, . 168 Authors' Addresses 170 Camilo Cardona 171 NTT 172 164-168, Carrer de Numancia 173 Barcelona 08029 174 Spain 176 Email: camilo@ntt.net 178 Paolo Lucente 179 NTT 180 Siriusdreef 70-72 181 Hoofddorp, WT 2132 182 Netherlands 184 Email: paolo@ntt.net 185 Pierre Francois 186 INSA-Lyon 187 Lyon 188 France 190 Email: Pierre.Francois@insa-lyon.fr 192 Yunan Gu 193 Huawei 194 Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. 195 Beijing 100095 196 China 198 Email: guyunan@huawei.com 200 Thomas Graf 201 Swisscom 202 Binzring 17 203 Zurich 8045 204 Switzerland 206 Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com