idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-06.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 221. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 192. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 199. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 205. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 5 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 6 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BGP-4' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2858 (ref. 'BGP-MP') (Obsoleted by RFC 4760) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Enke Chen 3 Internet Draft Cisco Systems 4 Expiration Date: December 2005 Vincent Gillet 5 France Telecom 7 Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message 9 draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-06.txt 11 1. Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 2. Abstract 36 This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION 37 message that would provide more information to aid network operators 38 in correlating network events and diagnosing BGP peering issues. 40 3. Specification of Requirements 42 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 43 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 44 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119]. 46 4. Introduction 48 This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION 49 message that would provide more information to aid network operators 50 in correlating network events and diagnosing BGP peering issues. 52 5. Subcode Definition 54 The following subcodes are defined for the Cease NOTIFICATION 55 message: 57 Subcode Symbolic Name 59 1 Maximum Number of Prefixes Reached 60 2 Administrative Shutdown 61 3 Peer De-configured 62 4 Administrative Reset 63 5 Connection Rejected 64 6 Other Configuration Change 65 7 Connection Collision Resolution 66 8 Out of Resources 68 6. Subcode Usage 70 If a BGP speaker decides to terminate its peering with a neighbor 71 because the number of address prefixes received from the neighbor 72 exceeds a locally configured upper bound (as described in [BGP-4]), 73 then the speaker MUST send to the neighbor a NOTIFICATION message 74 with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Maximum Number of 75 Prefixes Reached". The message MAY optionally include the Address 76 Family information [BGP-MP] and the upper bound in the "Data" field 77 as shown in Figure 1 where the meaning and use of the 78 tuple is the same as defined in [BGP-MP, sect. 7]. 80 +-------------------------------+ 81 | AFI (2 octets) | 82 +-------------------------------+ 83 | SAFI (1 octet) | 84 +-------------------------------+ 85 | Prefix upper bound (4 octets) | 86 +-------------------------------+ 88 Figure 1 Optional Data Field 90 If a BGP speaker decides to administratively shut down its peering 91 with a neighbor, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message 92 with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Administrative 93 Shutdown". 95 If a BGP speaker decides to de-configure a peer, then the speaker 96 SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code Cease, and the 97 Error Subcode "Peer De-configured". 99 If a BGP speaker decides to administratively reset the peering with a 100 neighbor, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with 101 the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Administrative Reset". 103 If a BGP speaker decides to dis-allow a BGP connection (e.g., the 104 peer is not configured locally) after the speaker accepts a transport 105 protocol connection, then the BGP speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION 106 message with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Connection 107 Rejected". 109 If a BGP speaker decides to administratively reset the peering with a 110 neighbor due to a configuration change other than the ones described 111 above, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with the 112 Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Other Configuration Change". 114 If a BGP speaker decides to send a NOTIFICATION message with the 115 Error Code Cease as a result of the collision resolution procedure 116 (as described in [BGP-4]), then the subcode SHOULD be set to 117 "Connection Collision Resolution". 119 If a BGP speaker runs out of resources (e.g., memory) and decides to 120 reset a session, then the speaker MAY send a NOTIFICATION message 121 with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Out of Resources". 123 It is RECOMMENDED that a BGP speaker implement a backoff mechanism in 124 re-trying a BGP connection after the speaker receives a Cease 125 NOTIFICATION message with subcode of "Administrative Shutdown", or 126 "Peer De-configured", or "Connection Rejected", or "Out of 127 Resources". An implementation SHOULD impose an upper bound on the 128 number of consecutive automatic retries. Once this bound is reached, 129 the implementation would stop re-trying any BGP connections until 130 some administrative intervention. 132 7. IANA Considerations 134 This document defines the subcodes 1 - 8 for the BGP Cease 135 NOTIFICATION message. Future assignments are to be made using either 136 the Standards Action process defined in [RFC-2434], or the Early IANA 137 Allocation process defined in [kompella-zinin], or the "First Come 138 First Served" policy defined in [RFC-2434]. 140 8. Security Considerations 142 This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues 143 inherent in the existing BGP. 145 9. Acknowledgments 147 The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter, Pedro Marques, Andrew 148 Lange and Don Goodspeed for their review and suggestions. 150 10. Normative References 152 [BGP-4] Y. Rekhter, T. Li and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 153 (BGP-4)", , October 2004. 155 [BGP-MP] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter, 156 "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000. 158 [RFC-2434] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an 159 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998. 161 [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 162 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 164 11. Non-normative References 166 [kompella-zinin] Kompella, K., Zinin, A., "Early IANA Allocation of 167 Standards Track Codepoints", Work in progress 169 12. Author Information 171 Enke Chen 172 Cisco Systems, Inc. 173 170 W. Tasman Dr. 174 San Jose, CA 95134 175 Email: enkechen@cisco.com 177 Vincent Gillet 178 France Telecom Longues Distances 179 61, rue des Archives 180 75003 Paris FRANCE 181 Email: vgi@opentransit.net 183 13. Intellectual Property Considerations 185 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 186 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 187 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 188 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 189 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 190 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 191 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 192 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 194 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 195 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 196 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 197 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 198 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 199 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 201 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 202 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 203 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 204 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 205 ipr@ietf.org. 207 14. Full Copyright Notice 209 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 211 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 212 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 213 retain all their rights. 215 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 216 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 217 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 218 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 219 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 220 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 221 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.