idnits 2.17.1 draft-mi-grow-monitoring-outgoing-bgp-routes-00.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 abstract seems to contain references ([RFC4271], [RFC7854]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 13, 2017) is 2594 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: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Mi 3 Internet-Draft Tencent 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Zhuang 5 Expires: September 14, 2017 J. Dong 6 Huawei 7 March 13, 2017 9 Monitoring Outgoing Routes Using BMP 10 draft-mi-grow-monitoring-outgoing-bgp-routes-00 12 Abstract 14 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] is designed to monitor 15 BGP [RFC4271] running status, such as BGP peer relationship 16 establishment and termination and route updates. At present, the BMP 17 only monitors the incoming bgp routes (Adj-RIB-In), does not monitor 18 the outgoing bgp routes (Adj-RIB-Out). 20 This draft extends the applicability of BMP [RFC7854] to monitor the 21 outgoing bgp routes. 23 Requirements Language 25 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 26 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 27 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 29 Status of This Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 64 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 65 3. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 3.1. Option 1: Extending BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 3.2. Option 2: Introducing Advertise Route Monitoring Message 5 68 3.3. Optons Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 1. Terminology 77 This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7854]. 79 Adj-RIB-Out: The Adj-RIBs-Out contains the routes for advertisement 80 to specific peers by means of the local speaker's UPDATE messages. 82 BMP: BGP Monitoring Protocol 84 BMS: BGP Monitoring Station 86 2. Introduction 88 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) introduces the availability of 89 monitoring BGP running status, such as BGP peer relationship 90 establishment and termination and route updates. Without BMP, manual 91 query is required if you want to know about BGP running status. With 92 BMP, a router can be connected to a monitoring station and configured 93 to report BGP running statistics to the station for monitoring, which 94 improves the network monitoring efficiency. BMP facilitates the 95 monitoring of BGP running status and reports security threats in real 96 time so that preventive measures can be taken promptly. 98 The BMP can be used to obtain route view instead of screen scraping. 99 The BMP provides access to unprocessed routing information (Adj-RIB- 100 In) and processed routes (applied inbound policy) of monitored 101 router's peer. Route Monitoring (RM) message defined in [RFC7854] is 102 used to provide an initial dump of all routes received from a peer, 103 as well as an ongoing mechanism that sends the incremental routes 104 advertised and withdrawn by a peer to the monitoring station. 106 At present, the BMP only monitors the incoming bgp routes (Adj-RIB- 107 In), does not monitor the outgoing bgp routes (Adj-RIB-Out). 109 Consider the following scenario: 111 The Station of ISP A is attached to router A, and the route to the 112 Station is advertised to the Users via multiple exit routers (Such as 113 routers C and E). 115 The BMS (BGP Monitoring Station) is used to monitor the bgp running 116 status of routers C and E. 118 Now the operator of ISP A would like to know the status of the routes 119 being advertised out of the ISP A: 121 1) Outgoing to which peers; 123 2) Whether the route was rejected by the export policy; 125 3) The modification of BGP route attributes; 127 4) To be added later. 129 These status will provide valuable information for network operators, 130 can be used in subsequent optimization procedures. 132 ********************************* 133 * +---+ * 134 * AS A |BMS| * 135 *+------+ +---+ * 136 *|Station| \ * AS X 137 *+------+ +---+ \ +---+ * +-----------+ 138 * | /| B |-------+-| C |-+----| Transit X |---+ 139 * | / +---+\ +---+ | * +-----------+ | 140 * | / | \\ // | | * AS Y | 141 *+---+/ | \\// | | * +-----------+ | +------+ 142 *| A | | //\ | +----| Transit Y |---+---...| Users| 143 *+---+\ | // \\ | | * +-----------+ | +------+ 144 * \ | / \ | | * AS Z | 145 * \ +---+ +---+ | * +-----------+ | 146 * \| D |---------| E |-+----| Transit Z |---+ 147 * +---+ +---+ * +-----------+ 148 * * 149 * ISP A * 150 * * 151 ********************************* 153 Figure 1: Monitoring Outgoing Routes Using BMP 155 From the above description of the scenario, it can be seen that it is 156 necessary to monitor BGP outgoing routes. This draft extends the 157 applicability of BMP [RFC7854] to monitor the outgoing bgp routes. 159 3. Protocol Extensions 161 In order to support BMP to monitoring outgoing BGP routes, this 162 document proposes some protocol extensions to BMP. 164 3.1. Option 1: Extending BMP Peer Flags 166 [RFC7854] defines three bit flags in the Peer Flags field of the per- 167 peer header. The bits are numbered from 0 (the high-order, or 168 leftmost, bit) to 7 (the low-order, or rightmost, bit): 170 o Flag 0: V flag 172 o Flag 1: L flag 174 o Flag 2: A flag 175 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 176 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 |V|L|A|O| Res. | 178 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 180 Figure 2: Peer Flags 182 This document defines an additional Flag that will be used to monitor 183 the outgoing bgp routes: 185 o Flag TBD: O flag 187 The O flag, if set to 0, indicates that Adj-RIBs-In are synchronized 188 to BMP Station. If set to 1, indicates that Adj-RIBs-Out are 189 synchronized to BMP Station. 191 This flag has no significance when used with other messages but Route 192 Monitoring message. 194 3.2. Option 2: Introducing Advertise Route Monitoring Message 196 [RFC7854] defines seven message types for transferring BGP messages 197 between cooperating systems: 199 o Type 0: Route Monitoring 201 o Type 1: Statistics Report 203 o Type 2: Peer Down Notification 205 o Type 3: Peer Up Notification 207 o Type 4: Initiation 209 o Type 5: Termination 211 o Type 6: Route Mirroring 213 This document defines an additional message type that will be used to 214 monitor the outgoing bgp routes: 216 o Type TBD: Advertise Route Monitoring 218 The format of Advertise Route Monitoring message will reuse Route 219 Monitoring message, the only difference is the message type value. 221 The support for this new route type is OPTIONAL. 223 3.3. Optons Comparison 225 Option 1: Reusing the Type 0 information, only introduces an 226 additional flag into the BMP Peer Flags. If the BMP Station does not 227 support the new flag, there is a risk that the BMP Station will 228 wrongly handle the receiving Adj-RIBs-Out information as Adj-RIBs-In 229 information. 231 Option 2: Introduces an additional message type, if the BMP Station 232 does not support it, the receiving new type message will be ignored 233 by the BMP Station Quietly. 235 4. Acknowledgements 237 TBD. 239 5. IANA Considerations 241 TBD. 243 6. Security Considerations 245 TBD. 247 7. Normative References 249 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 250 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 251 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 252 . 254 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 255 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 256 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 257 . 259 [RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP 260 Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, 261 DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, 262 . 264 Authors' Addresses 265 Penghui Mi 266 Tencent 267 Tengyun Building,Tower A ,No. 397 Tianlin Road 268 Shanghai 200233 269 China 271 Email: kevinmi@tencent.com 273 Shunwan Zhuang 274 Huawei 275 Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. 276 Beijing 100095 277 China 279 Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com 281 Jie Dong 282 Huawei 283 Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. 284 Beijing 100095 285 China 287 Email: jie.dong@huawei.com