idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-03.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 (March 24, 2019) is 1850 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 585 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: September 25, 2019 P. Lucente 7 NTT Communications 8 March 24, 2019 10 Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) 11 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-03 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 September 25, 2019. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2019 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 82 8.2. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 83 8.3. Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 84 8.4. Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 85 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 87 9.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 88 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 89 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 91 1. Introduction 93 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests that locally originated 94 routes are locally sourced routes, such as redistributed or otherwise 95 added routes to the BGP instance by the local router. It does not 96 specify routes that are in the BGP instance Loc-RIB, such as routes 97 after best-path selection. 99 Figure 1 shows the flow of received routes from one or more BGP peers 100 into the Loc-RIB. 102 +------------------+ +------------------+ 103 | Peer-A | | Peer-B | 104 /-- | | ---- | | --\ 105 | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | 106 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 107 | | | | 108 | Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| | 109 | V V | 110 | +------------------ +------------------+ | 111 | | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | 112 | +------------------ +------------------+ | 113 | | | | 114 | Selected -| Selected -| | 115 | V V | 116 | +-----------------------------------------+ | 117 | | Loc-RIB | | 118 | +-----------------------------------------+ | 119 | | 120 | ROUTER/BGP Instance | 121 \----------------------------------------------------/ 123 Figure 1: BGP peering Adj-RIBs-In into Loc-RIB 125 As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated follows a similar flow where 126 the redistributed or otherwise originated routes get installed into 127 the Loc-RIB based on the decision process selection. 129 /--------------------------------------------------------\ 130 | | 131 | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ | 132 | | IS-IS | | OSPF | | Static | | BGP | | 133 | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ | 134 | | | | | | 135 | | | | 136 | | Redistributed or originated into BGP | | 137 | | | | 138 | | | | | | 139 | V V V V | 140 | +----------------------------------------------+ | 141 | | Loc-RIB | | 142 | +----------------------------------------------+ | 143 | | 144 | ROUTER/BGP Instance | 145 \--------------------------------------------------------/ 147 Figure 2: Locally Originated into Loc-RIB 149 BGP instance Loc-RIB usually provides a similar, if not exact, 150 forwarding information base (FIB) view of the routes from BGP that 151 the router will use. The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB 152 access: 154 o Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy may still contain hundreds of thousands of 155 routes per-peer but only a handful are selected and installed in 156 the Loc-RIB as part of the best-path selection. Some monitoring 157 applications, such as ones that need only to correlate flow 158 records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor the 159 routes that are actually selected and used. 161 Requiring the applications to collect all Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy 162 data forces the applications to receive a potentially large 163 unwanted data set and to perform the BGP decision process 164 selection, which includes having access to the IGP next-hop 165 metrics. While it is possible to obtain the IGP topology 166 information using BGP-LS, it requires the application to implement 167 SPF and possibly CSPF based on additional policies. This is 168 overly complex for such a simple application that only needed to 169 have access to the Loc-RIB. 171 o It is common to see frequent changes over many BGP peers, but 172 those changes do not always result in the router's Loc-RIB 173 changing. The change in the Loc-RIB can have a direct impact on 174 the forwarding state. It can greatly reduce time to troubleshoot 175 and resolve issues if operators had the history of Loc-RIB 176 changes. For example, a performance issue might have been seen 177 for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post troubleshooting this issue 178 without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing changes 179 that might have happened during those five minutes. 181 o Operators may wish to validate the impact of policies applied to 182 Adj-RIB-In by analyzing the final decision made by the router when 183 installing into the Loc-RIB. For example, in order to validate if 184 multi-path prefixes are installed as expected for all advertising 185 peers, the Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy and Loc-RIB needs to be 186 compared. This is only possible if the Loc-RIB is available. 187 Monitoring the Adj-RIB-In for this router from another router to 188 derive the Loc-RIB is likely to not show same installed prefixes. 189 For example, the received Adj-RIB-In will be different if add- 190 paths is not enabled or if maximum number of equal paths are 191 different from Loc-RIB to routes advertised. 193 This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and 194 replaces Section 8.2 [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes. 196 1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB 198 Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a 199 peer. It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by 200 monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router. At scale 201 this becomes overly complex and error prone. 203 /------------------------------------------------------\ 204 | ROUTER1 BGP Instance | 205 | | 206 | +--------------------------------------------+ | 207 | | Loc-RIB | | 208 | +--------------------------------------------+ | 209 | | | | 210 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 211 | | Peer-ROUTER2 | | Peer-ROUTER3 | | 212 | | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | 213 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 214 | Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| | 215 | V V | 216 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 217 | | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | 218 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 219 | | | | 220 \------------- | ------------------------ | -----------/ 221 BGP | BGP | 222 Peer | Peer | 223 +------------------+ +------------------+ 224 | Peer-ROUTER1 | | Peer-ROUTER1 | 225 /--| |--\ /--| | --\ 226 | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | 227 | +------------------+ | | +------------------+ | 228 | | | | 229 | ROUTER2/BGP Instance | | ROUTER3/BGP Instance | 230 \------------------------/ \-------------------------/ 231 | | 232 v v 233 ROUTER2 BMP Feed ROUTER3 BMP Feed 235 Figure 3: Current method to monitor Loc-RIB 237 The setup needed to monitor the Loc-RIB of a router requires another 238 router with a peering session to the target router that is to be 239 monitored. As shown in Figure 3, the target router Loc-RIB is 240 advertised via Adj-RIB-Out to the BMP router over a standard BGP 241 peering session. The BMP router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy 242 to the BMP receiver. 244 The current method introduces the need for additional resources: 246 o Requires at least two routers when only one router was to be 247 monitored. 249 o Requires additional BGP peering to collect the received updates 250 when peering may have not even been required in the first place. 251 For example, VRF's with no peers, redistributed bgp-ls with no 252 peers, segment routing egress peer engineering where no peers have 253 link-state address family enabled. 255 Complexities introduced with current method in order to derive (e.g. 256 correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB: 258 o Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a 259 policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more 260 specifics, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not only 261 does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity when 262 multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same router. 263 The BMP receiver user is left with the error prone task of 264 identifying which peering session is the best representative of 265 the Loc-RIB. 267 o BGP peering is designed to work between administrative domains and 268 therefore does not need to include internal system level 269 information of each peering router (e.g. the system name or 270 version information). In order to derive a Loc-RIB to a router, 271 the router name or other system information is needed. The BMP 272 receiver and user are forced to do some type of correlation using 273 what information is available in the peering session (e.g. peering 274 addresses, ASNs, and BGP-ID's). This leads to error prone 275 correlations. 277 o The BGP-ID's and session addresses to router correlation requires 278 additional data, such as router inventory. This additional data 279 provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and correlate the 280 BGP-ID's and/or session addresses, but requires the BMP receiver 281 to somehow obtain this data outside of BMP. How this data is 282 obtained and the accuracy of the data directly effects the 283 integrity of the correlation. 285 2. Terminology 287 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 288 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 289 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 291 3. Definitions 293 o Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains 294 unprocessed routing information that has been advertised to the 295 local BGP speaker by its peers." This is also referred to as the 296 pre-policy Adj-RIB-In in this document. 298 o Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains 299 the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the 300 local speaker's UPDATE messages." 302 o Loc-RIB: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB contains the routes 303 that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision 304 Process." It is further defined that the routes selected include 305 locally originated and routes from all peers. 307 o Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound 308 policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally represents a similar view 309 of the Loc-RIB but may contain additional routes based on BGP 310 peering configuration. 312 o Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to 313 an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer. 315 4. Per-Peer Header 317 4.1. Peer Type 319 A new peer type is defined for Loc-RIB to distinguish that it 320 represents Loc-RIB with or without RD and local instances. 321 Section 4.2 [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type, which is 322 for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance identifier. 324 This document defines the following new peer type: 326 o Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer 328 4.2. Peer Flags 330 In section 4.2 [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment under 331 the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST be 332 conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type. 334 The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined 335 as follows: 337 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 338 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 339 |F| Reserved | 340 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 342 o The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This indicates 343 that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table. 345 The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They SHOULD be 346 transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt. 348 5. Loc-RIB Monitoring 350 Loc-RIB contains all routes from BGP peers as well as any and all 351 routes redistributed or otherwise locally originated. In this 352 context, only the BGP instance Loc-RIB is included. Routes from 353 other routing protocols that have not been redistributed, originated 354 by or into BGP, or received via Adj-RIB-In are not considered. 356 Loc-RIB in this context does not attempt to maintain a pre-policy and 357 post-policy representation. Loc-RIB is the selected and used routes, 358 which is equivalent to post-policy. 360 For example, VRF "Blue" imports several targets but filters out 361 specific routes. The end result of VRF "Blue" Loc-RIB is conveyed. 362 Even though the import is filtered, the result is complete for VRF 363 "Blue" Loc-RIB. The F flag is not set in this case since the Loc-RIB 364 is complete and not filtered to the BMP receiver. 366 5.1. Per-Peer Header 368 All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the 369 following values: 371 o Peer Type: Set to 3 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer. 373 o Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the 374 global instance. Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or 375 unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc- 376 RIB belongs to. 378 o Peer Address: Zero-filled. Remote peer address is not applicable. 379 The V flag is not applicable with Local-RIB Instance peer type 380 considering addresses are zero-filed. 382 o Peer AS: Set to the BGP instance global or default ASN value. 384 o Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g. VRF) 385 specific router-id. 387 5.2. Peer UP Notification 389 Peer UP notifications follow section 4.10 [RFC7854] with the 390 following clarifications: 392 o Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable. 394 o Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable. 396 o Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable. 398 o Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message. 399 Capabilities MUST include 4-octet ASN and all necessary 400 capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring messages. 401 Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB 402 monitoring messages. For example, if add-paths is enabled for 403 IPv6 and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the add-paths 404 capability should be included for IPv6. In the case of add-paths, 405 the capability intent of advertise, receive or both can be ignored 406 since the presence of the capability indicates enough that add- 407 paths will be used for IPv6. 409 o Received OPEN Message: Repeat of the same Sent Open Message. The 410 duplication allows the BMP receiver to use existing parsing. 412 5.2.1. Peer UP Information 414 The following peer UP information TLV type is added: 416 o Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII 417 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table 418 name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size 419 MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. 421 The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included. For consistency, 422 it is RECOMMENDED that the VRF/Table Name always be included. The 423 default value of "global" SHOULD be used for the default Loc-RIB 424 instance with a zero-filled distinguisher. If the TLV is 425 included, then it SHOULD also be included in the Peer Down 426 notification. 428 5.3. Peer Down Notification 430 Peer down notification SHOULD use reason code TBD3. Following the 431 reason is data in TLV format. The following peer Down information 432 TLV type is defined: 434 o Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII 435 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table 436 name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size 437 MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. The VRF/Table Name 438 informational TLV SHOULD be included if it was in the Peer UP. 440 5.4. Route Monitoring 442 Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the 443 Loc-RIB. They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes. 445 As defined in section 4.3 [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP header 446 and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU." 448 5.4.1. ASN Encoding 450 Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as 451 indicated in PEER UP sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability. 453 5.4.2. Granularity 455 State compression and throttling SHOULD be used by a BMP sender to 456 reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that are transmitted 457 to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the final resultant 458 updates are sent. 460 For example, prefix 10.0.0.0/8 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times 461 within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages 462 results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4 463 changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression 464 interval. If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have 465 been transmitted. 467 A BMP receiver SHOULD expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring 468 granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation. 470 5.5. Route Mirroring 472 Route mirroring is not applicable to Loc-RIB. 474 5.6. Statistics Report 476 Not all Stat Types are relevant to Loc-RIB. The Stat Types that are 477 relevant are listed below: 479 o Stat Type = 8: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Loc-RIB. 481 o Stat Type = 10: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Loc-RIB. The 482 value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64- 483 bit Gauge. 485 6. Other Considerations 487 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation 489 There are several methods to implement Loc-RIB efficiently. In all 490 methods, the implementation emulates a peer with Peer UP and DOWN 491 messages to convey capabilities as well as Route Monitor messages to 492 convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that conveys the Loc-RIB is 493 a local router emulated peer. 495 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers 497 There MUST be multiple emulated peers for each Loc-RIB instance, such 498 as with VRF's. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB's by the peer 499 header distinguisher and BGP ID. The BMP receiver uses the VRF/ 500 Table Name from the PEER UP information to associate a name to the 501 Loc-RIB. 503 In some implementations, it might be required to have more than one 504 emulated peer for Loc-RIB to convey different address families for 505 the same Loc-RIB. In this case, the peer distinguisher and BGP ID 506 should be the same since it represents the same Loc-RIB instance. 507 Each emulated peer instance MUST send a PEER UP with the OPEN message 508 indicating the address family capabilities. A BMP receiver MUST 509 process these capabilities to know which peer belongs to which 510 address family. 512 6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers 514 There maybe be use-cases where BMP receivers should only receive 515 specific routes from Loc-RIB. For example, IPv4 unicast routes may 516 include IBGP, EBGP, and IGP but only routes from EBGP should be sent 517 to the BMP receiver. Alternatively, it may be that only IBGP and 518 EBGP that should be sent and IGP redistributed routes should be 519 excluded. In these cases where the Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag 520 is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP receiver that the Loc-RIB is 521 filtered. 523 7. Security Considerations 525 It is not believed that this document adds any additional security 526 considerations. 528 8. IANA Considerations 530 This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters 531 to the BMP parameters name space [1]. 533 8.1. BMP Peer Type 535 This document defines a new peer type (Section 4.1): 537 o Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer 539 8.2. BMP Peer Flags 541 This document defines a new flag (Section 4.2) and proposes that peer 542 flags are specific to the peer type: 544 o The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This indicates 545 that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table. 547 8.3. Peer UP Information TLV 549 This document defines the following new BMP PEER UP informational 550 message TLV types (Section 5.2.1): 552 o Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII 553 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table 554 name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size 555 MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. 557 8.4. Peer Down Reason code 559 This document defines the following new BMP Peer Down reason code 560 (Section 5.3): 562 o Type = TBD3: Local system closed, TLV data follows. 564 9. References 566 9.1. Normative References 568 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 569 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 570 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 571 . 573 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 574 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 575 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 576 . 578 [RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP 579 Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, 580 DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, 581 . 583 9.2. URIs 585 [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp- 586 parameters.xhtml 588 Acknowledgements 590 The authors would like to thank John Scudder and Jeff Haas for their 591 valuable input. 593 Authors' Addresses 595 Tim Evens 596 Cisco Systems 597 2901 Third Avenue, Suite 600 598 Seattle, WA 98121 599 USA 601 Email: tievens@cisco.com 603 Serpil Bayraktar 604 Cisco Systems 605 3700 Cisco Way 606 San Jose, CA 95134 607 USA 609 Email: serpil@cisco.com 611 Manish Bhardwaj 612 Cisco Systems 613 3700 Cisco Way 614 San Jose, CA 95134 615 USA 617 Email: manbhard@cisco.com 618 Paolo Lucente 619 NTT Communications 620 Siriusdreef 70-72 621 Hoofddorp, WT 2132 622 NL 624 Email: paolo@ntt.net