idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-01.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 draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7854, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. 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 (October 15, 2019) is 1654 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 (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Global Routing Operations P. Lucente 3 Internet-Draft NTT 4 Updates: 7854 (if approved) Y. Gu 5 Intended status: Standards Track Huawei 6 Expires: April 17, 2020 H. Smit 7 Independent 8 October 15, 2019 10 TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages 11 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-01 13 Abstract 15 Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol 16 (BMP) do provision for optional trailing data; however Route 17 Monitoring message (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing 18 Information Base) and Peer Down message (to indicate that a peering 19 session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV 20 format across all BMP message types allows for an homogeneous and 21 extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use- 22 cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station. While 23 this document does not want to cover any specific utilization 24 scenario, it defines a simple way to support optional TLV data in all 25 message types. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2020. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 3. TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 4. BMP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 4.1. Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 4.3. TLV data in Peer Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 4.4. TLV data in other BMP messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 1. Introduction 77 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) is defined in RFC 7854 [RFC7854]. 79 The Route Monitoring message consists of: 81 o Common Header 83 o Per-Peer Header 85 o BGP Update PDU 87 The Peer Down Notification message consists of: 89 o Common Header 91 o Per-Peer Header 93 o Reason 95 o Data (only if Reason code is 1, 2 or 3) 96 This means that both Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages have a 97 non-extensible format. In the Route Monitoring case this is limiting 98 if wanting to transmit characteristics of transported NLRIs (ie. to 99 help stateless parsing) or vendor-specific data; in the Peer Down 100 case this is limiting if wanting to match TLVs shipped with the Peer 101 Up. The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP version, for 102 backward compatibility, and allow all message types to provision for 103 trailing TLV data. 105 2. Terminology 107 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 108 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 109 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 110 14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they 111 appear in all capitals, as shown here. 113 3. TLV encoding 115 TLV data type is already defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] for the 116 Initiation and Peer Up message types. A TLV consists of: 118 o 2 octets of TLV Type, 120 o 2 octets of TLV Length, 122 o 0 or more octets of TLV Value. 124 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 125 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 126 | Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | 127 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 128 | Value (variable, between, 0 and 65535 octets) | 129 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 131 Figure 1 133 TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their code point. Multiple TLVs of the same 134 type can be repeated as part of the same message and it is left to 135 the specific use-cases whether all, any, the first or the last TLV 136 should be considered. 138 4. BMP Message Format 140 4.1. Common Header 142 Section 4.1 of [RFC7854] defines the Common Header. While the 143 structure remains unaltered, the following two definitions are 144 changed: 146 o Version: Indicates the BMP version. This is set to '4' for all 147 messages. 149 o Message Length: Length of the message in bytes (including headers, 150 data, encapsulated messages and TLV data if any) 152 4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring 154 The Route Monitoring message type is defined in Section 4.6 of 155 [RFC7854]. The BGP Update PDU Section 4.3 of [RFC4271] MAY be 156 followed by TLV data. This document defines the following new codes 157 to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs: 159 o Type = TBD1: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with support for 160 4-octet AS number capability RFC 6793 [RFC6793], value MUST be 161 boolean. 163 o Type = TBD2: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with ADD-PATH 164 capability RFC 7911 [RFC7911], value MUST be boolean. 166 o Type = TBD3: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with Multiple Labels 167 capability RFC 8277 [RFC8277], value MUST be boolean. 169 4.3. TLV data in Peer Down 171 The Peer Down Notification message type is defined in Section 4.9 of 172 [RFC7854]. In case of Reason code 1 and 3, a BGP Notification PDU 173 follows; the PDU MAY be followed by TLV data. In case of Reason code 174 2, a 2-byte field to give additional FSM info follows; this field MAY 175 be followed by TLV data. For all other Reason codes, TLV data MAY 176 follow the Reason field. 178 4.4. TLV data in other BMP messages 180 All other message types defined in RFC7854 [RFC7854] do already 181 provision for TLV data. It is RECOMMENDED that all future BMP 182 message types will provision for trailing TLV data. 184 5. Security Considerations 186 It is not believed that this document adds any additional security 187 considerations. 189 6. IANA Considerations 191 This document defines the following new TLV types for BMP Route 192 Monitoring and Peer Down messages (Section 4.2): 194 o Type = TBD1: Support for 4-octet AS number capability. The value 195 field contains a boolean value. 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed 196 in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to the 197 capability. 199 o Type = TBD2: ADD-PATH capability. The value field contains a 200 boolean value. 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route 201 Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability. 203 o Type = TBD3: Multiple Labels capability. The value field contains 204 a boolean value. 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route 205 Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability. 207 7. Normative References 209 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 210 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 211 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 212 . 214 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 215 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 216 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 217 . 219 [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet 220 Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, 221 DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, 222 . 224 [RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP 225 Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, 226 DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, 227 . 229 [RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, 230 "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911, 231 DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016, 232 . 234 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 235 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 236 May 2017, . 238 [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address 239 Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, 240 . 242 Acknowledgements 244 The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas for his valuable input. 246 Authors' Addresses 248 Paolo Lucente 249 NTT 250 Siriusdreef 70-72 251 Hoofddorp, WT 2132 252 NL 254 Email: paolo@ntt.net 256 Yunan Gu 257 Huawei 258 Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. 259 Beijing 100095 260 China 262 Email: guyunan@huawei.com 264 Henk Smit 265 Independent 266 NL 268 Email: hhw.smit@xs4all.nl