idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 1 instance of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 6890 (or successor): 192.0.2.x, 198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7854, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC7854 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 17, 2018) is 2019 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 573 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 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 Updates: 7854 (if approved) M. Bhardwaj 5 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems 6 Expires: March 21, 2019 P. Lucente 7 NTT Communications 8 September 17, 2018 10 Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) 11 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02 13 Abstract 15 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to the Adj-RIB-In 16 and locally originated routes (e.g. routes distributed into BGP from 17 protocols such as static) but not access to the BGP instance Loc-RIB. 18 This document updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by 19 adding access to the BGP instance Local-RIB, as defined in RFC 4271 20 the routes that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's 21 Decision Process. These are the routes over all peers, locally 22 originated, and after best-path selection. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 21, 2019. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 5.2. Peer UP Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 5.2.1. Peer UP Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 75 6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 76 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 12 79 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 8.2. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 83 8.3. Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 84 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 85 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 9.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 87 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 88 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 90 1. Introduction 92 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests that locally originated 93 routes are locally sourced routes, such as redistributed or otherwise 94 added routes to the BGP instance by the local router. It does not 95 specify routes that are in the BGP instance Loc-RIB, such as routes 96 after best-path selection. 98 Figure 1 shows the flow of received routes from one or more BGP peers 99 into the Loc-RIB. 101 +------------------+ +------------------+ 102 | Peer-A | | Peer-B | 103 /-- | | ---- | | --\ 104 | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | 105 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 106 | | | | 107 | Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| | 108 | V V | 109 | +------------------ +------------------+ | 110 | | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | 111 | +------------------ +------------------+ | 112 | | | | 113 | Selected -| Selected -| | 114 | V V | 115 | +-----------------------------------------+ | 116 | | Loc-RIB | | 117 | +-----------------------------------------+ | 118 | | 119 | ROUTER/BGP Instance | 120 \----------------------------------------------------/ 122 Figure 1: BGP peering Adj-RIBs-In into Loc-RIB 124 As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated follows a similar flow where 125 the redistributed or otherwise originated routes get installed into 126 the Loc-RIB based on the decision process selection. 128 /--------------------------------------------------------\ 129 | | 130 | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ | 131 | | IS-IS | | OSPF | | Static | | BGP | | 132 | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ | 133 | | | | | | 134 | | | | 135 | | Redistributed or originated into BGP | | 136 | | | | 137 | | | | | | 138 | V V V V | 139 | +----------------------------------------------+ | 140 | | Loc-RIB | | 141 | +----------------------------------------------+ | 142 | | 143 | ROUTER/BGP Instance | 144 \--------------------------------------------------------/ 146 Figure 2: Locally Originated into Loc-RIB 148 BGP instance Loc-RIB usually provides a similar, if not exact, 149 forwarding information base (FIB) view of the routes from BGP that 150 the router will use. The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB 151 access: 153 o Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy may still contain hundreds of thousands of 154 routes per-peer but only a handful are selected and installed in 155 the Loc-RIB as part of the best-path selection. Some monitoring 156 applications, such as ones that need only to correlate flow 157 records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor the 158 routes that are actually selected and used. 160 Requiring the applications to collect all Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy 161 data forces the applications to receive a potentially large 162 unwanted data set and to perform the BGP decision process 163 selection, which includes having access to the IGP next-hop 164 metrics. While it is possible to obtain the IGP topology 165 information using BGP-LS, it requires the application to implement 166 SPF and possibly CSPF based on additional policies. This is 167 overly complex for such a simple application that only needed to 168 have access to the Loc-RIB. 170 o It is common to see frequent changes over many BGP peers, but 171 those changes do not always result in the router's Loc-RIB 172 changing. The change in the Loc-RIB can have a direct impact on 173 the forwarding state. It can greatly reduce time to troubleshoot 174 and resolve issues if operators had the history of Loc-RIB 175 changes. For example, a performance issue might have been seen 176 for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post troubleshooting this issue 177 without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing changes 178 that might have happened during those five minutes. 180 o Operators may wish to validate the impact of policies applied to 181 Adj-RIB-In by analyzing the final decision made by the router when 182 installing into the Loc-RIB. For example, in order to validate if 183 multi-path prefixes are installed as expected for all advertising 184 peers, the Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy and Loc-RIB needs to be 185 compared. This is only possible if the Loc-RIB is available. 186 Monitoring the Adj-RIB-In for this router from another router to 187 derive the Loc-RIB is likely to not show same installed prefixes. 188 For example, the received Adj-RIB-In will be different if add- 189 paths is not enabled or if maximum number of equal paths are 190 different from Loc-RIB to routes advertised. 192 This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and 193 replaces Section 8.2 [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes. 195 1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB 197 Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a 198 peer. It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by 199 monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router. At scale 200 this becomes overly complex and error prone. 202 /------------------------------------------------------\ 203 | ROUTER1 BGP Instance | 204 | | 205 | +--------------------------------------------+ | 206 | | Loc-RIB | | 207 | +--------------------------------------------+ | 208 | | | | 209 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 210 | | Peer-ROUTER2 | | Peer-ROUTER3 | | 211 | | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | 212 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 213 | Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| | 214 | V V | 215 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 216 | | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | 217 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 218 | | | | 219 \------------- | ------------------------ | -----------/ 220 BGP | BGP | 221 Peer | Peer | 222 +------------------+ +------------------+ 223 | Peer-ROUTER1 | | Peer-ROUTER1 | 224 /--| |--\ /--| | --\ 225 | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | 226 | +------------------+ | | +------------------+ | 227 | | | | 228 | ROUTER2/BGP Instance | | ROUTER3/BGP Instance | 229 \------------------------/ \-------------------------/ 230 | | 231 v v 232 ROUTER2 BMP Feed ROUTER3 BMP Feed 234 Figure 3: Current method to monitor Loc-RIB 236 The setup needed to monitor the Loc-RIB of a router requires another 237 router with a peering session to the target router that is to be 238 monitored. As shown in Figure 3, the target router Loc-RIB is 239 advertised via Adj-RIB-Out to the BMP router over a standard BGP 240 peering session. The BMP router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy 241 to the BMP receiver. 243 The current method introduces the need for additional resources: 245 o Requires at least two routers when only one router was to be 246 monitored. 248 o Requires additional BGP peering to collect the received updates 249 when peering may have not even been required in the first place. 250 For example, VRF's with no peers, redistributed bgp-ls with no 251 peers, segment routing egress peer engineering where no peers have 252 link-state address family enabled. 254 Complexities introduced with current method in order to derive (e.g. 255 correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB: 257 o Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a 258 policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more 259 specifics, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not only 260 does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity when 261 multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same router. 262 The BMP receiver user is left with the error prone task of 263 identifying which peering session is the best representative of 264 the Loc-RIB. 266 o BGP peering is designed to work between administrative domains and 267 therefore does not need to include internal system level 268 information of each peering router (e.g. the system name or 269 version information). In order to derive a Loc-RIB to a router, 270 the router name or other system information is needed. The BMP 271 receiver and user are forced to do some type of correlation using 272 what information is available in the peering session (e.g. peering 273 addresses, ASNs, and BGP-ID's). This leads to error prone 274 correlations. 276 o The BGP-ID's and session addresses to router correlation requires 277 additional data, such as router inventory. This additional data 278 provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and correlate the 279 BGP-ID's and/or session addresses, but requires the BMP receiver 280 to somehow obtain this data outside of BMP. How this data is 281 obtained and the accuracy of the data directly effects the 282 integrity of the correlation. 284 2. Terminology 286 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 287 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 288 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 290 3. Definitions 292 o Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains 293 unprocessed routing information that has been advertised to the 294 local BGP speaker by its peers." This is also referred to as the 295 pre-policy Adj-RIB-In in this document. 297 o Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains 298 the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the 299 local speaker's UPDATE messages." 301 o Loc-RIB: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB contains the routes 302 that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision 303 Process." It is further defined that the routes selected include 304 locally originated and routes from all peers. 306 o Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound 307 policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally represents a similar view 308 of the Loc-RIB but may contain additional routes based on BGP 309 peering configuration. 311 o Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to 312 an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer. 314 4. Per-Peer Header 316 4.1. Peer Type 318 A new peer type is defined for Loc-RIB to distinguish that it 319 represents Loc-RIB with or without RD and local instances. 320 Section 4.2 [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type, which is 321 for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance identifier. 323 This document defines the following new peer type: 325 o Peer Type = TBD1: Loc-RIB Instance Peer 327 4.2. Peer Flags 329 In section 4.2 [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment under 330 the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST be 331 conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type. 333 The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined 334 as follows: 336 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 337 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 338 |F| Reserved | 339 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 341 o The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This indicates 342 that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table. 344 The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They SHOULD be 345 transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt. 347 5. Loc-RIB Monitoring 349 Loc-RIB contains all routes from BGP peers as well as any and all 350 routes redistributed or otherwise locally originated. In this 351 context, only the BGP instance Loc-RIB is included. Routes from 352 other routing protocols that have not been redistributed, originated 353 by or into BGP, or received via Adj-RIB-In are not considered. 355 Loc-RIB in this context does not attempt to maintain a pre-policy and 356 post-policy representation. Loc-RIB is the selected and used routes, 357 which is equivalent to post-policy. 359 For example, VRF "Blue" imports several targets but filters out 360 specific routes. The end result of VRF "Blue" Loc-RIB is conveyed. 361 Even though the import is filtered, the result is complete for VRF 362 "Blue" Loc-RIB. The F flag is not set in this case since the Loc-RIB 363 is complete and not filtered to the BMP receiver. 365 5.1. Per-Peer Header 367 All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the 368 following values: 370 o Peer Type: Set to TBD1 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer. 372 o Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the 373 global instance. Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or 374 unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc- 375 RIB belongs to. 377 o Peer Address: Zero-filled. Remote peer address is not applicable. 378 The V flag is not applicable with Local-RIB Instance peer type 379 considering addresses are zero-filed. 381 o Peer AS: Set to the BGP instance global or default ASN value. 383 o Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g. VRF) 384 specific router-id. 386 5.2. Peer UP Notification 388 Peer UP notifications follow section 4.10 [RFC7854] with the 389 following clarifications: 391 o Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable. 393 o Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable. 395 o Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable. 397 o Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message. 398 Capabilities MUST include 4-octet ASN and all necessary 399 capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring messages. 400 Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB 401 monitoring messages. For example, if add-paths is enabled for 402 IPv6 and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the add-paths 403 capability should be included for IPv6. In the case of add-paths, 404 the capability intent of advertise, receive or both can be ignored 405 since the presence of the capability indicates enough that add- 406 paths will be used for IPv6. 408 o Received OPEN Message: Repeat of the same Sent Open Message. The 409 duplication allows the BMP receiver to use existing parsing. 411 5.2.1. Peer UP Information 413 The following peer UP information TLV types are added: 415 o Type = TBD2: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an 416 ASCII string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or 417 table name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string 418 size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. 420 The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included. For consistency, 421 it is RECOMMENDED that the VRF/Table Name always be included. The 422 default value of "global" SHOULD be used for the default Loc-RIB 423 instance with a zero-filled distinguisher. If the TLV is 424 included, then it SHOULD also be included in the Peer Down 425 notification. 427 5.3. Peer Down Notification 429 Peer down notification SHOULD follow the section 4.9 [RFC7854] reason 430 2. 432 The VRF/Table Name informational TLV SHOULD be included if it was in 433 the Peer UP. 435 5.4. Route Monitoring 437 Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the 438 Loc-RIB. They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes. 440 As defined in section 4.3 [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP header 441 and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU." 443 5.4.1. ASN Encoding 445 Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as 446 indicated in PEER UP sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability. 448 5.4.2. Granularity 450 State compression and throttling SHOULD be used by a BMP sender to 451 reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that are transmitted 452 to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the final resultant 453 updates are sent. 455 For example, prefix 10.0.0.0/8 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times 456 within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages 457 results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4 458 changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression 459 interval. If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have 460 been transmitted. 462 A BMP receiver SHOULD expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring 463 granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation. 465 5.5. Route Mirroring 467 Route mirroring is not applicable to Loc-RIB. 469 5.6. Statistics Report 471 Not all Stat Types are relevant to Loc-RIB. The Stat Types that are 472 relevant are listed below: 474 o Stat Type = 8: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Loc-RIB. 476 o Stat Type = 10: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Loc-RIB. The 477 value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64- 478 bit Gauge. 480 6. Other Considerations 482 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation 484 There are several methods to implement Loc-RIB efficiently. In all 485 methods, the implementation emulates a peer with Peer UP and DOWN 486 messages to convey capabilities as well as Route Monitor messages to 487 convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that conveys the Loc-RIB is 488 a local router emulated peer. 490 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers 492 There MUST be multiple emulated peers for each Loc-RIB instance, such 493 as with VRF's. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB's by the peer 494 header distinguisher and BGP ID. The BMP receiver uses the VRF/ 495 Table Name from the PEER UP information to associate a name to the 496 Loc-RIB. 498 In some implementations, it might be required to have more than one 499 emulated peer for Loc-RIB to convey different address families for 500 the same Loc-RIB. In this case, the peer distinguisher and BGP ID 501 should be the same since it represents the same Loc-RIB instance. 502 Each emulated peer instance MUST send a PEER UP with the OPEN message 503 indicating the address family capabilities. A BMP receiver MUST 504 process these capabilities to know which peer belongs to which 505 address family. 507 6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers 509 There maybe be use-cases where BMP receivers should only receive 510 specific routes from Loc-RIB. For example, IPv4 unicast routes may 511 include IBGP, EBGP, and IGP but only routes from EBGP should be sent 512 to the BMP receiver. Alternatively, it may be that only IBGP and 513 EBGP that should be sent and IGP redistributed routes should be 514 excluded. In these cases where the Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag 515 is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP receiver that the Loc-RIB is 516 filtered. 518 7. Security Considerations 520 It is not believed that this document adds any additional security 521 considerations. 523 8. IANA Considerations 525 This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters 526 to the BMP parameters name space [1]. 528 8.1. BMP Peer Type 530 This document defines a new peer type (Section 4.1): 532 o Peer Type = TBD1: Loc-RIB Instance Peer 534 8.2. BMP Peer Flags 536 This document defines a new flag (Section 4.2) and proposes that peer 537 flags are specific to the peer type: 539 o The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This indicates 540 that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table. 542 8.3. Peer UP Information TLV 544 This document defines the following new BMP PEER UP informational 545 message TLV types (Section 5.2.1): 547 o Type = TBD2: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an 548 ASCII string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or 549 table name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string 550 size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. 552 9. References 554 9.1. Normative References 556 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 557 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 558 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 559 . 561 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 562 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 563 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 564 . 566 [RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP 567 Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, 568 DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, 569 . 571 9.2. URIs 573 [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp- 574 parameters.xhtml 576 Acknowledgements 578 The authors would like to thank John Scudder for his valuable input. 580 Authors' Addresses 582 Tim Evens 583 Cisco Systems 584 2901 Third Avenue, Suite 600 585 Seattle, WA 98121 586 USA 588 Email: tievens@cisco.com 590 Serpil Bayraktar 591 Cisco Systems 592 3700 Cisco Way 593 San Jose, CA 95134 594 USA 596 Email: serpil@cisco.com 598 Manish Bhardwaj 599 Cisco Systems 600 3700 Cisco Way 601 San Jose, CA 95134 602 USA 604 Email: manbhard@cisco.com 606 Paolo Lucente 607 NTT Communications 608 Siriusdreef 70-72 609 Hoofddorp, WT 2132 610 NL 612 Email: paolo@ntt.net