idnits 2.17.1 draft-evens-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 251 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Global Routing Operations T. Evens 3 Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar 4 Intended Status: Standards Track M. Bhardwaj 5 Expires: September 11, 2017 Cisco Systems 6 March 10, 2017 P. Lucente 7 NTT Communications 9 Support for Adj-RIB-Out in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) 10 draft-evens-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-00 12 Abstract 14 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to only the Adj-RIB- 15 In Routing Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates the BGP 16 Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by adding access to the Adj-RIB- 17 Out RIBs. It adds a new flag to the peer header to distinguish Adj- 18 RIB-In and Adj-RIB-Out. 20 Status of this Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 27 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 28 Drafts. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 36 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 38 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 39 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2017. 43 Copyright and License Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 4. Adj-RIB-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 4.1 Post-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 4.2 Pre-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 5. BMP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 5.1. Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 5.2 Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 5.3 Peer Down and Up Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 7.1. BMP Statistics Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 8.1. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 8.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 80 1. Introduction 82 BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines monitoring of the received 83 (e.g. Adj-RIB-In) Routing Information Bases (RIBs) per peer. The 84 Adj-RIB-In pre-policy conveys to a BMP receiver all RIB data before 85 any policy has been applied. The Adj-RIB-In post-policy conveys to a 86 BMP receiver all RIB data after policy filters and/or modifications 87 have been applied. An example of pre-policy verses post-policy is 88 when an inbound policy applies attribute modification or filters. 89 Pre-policy would contain information prior to the inbound policy 90 changes or filters of data. Post policy would convey the changed data 91 or would not contain the filtered data. 93 Monitoring the received updates that the router received before any 94 policy has been applied is the primary level of monitoring for most 95 use-cases. Inbound policy validation and auditing is the primary 96 use-case for enabling post-policy monitoring. 98 In order for a BMP receiver to receive any BGP data, the BMP sender 99 (e.g. router) needs to have an established BGP peering session and 100 actively be receiving updates for an Adj-RIB-In. 102 Being able to only monitor the Adj-RIB-In puts a restriction on what 103 data is available to BMP receivers via BMP senders (e.g. routers). 104 This is an issue when the receiving end of the BGP peer is not 105 enabled for BMP or when it is not accessible for administrative 106 reasons. For example, a service provider advertises prefixes to a 107 customer, but the service provider cannot see what it advertises via 108 BMP. Asking the customer to enable BMP and monitoring of the Adj-RIB- 109 In is not feasible. 111 This document updates BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 112 [RFC7854] peer header by adding a new flag to distinguish Adj-RIB-In 113 verses Adj-RIB-Out. 115 Adding Adj-RIB-Out enables the ability for a BMP sender to send to a 116 BMP receiver what it advertises to BGP peers, which can be used for 117 outbound policy validation and to monitor RIBs that were advertised. 119 1.1. Terminology 121 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 122 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 123 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 125 2. Definitions 127 o Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains 128 the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the 129 local speaker's UPDATE messages." 131 o Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound 132 policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally would match what is in the 133 local RIB. 135 o Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to 136 an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer. 138 3. Per-Peer Header 140 The per-peer header has the same structure and flags as defined in 141 section 4.2 [RFC7854] with the following O flag addition: 143 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 144 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 145 |V|L|A|O| Resv | 146 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 148 o The O flag indicates Adj-RIB-In if set to 0 and Adj-RIB-Out if 149 set to 1. 151 The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be 152 transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt. 154 4. Adj-RIB-Out 156 4.1 Post-Policy 158 The primary use-case in monitoring Adj-RIB-Out is to monitor the 159 updates transmitted to the BGP peer after outbound policy has been 160 applied. These updates reflect the result after modifications and 161 filters have been applied (e.g. Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy). The L flag 162 MUST be set to 1 in this case to indicate post-policy. 164 4.2 Pre-Policy 166 As with Adj-RIB-In policy validation, there are use-cases that pre- 167 policy Adj-RIB-Out is used to validate and audit outbound policies. 168 For example, a comparison between pre-policy and post-policy can be 169 used to validate the outbound policy. The L flag MUST be set to 0 in 170 this case to indicate pre-policy. 172 5. BMP Messages 174 Many BMP messages have a per-peer header but some are not applicable 175 to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out monitoring. Unless otherwise defined, 176 the O flag should be set to 0 in the per-peer header in BMP 177 messages. 179 5.1. Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring 181 The O flag MUST be set accordingly to indicate if the route monitor 182 or route mirroring message conveys Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out. 184 5.2 Statistics Report 186 Statistics report message has Stat Type field to indicate the 187 statistic carried in the Stat Data field. Statistics report messages 188 are not specific to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out and MUST have the O 189 flag set to zero. The O flag SHOULD be ignored by the BMP receiver. 190 The following new statistic types are added: 192 o Stat Type = 14: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out 193 Pre-Policy. 195 o Stat Type = 15: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out 196 Post-Policy. 198 o Stat Type = 16: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Pre- 199 Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family 200 Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier 201 (SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge. 203 o Stat Type = 17: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Post- 204 Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family 205 Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier 206 (SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge. 208 5.3 Peer Down and Up Notifications 210 PEER UP and DOWN notifications convey BGP peering session state to 211 BMP receivers. The state is independent of whether or not route 212 monitoring or route mirroring messages will be sent for Adj-RIB-In, 213 Adj-RIB-Out, or both. BMP receiver implementations SHOULD ignore the 214 O flag in PEER UP and DOWN notifications. 216 6. Security Considerations 218 It is not believed that this document adds any additional security 219 considerations. 221 7. IANA Considerations 223 This document requests that IANA assign the following BMP new types 224 to the BMP parameters name space [1]. 226 7.1. BMP Statistics Types 228 This document defines two new statistic types for statistics 229 reporting (Section 4.2): 231 o Stat Type = 14: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out 232 Pre-Policy. 234 o Stat Type = 15: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out 235 Post-Policy. 237 o Stat Type = 16: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Pre- 238 Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family 239 Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier 240 (SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge. 242 o Stat Type = 17: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Post- 243 Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family 244 Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier 245 (SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge. 247 8. References 249 8.1. URIs 251 [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp- 252 parameters.xhtml 254 8.2. Normative References 256 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 257 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 258 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . 261 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 262 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 263 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, . 266 [RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP 267 Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, DOI 268 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, . 271 Acknowledgments 273 TBD. 275 Authors' Addresses 277 Tim Evens 278 Cisco Systems 279 2901 Third Avenue, Suite 600 280 Seattle, WA 98121 281 USA 283 Email: tievens@cisco.com 285 Serpil Bayraktar 286 Cisco Systems 287 3700 Cisco Way 288 San Jose, CA 95134 289 USA 291 Email: serpil@cisco.com 293 Manish Bhardwaj 294 Cisco Systems 295 3700 Cisco Way 296 San Jose, CA 95134 297 USA 299 Email: manbhard@cisco.com 301 Paolo Lucente 302 NTT Communications 303 Siriusdreef 70-72 304 Hoofddorp 2132 WT 305 NL 307 Email: paolo@ntt.net