idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-13.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses. Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too? -- 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 (31 August 2021) is 940 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 600, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 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: 4 March 2022 P. Lucente 7 NTT Communications 8 31 August 2021 10 Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) 11 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-13 13 Abstract 15 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to local 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 4 March 2022. 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 . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 57 3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 62 5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 5.2. Peer Up Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 64 5.2.1. Peer Up Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 12 75 6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 8.2. BMP Loc-RIB Instance Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 8.3. Peer Up Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 81 8.4. Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 82 8.5. Deprecated entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 83 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 84 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 85 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 86 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 88 1. Introduction 90 This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Loc-RIB state of 91 remote BGP instances without the need to establish BGP peering 92 sessions. BMP [RFC7854] does not define a method to send the BGP 93 instance Loc-RIB. It does define in section 8.2 of [RFC7854] locally 94 originated routes, but these routes are defined as the routes 95 originated into BGP. For example, as defined by Section 9.4 of 96 [RFC4271]. Loc-RIB includes all selected received routes from BGP 97 peers in addition to locally originated routes. 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 The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB access: 127 * The Adj-RIB-In for a given peer Post-Policy may contain hundreds 128 of thousands of routes, with only a handful of routes selected and 129 installed in the Loc-RIB after best-path selection. Some 130 monitoring applications, such as ones that need only to correlate 131 flow records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor 132 the routes that are actually selected and used. 134 Requiring the applications to collect all Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy 135 data forces the applications to receive a potentially large 136 unwanted data set and to perform the BGP decision process 137 selection, which includes having access to the interior gateway 138 protocol (IGP) next-hop metrics. While it is possible to obtain 139 the IGP topology information using BGP Link-State (BGP-LS), it 140 requires the application to implement shortest path first (SPF) 141 and possibly constrained shortest path first (CSPF) based on 142 additional policies. This is overly complex for such a simple 143 application that only needs to have access to the Loc-RIB. 145 * It is common to see frequent changes over many BGP peers, but 146 those changes do not always result in the router's Loc-RIB 147 changing. The change in the Loc-RIB can have a direct impact on 148 the forwarding state. It can greatly reduce time to troubleshoot 149 and resolve issues if operators have the history of Loc-RIB 150 changes. For example, a performance issue might have been seen 151 for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post-facto troubleshooting this 152 issue without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing 153 changes that might have happened during those five minutes. 155 * Operators may wish to validate the impact of policies applied to 156 Adj-RIB-In by analyzing the final decision made by the router when 157 installing into the Loc-RIB. For example, in order to validate if 158 multi-path prefixes are installed as expected for all advertising 159 peers, the Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy and Loc-RIB needs to be 160 compared. This is only possible if the Loc-RIB is available. 161 Monitoring the Adj-RIB-In for this router from another router to 162 derive the Loc-RIB is likely to not show same installed prefixes. 163 For example, the received Adj-RIB-In will be different if ADD-PATH 164 [RFC7911] is not enabled or if maximum supported number of equal 165 paths is different between Loc-RIB and advertised routes. 167 This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and 168 replaces Section 8.2 of [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes. 170 1.1. Alternative Method to Monitor Loc-RIB 172 Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a 173 peer. It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by 174 monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router. This 175 becomes overly complex and error prone when considering the number of 176 peers being monitored per router. 178 /------------------------------------------------------\ 179 | ROUTER1 BGP Instance | 180 | | 181 | +--------------------------------------------+ | 182 | | Loc-RIB | | 183 | +--------------------------------------------+ | 184 | | | | 185 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 186 | | Peer-ROUTER2 | | Peer-ROUTER3 | | 187 | | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | 188 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 189 | Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| | 190 | V V | 191 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 192 | | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | 193 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 194 | | | | 195 \------------- | ------------------------ | -----------/ 196 BGP | BGP | 197 Peer | Peer | 198 +------------------+ +------------------+ 199 | Peer-ROUTER1 | | Peer-ROUTER1 | 200 /--| |--\ /--| | --\ 201 | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | 202 | +------------------+ | | +------------------+ | 203 | | | | 204 | ROUTER2/BGP Instance | | ROUTER3/BGP Instance | 205 \------------------------/ \-------------------------/ 206 | | 207 v v 208 ROUTER2 BMP Feed ROUTER3 BMP Feed 210 Figure 2: Alternative method to monitor Loc-RIB 212 The setup needed to monitor the Loc-RIB of a router requires another 213 router with a peering session to the target router that is to be 214 monitored. As shown in Figure 2, the target router Loc-RIB is 215 advertised via Adj-RIB-Out to the BMP router over a standard BGP 216 peering session. The BMP router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy 217 to the BMP receiver. 219 BMP lacking access to Loc-RIB introduces the need for additional 220 resources: 222 * Requires at least two routers when only one router was to be 223 monitored. 225 * Requires additional BGP peering to collect the received updates 226 when peering may have not even been required in the first place. 227 For example, virtual routing and forwarding (VRF) tables with no 228 peers, redistributed BGP-LS with no peers, and segment routing 229 egress peer engineering where no peers have link-state address 230 family enabled are all situations with no preexisting BGP peers. 232 Many complexities are introduced when using a received Adj-RIB-In to 233 infer a router Loc-RIB: 235 * Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a 236 policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more 237 specific prefixes, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not 238 only does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity 239 when multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same 240 router. The BMP receiver user is left with the error-prone task 241 of identifying which peering session is the best representative of 242 the Loc-RIB. 244 * BGP peering is designed to work between administrative domains and 245 therefore does not need to include internal system level 246 information of each peering router (e.g., the system name or 247 version information). In order to derive the Loc-RIB of a router, 248 the router name or other system information is needed. The BMP 249 receiver and user are forced to do some type of correlation using 250 what information is available in the peering session (e.g., 251 peering addresses, autonomous system numbers, and BGP 252 identifiers). This leads to error-prone correlations. 254 * Correlating BGP identifiers (BGP-ID) and session addresses to a 255 router requires additional data, such as router inventory. This 256 additional data provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and 257 correlate the BGP-IDs and/or session addresses, but requires the 258 BMP receiver to somehow obtain this data outside of BMP. How this 259 data is obtained and the accuracy of the data directly affects the 260 integrity of the correlation. 262 2. Terminology 264 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 265 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 266 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 267 14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they 268 appear in all capitals, as shown here. 270 3. Definitions 271 * BGP Instance: refers to an instance of BGP-4 [RFC4271] and 272 considerations in section 8.1 of [RFC7854] do apply to it. 274 * Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains 275 unprocessed routing information that has been advertised to the 276 local BGP speaker by its peers." This is also referred to as the 277 pre-policy Adj-RIB-In in this document. 279 * Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains 280 the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the 281 local speaker's UPDATE messages." 283 * Loc-RIB: As defined in section 9.4 of [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB 284 contains the routes that have been selected by the local BGP 285 speaker's Decision Process." Note that the Loc-RIB state as 286 monitored through BMP might also contain routes imported from 287 other routing protocols such as an IGP, or local static routes. 289 * Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound 290 policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally represents a similar view 291 of the Loc-RIB but may contain additional routes based on BGP 292 peering configuration. 294 * Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to 295 an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer. 297 4. Per-Peer Header 299 4.1. Peer Type 301 A new peer type is defined for Loc-RIB to distinguish that it 302 represents the router Loc-RIB, which may have a route distinguisher 303 (RD). Section 4.2 of [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type, 304 which is for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance 305 identifier. 307 This document defines the following new peer type: 309 * Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer 311 4.2. Peer Flags 313 If locally sourced routes are communicated using BMP, they MUST be 314 conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type. 316 The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined 317 as follows: 319 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 320 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 321 |F| | | | | | | | 322 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 324 * The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This MUST be 325 set when a filter is applied to Loc-RIB routes sent to the BMP 326 collector. 328 The unused bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be 329 transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt. 331 5. Loc-RIB Monitoring 333 The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP Decision Process 334 as described in section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes include those 335 learned from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy, as well as 336 routes learned by other means as per section 9.4 of [RFC4271]. 337 Examples of these include redistribution of routes from other 338 protocols into BGP or otherwise locally originated (i.e., aggregate 339 routes). 341 As described in Section 6.1.2, a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent 342 to a BMP collector by setting the F flag. 344 5.1. Per-Peer Header 346 All peer messages that include a per-peer header as defined in 347 section 4.2 of [RFC7854] MUST use the following values: 349 * Peer Type: Set to 3 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer. 351 * Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the 352 global instance. Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or 353 unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc- 354 RIB belongs to. 356 * Peer Address: Zero-filled. Remote peer address is not applicable. 357 The V flag is not applicable with Loc-RIB Instance peer type 358 considering addresses are zero-filed. 360 * Peer AS: Set to the primary router BGP autonomous system number 361 (ASN). 363 * Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g., VRF) 364 specific router-id section 1.1 of [RFC7854]. 366 * Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were installed in 367 the Loc-RIB, expressed in seconds and microseconds since midnight 368 (zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC). If zero, the time is 369 unavailable. Precision of the timestamp is implementation- 370 dependent. 372 5.2. Peer Up Notification 374 Peer Up notifications follow section 4.10 of [RFC7854] with the 375 following clarifications: 377 * Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable. 379 * Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable. 381 * Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable. 383 * Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message. 384 Capabilities MUST include the 4-octet ASN and all necessary 385 capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring messages. 386 Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB 387 monitoring messages. For example, if ADD-PATH is enabled for IPv6 388 and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the ADD-PATH capability 389 should be included for IPv6. In the case of ADD-PATH, the 390 capability intent of advertise, receive or both can be ignored 391 since the presence of the capability indicates enough that add- 392 paths will be used for IPv6. 394 * Received OPEN Message: Repeat of the same Sent Open Message. The 395 duplication allows the BMP receiver to parse the expected received 396 OPEN message as defined in section 4.10 of [RFC7854]. 398 5.2.1. Peer Up Information 400 The following Peer Up information TLV type is added: 402 * Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8 403 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table 404 name (e.g., RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size 405 MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. 407 The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included to support 408 implementations that may not have defined a name. If a name is 409 configured, it MUST be included. The default value of "global" 410 MUST be used for the default Loc-RIB instance with a zero-filled 411 distinguisher. If the TLV is included, then it MUST also be 412 included in the Peer Down notification. 414 Multiple TLVs of the same type can be repeated as part of the same 415 message, for example to convey a filtered view of a VRF. A BMP 416 receiver should append multiple TLVs of the same type to a set in 417 order to support alternate or additional names for the same peer. If 418 multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when 419 they are reported. 421 5.3. Peer Down Notification 423 Peer Down notification MUST use reason code 6. Following the reason 424 is data in TLV format. The following Peer Down information TLV type 425 is defined: 427 * Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8 428 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table 429 name (e.g., RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size 430 MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. The VRF/Table Name 431 informational TLV MUST be included if it was in the Peer Up. 433 5.4. Route Monitoring 435 Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the 436 Loc-RIB. They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes. 438 As defined in section 4.6 of [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP 439 header and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU." 441 5.4.1. ASN Encoding 443 Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as 444 indicated in Peer Up sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability. 446 5.4.2. Granularity 448 State compression and throttling SHOULD be used by a BMP sender to 449 reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that are transmitted 450 to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the final resultant 451 updates are sent. 453 For example, prefix 192.0.2.0/24 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times 454 within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages 455 results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4 456 changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression 457 interval. If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have 458 been transmitted. 460 A BMP receiver should expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring 461 granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation. 463 5.5. Route Mirroring 465 Section 4.7 of [RFC7854], defines Route Mirroring for verbatim 466 duplication of messages received. This is not applicable to Loc-RIB 467 as PDUs are originated by the router. Any received Route Mirroring 468 messages SHOULD be ignored. 470 5.6. Statistics Report 472 Not all Stat Types are relevant to Loc-RIB. The Stat Types that are 473 relevant are listed below: 475 * Stat Type = 8: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Loc-RIB. 477 * Stat Type = 10: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Loc-RIB. The 478 value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64- 479 bit Gauge. 481 6. Other Considerations 483 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation 485 There are several methods for a BGP speaker to implement Loc-RIB 486 efficiently. In all methods, the implementation emulates a peer with 487 Peer Up and Down messages to convey capabilities as well as Route 488 Monitor messages to convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that 489 conveys the Loc-RIB is a locally emulated peer. 491 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers 493 There MUST be at least one emulated peer for each Loc-RIB instance, 494 such as with VRFs. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB by the 495 peer header distinguisher and BGP ID. The BMP receiver uses the VRF/ 496 Table Name from the Peer Up information to associate a name to the 497 Loc-RIB. 499 In some implementations, it might be required to have more than one 500 emulated peer for Loc-RIB to convey different address families for 501 the same Loc-RIB. In this case, the peer distinguisher and BGP ID 502 should be the same since they represent the same Loc-RIB instance. 503 Each emulated peer instance MUST send a Peer Up with the OPEN message 504 indicating the address family capabilities. A BMP receiver MUST 505 process these capabilities to know which peer belongs to which 506 address family. 508 6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers 510 There maybe be use-cases where BMP receivers should only receive 511 specific routes from Loc-RIB. For example, IPv4 unicast routes may 512 include internal BGP (IBGP), external BGP (EBGP), and IGP but only 513 routes from EBGP should be sent to the BMP receiver. Alternatively, 514 it may be that only IBGP and EBGP that should be sent and IGP 515 redistributed routes should be excluded. In these cases where the 516 Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP 517 receiver that the Loc-RIB is filtered. If multiple filters are 518 associated to the same Loc-RIB, a Table Name MUST be used in order to 519 allow a BMP receiver to make the right associations. 521 6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions 523 In case of any change that results in the alteration of behavior of 524 an existing BMP session, ie. changes to filtering and table names, 525 the session MUST be bounced with a Peer Down/Peer Up sequence. 527 7. Security Considerations 529 The same considerations as in section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this 530 document. Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require that 531 sessions are only established with authorized and trusted monitoring 532 devices. It is also believed that this document does not add any 533 additional security considerations. 535 8. IANA Considerations 537 This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters 538 to the BMP parameters name space (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ 539 bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml). 541 8.1. BMP Peer Type 543 This document defines a new peer type (Section 4.1): 545 * Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer 547 8.2. BMP Loc-RIB Instance Peer Flags 549 This document requests IANA to rename "BMP Peer Flags" to "BMP Peer 550 Flags for Peer Types 0 through 2" and create a new registry named 551 "BMP Peer Flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer Type 3." This document 552 defines that peer flags are specific to the Loc-RIB instance peer 553 type. As defined in (Section 4.2): 555 * Flag 0: The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This 556 indicates that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing 557 table. 559 Flags 0 through 3 and 5 through 7 are unassigned. The registration 560 procedure for the registry is "Standards Action". 562 8.3. Peer Up Information TLV 564 This document requests that IANA rename "BMP Initiation Message TLVs" 565 registry to "BMP Initiation and Peer Up Information TLVs." section 566 4.4 of [RFC7854] defines that both Initiation and Peer Up share the 567 same information TLVs. This document defines the following new BMP 568 Peer Up information TLV type (Section 5.2.1): 570 * Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8 571 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table 572 name (e.g., RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size 573 MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. 575 8.4. Peer Down Reason code 577 This document defines the following new BMP Peer Down reason code 578 (Section 5.3): 580 * Type = 6: Local system closed, TLV data follows. 582 8.5. Deprecated entries 584 This document also requests that IANA marks as "deprecated" the F 585 Flag entry in the "BMP Peer Flags for Peer Types 0 through 2" 586 registry. 588 9. Normative References 590 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 591 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 592 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 593 . 595 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 596 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 597 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 598 . 600 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 601 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, 602 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 603 . 605 [RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP 606 Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, 607 DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, 608 . 610 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 611 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 612 May 2017, . 614 10. Informative References 616 [RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, 617 "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911, 618 DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016, 619 . 621 Acknowledgements 623 The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Jeff Haas and Mukul 624 Srivastava for their valuable input. 626 Authors' Addresses 628 Tim Evens 629 Cisco Systems 630 2901 Third Avenue, Suite 600 631 Seattle, WA 98121 632 United States of America 634 Email: tievens@cisco.com 636 Serpil Bayraktar 637 Cisco Systems 638 3700 Cisco Way 639 San Jose, CA 95134 640 United States of America 642 Email: serpil@cisco.com 643 Manish Bhardwaj 644 Cisco Systems 645 3700 Cisco Way 646 San Jose, CA 95134 647 United States of America 649 Email: manbhard@cisco.com 651 Paolo Lucente 652 NTT Communications 653 Siriusdreef 70-72 654 2132 Hoofddorp 655 Netherlands 657 Email: paolo@ntt.net