idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-08.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC4486, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2001-10-18) -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 5, 2017) is 2547 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 (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IDR J. Snijders 3 Internet-Draft NTT 4 Updates: 4486 (if approved) J. Heitz 5 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco 6 Expires: November 6, 2017 J. Scudder 7 Juniper 8 May 5, 2017 10 BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication 11 draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-08 13 Abstract 15 This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message 16 "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for 17 operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP 18 session was shutdown or reset. This document updates RFC 4486. 20 Requirements Language 22 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 23 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 24 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2017. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 59 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 60 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 61 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 62 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 63 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 64 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 65 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 66 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 67 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 68 than English. 70 Table of Contents 72 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 73 2. Shutdown Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 74 3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 75 4. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 76 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 77 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 78 7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 5 79 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 81 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 82 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 83 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 85 1. Introduction 87 It can be troublesome for an operator to correlate a BGP-4 [RFC4271] 88 session teardown in the network with a notice that was transmitted 89 via off-line methods such email or telephone calls. This document 90 updates [RFC4486] by specifying a mechanism to transmit a short 91 freeform UTF-8 [RFC3629] message as part of a Cease NOTIFICATION 92 message [RFC4271] to inform the peer why the BGP session is being 93 shutdown or reset. 95 2. Shutdown Communication 97 If a BGP speaker decides to terminate its session with a BGP 98 neighbor, and it sends a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code 99 "Cease" and Error Subcode "Administrative Shutdown" or 100 "Administrative Reset" [RFC4486], it MAY include an UTF-8 encoded 101 string. The contents of the string are at the operator's discretion. 103 The Cease NOTIFICATION message with a Shutdown Communication is 104 encoded as below: 106 0 1 2 3 107 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 1 108 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 109 | Error code 6 | Subcode | Length | ... \ 110 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / 111 \ \ 112 / ... Shutdown Communication ... / 113 \ \ 114 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 Figure 1 118 Subcode: the Error Subcode value MUST be one of the following 119 values: 2 ("Administrative Shutdown") or 4 ("Administrative 120 Reset"). 122 Length: this 8-bit field represents the length of the Shutdown 123 Communication field in octets. The length value MUST range from 0 124 to 128 inclusive. When the length value is zero, no Shutdown 125 Communication field follows. 127 Shutdown Communication: to support international characters, the 128 Shutdown Communication field MUST be encoded using UTF-8. A 129 receiving BGP speaker MUST NOT interpret invalid UTF-8 sequences. 130 Note that when the Shutdown Communication contains multibyte 131 characters, the number of characters will be less than the length 132 value. This field is not NUL terminated. 134 Mechanisms concerning the reporting of information contained in the 135 Shutdown Communication are implementation specific but SHOULD include 136 methods such as SYSLOG [RFC5424]. 138 3. Operational Considerations 140 Operators are encouraged to use the Shutdown Communication to inform 141 their peers of the reason for the shutdown of the BGP session and 142 include out-of-band reference materials. An example of a useful 143 Shutdown Communication would be: 145 "[TICKET-1-1438367390] software upgrade, back in 2 hours" 147 "[TICKET-1-1438367390]" is a ticket reference with significance to 148 both the sender and receiver, followed by a brief human readable 149 message regarding the reason for the BGP session shutdown followed by 150 an indication about the length of the maintenance. The receiver can 151 now use the string 'TICKET-1-1438367390' to search in their email 152 archive to find more details. 154 4. Error Handling 156 If a Shutdown Communication with an invalid Length value, or an 157 invalid UTF-8 sequence is received, a message indicating this event 158 SHOULD be logged for the attention of the operator. An erroneous or 159 malformed Shutdown Communication itself MAY be logged in a hexdump 160 format. 162 5. IANA Considerations 164 Per this document, IANA is requested to reference this document at 165 subcode "Administrative Shutdown", and at subcode "Administrative 166 Reset" in the "Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry under 167 the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in addition to 168 [RFC4486]. 170 6. Security Considerations 172 This document uses UTF-8 encoding for the Shutdown Communication. 173 There are a number of security issues with UNICODE. Implementers and 174 operator are advised to review UNICODE TR36 [UTR36] to learn about 175 these issues. UTF-8 "Shortest Form" encoding is REQUIRED to guard 176 against the technical issues outlined in UTR36. However, the visual 177 spoofing due to character confusion still persists. This 178 specification minimizes the effects of visual spoofing by limiting 179 the length of the Shutdown Communication. 181 Users of this mechanism should be aware that unless a transport that 182 provides integrity is used for the BGP session in question, a 183 Shutdown Communication message could be forged. Unless a transport 184 that provides confidentiality is used, a Shutdown Communication 185 message could be snooped by an attacker. These issues are common to 186 any BGP message but may be of greater interest in the context of this 187 proposal since the information carried in the message is generally 188 expected to be used for human-to-human communication. Refer to the 189 related considerations in [RFC4271] and [RFC4272]. 191 Users of this mechanism should consider applying data minimization 192 practises as outlined in Section 6.1 [RFC6973] as a received Shutdown 193 Communication may be used at the receiver's discretion. 195 7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 197 This section records the status of known implementations of the 198 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 199 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC7942. The 200 description of implementations in this section is intended to assist 201 the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. 202 Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here 203 does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has 204 been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied 205 by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be 206 construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their 207 features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may 208 exist. 210 As of today these vendors have produced an implementation of the 211 Shutdown Communication: 213 o ExaBGP 214 o pmacct 215 o OpenBGPD 216 o GoBGP 217 o FreeRangeRouting (frr) 218 o tcpdump (packet analyser) 219 o Wireshark (packet analyser) 221 8. References 223 8.1. Normative References 225 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 226 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 227 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 228 . 230 [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 231 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 232 2003, . 234 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 235 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 236 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 237 . 239 [RFC4486] Chen, E. and V. Gillet, "Subcodes for BGP Cease 240 Notification Message", RFC 4486, DOI 10.17487/RFC4486, 241 April 2006, . 243 8.2. Informative References 245 [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", 246 RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, 247 . 249 [RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, 250 DOI 10.17487/RFC5424, March 2009, 251 . 253 [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., 254 Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy 255 Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, 256 DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, 257 . 259 [UTR36] Davis, M. and M. Suignard, "Unicode Security 260 Considerations", Unicode Technical Report #36, August 261 2010, . 263 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 265 The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Tom Scholl, David 266 Freedman, Jared Mauch, Jeff Haas, Peter Hessler, Bruno Decraene, John 267 Heasley, Peter van Dijk, Arjen Zonneveld, James Bensley, Susan Hares, 268 Saku Ytti, Lou Berger, and Alvaro Retana. 270 Authors' Addresses 272 Job Snijders 273 NTT Communications 274 Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 275 Amsterdam 1065 SZ 276 The Netherlands 278 Email: job@ntt.net 279 Jakob Heitz 280 Cisco 281 170 West Tasman Drive 282 San Jose, CA 95054 283 USA 285 Email: jheitz@cisco.com 287 John Scudder 288 Juniper Networks 289 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 290 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 291 USA 293 Email: jgs@juniper.net