idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-09.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 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 (14 January 2021) is 1191 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) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 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 Updates: 7854 (if approved) M. Bhardwaj 5 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems 6 Expires: 18 July 2021 P. Lucente 7 NTT Communications 8 14 January 2021 10 Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) 11 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-09 13 Abstract 15 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to various Routing 16 Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates BMP (RFC 7854) by 17 adding access to the Local Routing Information Base (Loc-RIB), as 18 defined in RFC 4271. The Loc-RIB contains the routes that have been 19 selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision Process. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on 18 July 2021. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 45 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 46 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 47 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 48 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 49 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 50 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 1.1. Alternative Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 59 4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 60 4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 62 5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63 5.2. Peer UP Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 64 5.2.1. Peer UP Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 65 5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 66 5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 67 5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 13 75 6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 77 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 79 8.2. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 8.3. Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 8.4. Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 82 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 83 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 84 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 86 1. Introduction 88 This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Loc-RIB state of 89 remote BGP instances without the need to establish BGP peering 90 sessions. BMP [RFC7854] does not define a method to send the BGP 91 instance Loc-RIB. It does define in section 8.2 of [RFC7854] locally 92 originated routes, but these routes are defined as the routes 93 originated into BGP. For example, locally sourced routes that are 94 redistributed. 96 Figure 1 shows the flow of received routes from one or more BGP peers 97 into the Loc-RIB. 99 +------------------+ +------------------+ 100 | Peer-A | | Peer-B | 101 /-- | | ---- | | --\ 102 | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | 103 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 104 | | | | 105 | Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| | 106 | V V | 107 | +------------------ +------------------+ | 108 | | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | 109 | +------------------ +------------------+ | 110 | | | | 111 | Selected -| Selected -| | 112 | V V | 113 | +-----------------------------------------+ | 114 | | Loc-RIB | | 115 | +-----------------------------------------+ | 116 | | 117 | ROUTER/BGP Instance | 118 \----------------------------------------------------/ 120 Figure 1: BGP peering Adj-RIBs-In into Loc-RIB 122 As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated section 9.4 of [RFC4271] 123 follows a similar flow where the redistributed or otherwise 124 originated routes get installed into the Loc-RIB based on the 125 decision process selection. 127 /--------------------------------------------------------\ 128 | | 129 | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ | 130 | | IS-IS | | OSPF | | Static | | BGP | | 131 | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ | 132 | | | | | | 133 | | | | 134 | | Redistributed or originated into BGP | | 135 | | | | 136 | | | | | | 137 | V V V V | 138 | +----------------------------------------------+ | 139 | | Loc-RIB | | 140 | +----------------------------------------------+ | 141 | | 142 | ROUTER/BGP Instance | 143 \--------------------------------------------------------/ 145 Figure 2: Locally Originated into Loc-RIB 147 The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB access: 149 * The Adj-RIB-In for a given peer Post-Policy may contain hundreds 150 of thousands of routes, with only a handful of routes selected and 151 installed in the Loc-RIB after best-path selection. Some 152 monitoring applications, such as ones that need only to correlate 153 flow records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor 154 the routes that are actually selected and used. 156 Requiring the applications to collect all Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy 157 data forces the applications to receive a potentially large 158 unwanted data set and to perform the BGP decision process 159 selection, which includes having access to the IGP next-hop 160 metrics. While it is possible to obtain the IGP topology 161 information using BGP-LS, it requires the application to implement 162 SPF and possibly CSPF based on additional policies. This is 163 overly complex for such a simple application that only needed to 164 have access to the Loc-RIB. 166 * It is common to see frequent changes over many BGP peers, but 167 those changes do not always result in the router's Loc-RIB 168 changing. The change in the Loc-RIB can have a direct impact on 169 the forwarding state. It can greatly reduce time to troubleshoot 170 and resolve issues if operators had the history of Loc-RIB 171 changes. For example, a performance issue might have been seen 172 for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post troubleshooting this issue 173 without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing changes 174 that might have happened during those five minutes. 176 * Operators may wish to validate the impact of policies applied to 177 Adj-RIB-In by analyzing the final decision made by the router when 178 installing into the Loc-RIB. For example, in order to validate if 179 multi-path prefixes are installed as expected for all advertising 180 peers, the Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy and Loc-RIB needs to be 181 compared. This is only possible if the Loc-RIB is available. 182 Monitoring the Adj-RIB-In for this router from another router to 183 derive the Loc-RIB is likely to not show same installed prefixes. 184 For example, the received Adj-RIB-In will be different if add- 185 paths is not enabled or if maximum number of equal paths are 186 different from Loc-RIB to routes advertised. 188 This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and 189 replaces Section 8.2 of [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes. 191 1.1. Alternative Method to Monitor Loc-RIB 193 Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a 194 peer. It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by 195 monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router. At scale 196 this becomes overly complex and error prone. 198 /------------------------------------------------------\ 199 | ROUTER1 BGP Instance | 200 | | 201 | +--------------------------------------------+ | 202 | | Loc-RIB | | 203 | +--------------------------------------------+ | 204 | | | | 205 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 206 | | Peer-ROUTER2 | | Peer-ROUTER3 | | 207 | | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | 208 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 209 | Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| | 210 | V V | 211 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 212 | | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | 213 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 214 | | | | 215 \------------- | ------------------------ | -----------/ 216 BGP | BGP | 217 Peer | Peer | 218 +------------------+ +------------------+ 219 | Peer-ROUTER1 | | Peer-ROUTER1 | 220 /--| |--\ /--| | --\ 221 | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | 222 | +------------------+ | | +------------------+ | 223 | | | | 224 | ROUTER2/BGP Instance | | ROUTER3/BGP Instance | 225 \------------------------/ \-------------------------/ 226 | | 227 v v 228 ROUTER2 BMP Feed ROUTER3 BMP Feed 230 Figure 3: Alternative method to monitor Loc-RIB 232 The setup needed to monitor the Loc-RIB of a router requires another 233 router with a peering session to the target router that is to be 234 monitored. As shown in Figure 3, the target router Loc-RIB is 235 advertised via Adj-RIB-Out to the BMP router over a standard BGP 236 peering session. The BMP router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy 237 to the BMP receiver. 239 The current method introduces the need for additional resources: 241 * Requires at least two routers when only one router was to be 242 monitored. 244 * Requires additional BGP peering to collect the received updates 245 when peering may have not even been required in the first place. 246 For example, VRFs with no peers, redistributed BGP-LS with no 247 peers, segment routing egress peer engineering where no peers have 248 link-state address family enabled. 250 Complexities introduced with current method in order to derive (e.g. 251 correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB: 253 * Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a 254 policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more 255 specifics, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not only 256 does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity when 257 multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same router. 258 The BMP receiver user is left with the error prone task of 259 identifying which peering session is the best representative of 260 the Loc-RIB. 262 * BGP peering is designed to work between administrative domains and 263 therefore does not need to include internal system level 264 information of each peering router (e.g. the system name or 265 version information). In order to derive a Loc-RIB to a router, 266 the router name or other system information is needed. The BMP 267 receiver and user are forced to do some type of correlation using 268 what information is available in the peering session (e.g. peering 269 addresses, ASNs, and BGP-IDs). This leads to error prone 270 correlations. 272 * The BGP-IDs and session addresses to router correlation requires 273 additional data, such as router inventory. This additional data 274 provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and correlate the 275 BGP-IDs and/or session addresses, but requires the BMP receiver to 276 somehow obtain this data outside of BMP. How this data is 277 obtained and the accuracy of the data directly effects the 278 integrity of the correlation. 280 2. Terminology 282 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 283 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 284 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 285 14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they 286 appear in all capitals, as shown here. 288 3. Definitions 289 * BGP Instance: it refers to an instance of an instance of BGP-4 290 [RFC4271] and considerations in section 8.1 of [RFC7854] do apply 291 to it. 293 * 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 * 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 * Loc-RIB: As defined in section 9.4 of [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB 303 contains the routes that have been selected by the local BGP 304 speaker's Decision Process." Note that the Loc-RIB state as 305 monitored through BMP might also contain routes imported from 306 other routing protocols such as an IGP, or local static routes. 308 * Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound 309 policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally represents a similar view 310 of the Loc-RIB but may contain additional routes based on BGP 311 peering configuration. 313 * Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to 314 an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer. 316 4. Per-Peer Header 318 4.1. Peer Type 320 A new peer type is defined for Loc-RIB to distinguish that it 321 represents Loc-RIB with or without RD and local instances. 322 Section 4.2 of [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type, which is 323 for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance identifier. 325 This document defines the following new peer type: 327 * Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer 329 4.2. Peer Flags 331 In section 4.2 of [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment 332 under the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST 333 be conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type. 335 The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined 336 as follows: 338 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 339 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 340 |F| Reserved | 341 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 343 * The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This MUST be 344 set when only a subset of Loc-RIB routes is sent to the BMP 345 collector. 347 The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be 348 transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt. 350 5. Loc-RIB Monitoring 352 The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP protocol Decision 353 Process section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes include those learned 354 from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In post-policy, as well as routes 355 learned by other means section 9.4 of [RFC4271]. Examples of these 356 include redistribution of routes from other protocols into BGP or 357 otherwise locally originated (ie. aggregate routes). 359 As mentioned in Section 4.2 a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent to 360 a BMP collector by setting the F flag. 362 5.1. Per-Peer Header 364 All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the 365 following values: 367 * Peer Type: Set to 3 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer. 369 * Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the 370 global instance. Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or 371 unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc- 372 RIB belongs to. 374 * Peer Address: Zero-filled. Remote peer address is not applicable. 375 The V flag is not applicable with Loc-RIB Instance peer type 376 considering addresses are zero-filed. 378 * Peer AS: Set to the BGP instance global or default ASN value. 380 * Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g. VRF) 381 specific router-id section 1.1 of [RFC7854]. 383 * Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were installed in 384 The Loc-RIB, expressed in seconds and microseconds since midnight 385 (zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC). If zero, the time is 386 unavailable. Precision of the timestamp is implementation- 387 dependent. 389 5.2. Peer UP Notification 391 Peer UP notifications follow section 4.10 of [RFC7854] with the 392 following clarifications: 394 * Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable. 396 * Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable. 398 * Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable. 400 * Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message. 401 Capabilities MUST include 4-octet ASN and all necessary 402 capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring messages. 403 Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB 404 monitoring messages. For example, if add-paths is enabled for 405 IPv6 and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the add-paths 406 capability should be included for IPv6. In the case of add-paths, 407 the capability intent of advertise, receive or both can be ignored 408 since the presence of the capability indicates enough that add- 409 paths will be used for IPv6. 411 * Received OPEN Message: Repeat of the same Sent Open Message. The 412 duplication allows the BMP receiver to use existing parsing. 414 5.2.1. Peer UP Information 416 The following Peer UP information TLV type is added: 418 * Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8 419 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table 420 name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size 421 MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. 423 The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included. For consistency, 424 it is RECOMMENDED that the VRF/Table Name always be included. The 425 default value of "global" MUST be used for the default Loc-RIB 426 instance with a zero-filled distinguisher. If the TLV is 427 included, then it MUST also be included in the Peer Down 428 notification. 430 Multiple TLVs of the same type can be repeated as part of the same 431 message, for example to convey a filtered view of a VRF. A BMP 432 receiver should append multiple TLVs of the same type to a set in 433 order to support alternate or additional names for the same peer. If 434 multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when 435 they are reported. 437 5.3. Peer Down Notification 439 Peer down notification MUST use reason code 6. Following the reason 440 is data in TLV format. The following peer Down information TLV type 441 is defined: 443 * Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8 444 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table 445 name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size 446 MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. The VRF/Table Name 447 informational TLV MUST be included if it was in the Peer UP. 449 5.4. Route Monitoring 451 Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the 452 Loc-RIB. They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes. 454 As defined in section 4.3 of [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP 455 header and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU." 457 5.4.1. ASN Encoding 459 Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as 460 indicated in PEER UP sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability. 462 5.4.2. Granularity 464 State compression and throttling SHOULD be used by a BMP sender to 465 reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that are transmitted 466 to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the final resultant 467 updates are sent. 469 For example, prefix 10.0.0.0/8 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times 470 within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages 471 results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4 472 changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression 473 interval. If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have 474 been transmitted. 476 A BMP receiver should expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring 477 granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation. 479 5.5. Route Mirroring 481 Route mirroring is not applicable to Loc-RIB and Route Mirroring 482 messages SHOULD be ignored. 484 5.6. Statistics Report 486 Not all Stat Types are relevant to Loc-RIB. The Stat Types that are 487 relevant are listed below: 489 * Stat Type = 8: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Loc-RIB. 491 * Stat Type = 10: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Loc-RIB. The 492 value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64- 493 bit Gauge. 495 6. Other Considerations 497 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation 499 There are several methods for a BGP speaker to implement Loc-RIB 500 efficiently. In all methods, the implementation emulates a peer with 501 Peer UP and DOWN messages to convey capabilities as well as Route 502 Monitor messages to convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that 503 conveys the Loc-RIB is a local router emulated peer. 505 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers 507 There MUST be multiple emulated peers for each Loc-RIB instance, such 508 as with VRFs. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB by the peer 509 header distinguisher and BGP ID. The BMP receiver uses the VRF/ 510 Table Name from the PEER UP information to associate a name to the 511 Loc-RIB. 513 In some implementations, it might be required to have more than one 514 emulated peer for Loc-RIB to convey different address families for 515 the same Loc-RIB. In this case, the peer distinguisher and BGP ID 516 should be the same since it represents the same Loc-RIB instance. 517 Each emulated peer instance MUST send a PEER UP with the OPEN message 518 indicating the address family capabilities. A BMP receiver MUST 519 process these capabilities to know which peer belongs to which 520 address family. 522 6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers 524 There maybe be use-cases where BMP receivers should only receive 525 specific routes from Loc-RIB. For example, IPv4 unicast routes may 526 include IBGP, EBGP, and IGP but only routes from EBGP should be sent 527 to the BMP receiver. Alternatively, it may be that only IBGP and 528 EBGP that should be sent and IGP redistributed routes should be 529 excluded. In these cases where the Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag 530 is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP receiver that the Loc-RIB is 531 filtered. If multiple filters are associated to the same Loc-RIB, a 532 Table Name MUST be used in order to allow a BMP receiver to make the 533 right associations. 535 6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions 537 In case of any change that results in the alteration of behaviour of 538 an existing BMP session, ie. changes to filtering and table names, 539 the session MUST be bounced with a Peer DOWN/Peer UP sequence. 541 7. Security Considerations 543 The same considerations as in section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this 544 document. Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require to 545 establish sessions with authorized and trusted monitoring devices. 546 It is also believed that this document does not add any additional 547 security considerations. 549 8. IANA Considerations 551 This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters 552 to the BMP parameters name space (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ 553 bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml). 555 8.1. BMP Peer Type 557 This document defines a new peer type (Section 4.1): 559 * Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer 561 8.2. BMP Peer Flags 563 This document defines a new flag (Section 4.2) and proposes that peer 564 flags are specific to the peer type: 566 * The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This indicates 567 that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table. 569 8.3. Peer UP Information TLV 571 This document defines the following new BMP PEER UP informational 572 message TLV types (Section 5.2.1): 574 * Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8 575 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table 576 name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size 577 MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. 579 8.4. Peer Down Reason code 581 This document defines the following new BMP Peer Down reason code 582 (Section 5.3): 584 * Type = 6: Local system closed, TLV data follows. 586 9. Normative References 588 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 589 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 590 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 591 . 593 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 594 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 595 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 596 . 598 [RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP 599 Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, 600 DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, 601 . 603 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 604 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 605 May 2017, . 607 Acknowledgements 609 The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Jeff Haas and Mukul 610 Srivastava for their valuable input. 612 Authors' Addresses 614 Tim Evens 615 Cisco Systems 616 2901 Third Avenue, Suite 600 617 Seattle, WA 98121 618 United States of America 620 Email: tievens@cisco.com 622 Serpil Bayraktar 623 Cisco Systems 624 3700 Cisco Way 625 San Jose, CA 95134 626 United States of America 628 Email: serpil@cisco.com 630 Manish Bhardwaj 631 Cisco Systems 632 3700 Cisco Way 633 San Jose, CA 95134 634 United States of America 636 Email: manbhard@cisco.com 638 Paolo Lucente 639 NTT Communications 640 Siriusdreef 70-72 641 2132 Hoofddorp 642 Netherlands 644 Email: paolo@ntt.net