[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-evens-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out) 00 01 02

Global Routing Operations                                       T. Evens
Internet-Draft                                              S. Bayraktar
Updates: 7854 (if approved)                                Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                              P. Lucente
Expires: March 21, 2019                               NTT Communications
                                                                   P. Mi
                                                                 Tencent
                                                               S. Zhuang
                                                                  Huawei
                                                      September 17, 2018


        Support for Adj-RIB-Out in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
                   draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-02

Abstract

   The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to only the Adj-RIB-
   In Routing Information Bases (RIBs).  This document updates the BGP
   Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by adding access to the Adj-RIB-
   Out RIBs.  It adds a new flag to the peer header to distinguish Adj-
   RIB-In and Adj-RIB-Out.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 21, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Evens, et al.            Expires March 21, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               BMP Adj-RIB-Out              September 2018


   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Adj-RIB-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  Post-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.2.  Pre-Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  BMP Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring  . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.2.  Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.3.  Peer Down and Up Notifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       6.3.1.  Peer Up Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Other Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Peer and Update Groups  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  BMP Peer Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.2.  BMP Statistics Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.3.  Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.2.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines monitoring of the received
   (e.g.  Adj-RIB-In) Routing Information Bases (RIBs) per peer.  The
   Adj-RIB-In pre-policy conveys to a BMP receiver all RIB data before
   any policy has been applied.  The Adj-RIB-In post-policy conveys to a
   BMP receiver all RIB data after policy filters and/or modifications
   have been applied.  An example of pre-policy verses post-policy is
   when an inbound policy applies attribute modification or filters.
   Pre-policy would contain information prior to the inbound policy
   changes or filters of data.  Post policy would convey the changed
   data or would not contain the filtered data.




Evens, et al.            Expires March 21, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               BMP Adj-RIB-Out              September 2018


   Monitoring the received updates that the router received before any
   policy has been applied is the primary level of monitoring for most
   use-cases.  Inbound policy validation and auditing is the primary
   use-case for enabling post-policy monitoring.

   In order for a BMP receiver to receive any BGP data, the BMP sender
   (e.g. router) needs to have an established BGP peering session and
   actively be receiving updates for an Adj-RIB-In.

   Being able to only monitor the Adj-RIB-In puts a restriction on what
   data is available to BMP receivers via BMP senders (e.g. routers).
   This is an issue when the receiving end of the BGP peer is not
   enabled for BMP or when it is not accessible for administrative
   reasons.  For example, a service provider advertises prefixes to a
   customer, but the service provider cannot see what it advertises via
   BMP.  Asking the customer to enable BMP and monitoring of the Adj-
   RIB- In is not feasible.

   This document updates BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854
   [RFC7854] peer header by adding a new flag to distinguish Adj-RIB-In
   verses Adj-RIB-Out.

   Adding Adj-RIB-Out enables the ability for a BMP sender to send to a
   BMP receiver what it advertises to BGP peers, which can be used for
   outbound policy validation and to monitor RIBs that were advertised.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3.  Definitions

   o  Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains
      the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the
      local speaker's UPDATE messages."

   o  Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound
      policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally would match what is in the
      local RIB.

   o  Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to
      an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer.







Evens, et al.            Expires March 21, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               BMP Adj-RIB-Out              September 2018


4.  Per-Peer Header

   The per-peer header has the same structure and flags as defined in
   section 4.2 [RFC7854] with the following O flag addition:

                              0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
                             +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                             |V|L|A|O| Resv  |
                             +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  The O flag indicates Adj-RIB-In if set to 0 and Adj-RIB-Out if set
      to 1.

   The existing flags are defined in section 4.2 [RFC7854] and the
   remaining bits are reserved for future use.  They SHOULD be
   transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.

5.  Adj-RIB-Out

5.1.  Post-Policy

   The primary use-case in monitoring Adj-RIB-Out is to monitor the
   updates transmitted to the BGP peer after outbound policy has been
   applied.  These updates reflect the result after modifications and
   filters have been applied (e.g.  Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy).  Some
   attributes are set when the BGP message is transmitted, such as next-
   hop.  Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy MUST convey what is actually
   transmitted to the peer, next-hop and any attribute set during
   transmission should also be set and transmitted to the BMP receiver.

   The L flag MUST be set to 1 to indicate post-policy.

5.2.  Pre-Policy

   As with Adj-RIB-In policy validation, there are use-cases that pre-
   policy Adj-RIB-Out is used to validate and audit outbound policies.
   For example, a comparison between pre-policy and post-policy can be
   used to validate the outbound policy.

   Depending on BGP peering session type (IBGP, IBGP route reflector
   client, EBGP) the candidate routes that make up the Pre-Policy Adj-
   RIB-Out do not contain all local-rib routes.  Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out
   conveys only routes that are available based on the peering type.
   Post-Policy represents the filtered/changed routes from the available
   routes.

   Some attributes are set only during transmission of the BGP message,
   e.g.  Post-Policy.  It is common that next-hop may be null, loopback,



Evens, et al.            Expires March 21, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               BMP Adj-RIB-Out              September 2018


   or similar during this phase.  All mandatory attributes, such as
   next-hop, MUST be either ZERO or have an empty length if they are
   unknown at the Pre-Policy phase.  The BMP receiver will treat zero or
   empty mandatory attributes as self originated.

   The L flag MUST be set to 0 to indicate pre-policy.

6.  BMP Messages

   Many BMP messages have a per-peer header but some are not applicable
   to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out monitoring.  Unless otherwise defined,
   the O flag should be set to 0 in the per-peer header in BMP messages.

6.1.  Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring

   The O flag MUST be set accordingly to indicate if the route monitor
   or route mirroring message conveys Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out.

6.2.  Statistics Report

   Statistics report message has Stat Type field to indicate the
   statistic carried in the Stat Data field.  Statistics report messages
   are not specific to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out and MUST have the O
   flag set to zero.  The O flag SHOULD be ignored by the BMP receiver.

   The following new statistic types are added:

   o  Stat Type = TBD1: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
      Pre-Policy.

   o  Stat Type = TBD2: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
      Post-Policy.

   o  Stat Type = TBD3: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out
      Pre- Policy.  The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family
      Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
      (SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

   o  Stat Type = TBD4: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out
      Post-Policy.  The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family
      Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
      (SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

6.3.  Peer Down and Up Notifications

   PEER UP and DOWN notifications convey BGP peering session state to
   BMP receivers.  The state is independent of whether or not route
   monitoring or route mirroring messages will be sent for Adj-RIB-In,



Evens, et al.            Expires March 21, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               BMP Adj-RIB-Out              September 2018


   Adj-RIB-Out, or both.  BMP receiver implementations SHOULD ignore the
   O flag in PEER UP and DOWN notifications.  BMP receiver
   implementations MUST use the per-peer header O flag in route
   monitoring and mirroring messages in order to identify if the message
   is for Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out.

6.3.1.  Peer Up Information

   The following peer UP information TLV types are added:

   o  Type = TBD5: Admin Label.  The Information field contains a free-
      form UTF-8 string whose length is given by the Information Length
      field.  The value is administratively assigned.  There is no
      requirement to terminate the string with null or any other
      character.

      Multiple admin labels can be included in the Peer UP.  When
      multiple admin labels are included the BMP receiver MUST preserve
      the order.

      The TLV is optional.

7.  Other Considerations

7.1.  Peer and Update Groups

   Peer and update groups are used to group updates shared by many
   peers.  This is a level of efficiency in the implementation, not a
   true representation of what is conveyed to a peer in either Pre-
   Policy or Post-Policy.

   One of the use-cases to monitor Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy is to
   validate and continually ensure the egress updates match what is
   expected.  For example, wholesale peers should never have routes with
   community X:Y sent to them.  In this use-case, there maybe hundreds
   of wholesale peers but a single peer could have represented the
   group.

   A single peer could be used to represent a group.  From a BMP
   perspective, this should be simple to include a group name in the
   PEER UP, but it is more complex than that.  BGP implementations have
   evolved to provide comprehensive and structured policy grouping, such
   as session, afi/safi, and template based group policy inheritances.

   This level of structure and inheritance of polices does not provide a
   simple peer group name or ID, such as wholesale peer.





Evens, et al.            Expires March 21, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               BMP Adj-RIB-Out              September 2018


   Instead of requiring a group name to be used, a new administrative
   label informational TLV (Section 6.3.1) is added to the Peer UP
   message.  These labels have administrative scope relevance.  For
   example, labels "type=wholesale" and "region=west" could be used to
   monitor expected policies.

   Configuration and assignment of labels to peers is BGP implementation
   specific.

8.  Security Considerations

   It is not believed that this document adds any additional security
   considerations.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters
   to the BMP parameters name space [1].

9.1.  BMP Peer Flags

   This document defines the following new per-peer header flags
   (Section 4):

   o  Flag 3 as O flag: The O flag indicates Adj-RIB-In if set to 0 and
      Adj-RIB-Out if set to 1.

9.2.  BMP Statistics Types

   This document defines four new statistic types for statistics
   reporting (Section 6.2):

   o  Stat Type = TBD1: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
      Pre-Policy.

   o  Stat Type = TBD2: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
      Post-Policy.

   o  Stat Type = TBD3: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out
      Pre- Policy.  The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family
      Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
      (SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.

   o  Stat Type = TBD4: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out
      Post-Policy.  The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family
      Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
      (SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.




Evens, et al.            Expires March 21, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               BMP Adj-RIB-Out              September 2018


9.3.  Peer UP Information TLV

   This document defines the following new BMP PEER UP informational
   message TLV types (Section 6.3.1):

   o  Type = TBD5: Admin Label.  The Information field contains a free-
      form UTF-8 string whose length is given by the Information Length
      field.  The value is administratively given by the Information
      Length field.  The value is administratively assigned.  There is
      no requirement to terminate the string with null or any other
      character.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC7854]  Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
              Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.

10.2.  URIs

   [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
       parameters.xhtml

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank John Scudder for his valuable input.

Contributors

   Manish Bhardwaj
   Cisco Systems
   3700 Cisco Way
   San Jose, CA 95134
   USA




Evens, et al.            Expires March 21, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               BMP Adj-RIB-Out              September 2018


   Email: manbhard@cisco.com


   Xianyuzheng
   Tencent
   Tencent Building, Kejizhongyi Avenue,
   Hi-techPark, Nanshan District,Shenzhen 518057, P.R.China


   Weiguo
   Tencent
   Tencent Building, Kejizhongyi Avenue,
   Hi-techPark, Nanshan District,Shenzhen 518057, P.R.China


   Shugang cheng
   H3C


Authors' Addresses

   Tim Evens
   Cisco Systems
   2901 Third Avenue, Suite 600
   Seattle, WA  98121
   USA

   Email: tievens@cisco.com


   Serpil Bayraktar
   Cisco Systems
   3700 Cisco Way
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: serpil@cisco.com


   Paolo Lucente
   NTT Communications
   Siriusdreef 70-72
   Hoofddorp, WT  2132
   NL

   Email: paolo@ntt.net





Evens, et al.            Expires March 21, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               BMP Adj-RIB-Out              September 2018


   Penghui Mi
   Tencent
   Tengyun Building,Tower A ,No. 397 Tianlin Road
   Shanghai  200233
   China

   Email: kevinmi@tencent.com


   Shunwan Zhuang
   Huawei
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com



































Evens, et al.            Expires March 21, 2019                [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/