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

Versions: (draft-evens-grow-bmp-local-rib) 00 01 02 03 04 05

Global Routing Operations                                       T. Evens
Internet-Draft                                              S. Bayraktar
Updates: 7854 (if approved)                                  M. Bhardwaj
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: February 6, 2020                                     P. Lucente
                                                      NTT Communications
                                                          August 5, 2019


         Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
                    draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-05

Abstract

   The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to the Adj-RIB-In
   and locally originated routes (e.g. routes distributed into BGP from
   protocols such as static) but not access to the BGP instance Loc-RIB.
   This document updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by
   adding access to the BGP instance Local-RIB, as defined in RFC 4271
   the routes that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's
   Decision Process.  These are the routes over all peers, locally
   originated, and after best-path selection.

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 February 6, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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 February 6, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


   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
     1.1.  Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Peer Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Loc-RIB Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Peer UP Notification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.2.1.  Peer UP Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  Peer Down Notification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.4.  Route Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.4.1.  ASN Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.4.2.  Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.5.  Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.6.  Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Other Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  Loc-RIB Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.1.1.  Multiple Loc-RIB Peers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.1.2.  Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers  . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.1.3.  Changes to existing BMP sessions  . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.2.  BMP Peer Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.3.  Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.4.  Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.2.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Local-RIB state
   for multiple BGP instances without the need for one or more unneeded
   BGP peering sessions.  The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests



Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


   that locally originated routes are locally sourced routes, such as
   redistributed or otherwise added routes to the BGP instance by the
   local router.  It does not specify routes that are in the BGP
   instance Loc-RIB, such as routes after best-path selection.

   Figure 1 shows the flow of received routes from one or more BGP peers
   into the Loc-RIB.

              +------------------+      +------------------+
              | Peer-A           |      | Peer-B           |
          /-- |                  | ---- |                  | --\
          |   | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) |      | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) |   |
          |   +------------------+      +------------------+   |
          |                 |                         |        |
          | Filters/Policy -|         Filters/Policy -|        |
          |                 V                         V        |
          |   +------------------       +------------------+   |
          |   | Adj-RIB-In (Post)|      | Adj-RIB-In (Post)|   |
          |   +------------------       +------------------+   |
          |                |                          |        |
          |      Selected -|                Selected -|        |
          |                V                          V        |
          |    +-----------------------------------------+     |
          |    |                 Loc-RIB                 |     |
          |    +-----------------------------------------+     |
          |                                                    |
          | ROUTER/BGP Instance                                |
          \----------------------------------------------------/

              Figure 1: BGP peering Adj-RIBs-In into Loc-RIB

   As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated section 9.4 of [RFC4271]
   follows a similar flow where the redistributed or otherwise
   originated routes get installed into the Loc-RIB based on the
   decision process selection.
















Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


        /--------------------------------------------------------\
        |                                                        |
        | +----------+  +----------+  +----------+  +----------+ |
        | |  IS-IS   |  |   OSPF   |  |  Static  |  |    BGP   | |
        | +----------+  +----------+  +----------+  +----------+ |
        |       |            |             |              |      |
        |       |                                         |      |
        |       |  Redistributed or originated into BGP   |      |
        |       |                                         |      |
        |       |            |             |              |      |
        |       V            V             V              V      |
        |    +----------------------------------------------+    |
        |    |                 Loc-RIB                      |    |
        |    +----------------------------------------------+    |
        |                                                        |
        | ROUTER/BGP Instance                                    |
        \--------------------------------------------------------/

                 Figure 2: Locally Originated into Loc-RIB

   The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB access:

   o  Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy may still contain hundreds of thousands of
      routes per-peer but only a handful are selected and installed in
      the Loc-RIB as part of the best-path selection.  Some monitoring
      applications, such as ones that need only to correlate flow
      records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor the
      routes that are actually selected and used.

      Requiring the applications to collect all Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy
      data forces the applications to receive a potentially large
      unwanted data set and to perform the BGP decision process
      selection, which includes having access to the IGP next-hop
      metrics.  While it is possible to obtain the IGP topology
      information using BGP-LS, it requires the application to implement
      SPF and possibly CSPF based on additional policies.  This is
      overly complex for such a simple application that only needed to
      have access to the Loc-RIB.

   o  It is common to see frequent changes over many BGP peers, but
      those changes do not always result in the router's Loc-RIB
      changing.  The change in the Loc-RIB can have a direct impact on
      the forwarding state.  It can greatly reduce time to troubleshoot
      and resolve issues if operators had the history of Loc-RIB
      changes.  For example, a performance issue might have been seen
      for only a duration of 5 minutes.  Post troubleshooting this issue
      without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing changes
      that might have happened during those five minutes.



Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


   o  Operators may wish to validate the impact of policies applied to
      Adj-RIB-In by analyzing the final decision made by the router when
      installing into the Loc-RIB.  For example, in order to validate if
      multi-path prefixes are installed as expected for all advertising
      peers, the Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy and Loc-RIB needs to be
      compared.  This is only possible if the Loc-RIB is available.
      Monitoring the Adj-RIB-In for this router from another router to
      derive the Loc-RIB is likely to not show same installed prefixes.
      For example, the received Adj-RIB-In will be different if add-
      paths is not enabled or if maximum number of equal paths are
      different from Loc-RIB to routes advertised.

   This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and
   replaces Section 8.2 of [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes.

1.1.  Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB

   Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a
   peer.  It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by
   monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router.  At scale
   this becomes overly complex and error prone.






























Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


         /------------------------------------------------------\
         |  ROUTER1 BGP Instance                                |
         |                                                      |
         |     +--------------------------------------------+   |
         |     |                 Loc-RIB                    |   |
         |     +--------------------------------------------+   |
         |                    |                    |            |
         |    +------------------+     +------------------+     |
         |    |   Peer-ROUTER2   |     |   Peer-ROUTER3   |     |
         |    | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)|     | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)|     |
         |    +------------------+     +------------------+     |
         |    Filters/Policy -|    Filters/Policy -|            |
         |                    V                    V            |
         |   +-------------------+     +-------------------+    |
         |   | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)|     | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)|    |
         |   +-------------------+     +-------------------+    |
         |              |                          |            |
         \------------- | ------------------------ | -----------/
                   BGP  |                     BGP  |
                   Peer |                     Peer |
            +------------------+          +------------------+
            |   Peer-ROUTER1   |          |   Peer-ROUTER1   |
         /--|                  |--\    /--|                  | --\
         |  | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) |  |    |  | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) |   |
         |  +------------------+  |    |  +------------------+   |
         |                        |    |                         |
         | ROUTER2/BGP Instance   |    | ROUTER3/BGP Instance    |
         \------------------------/    \-------------------------/
                     |                              |
                     v                              v
             ROUTER2 BMP Feed               ROUTER3 BMP Feed

                Figure 3: Current method to monitor Loc-RIB


   The setup needed to monitor the Loc-RIB of a router requires another
   router with a peering session to the target router that is to be
   monitored.  As shown in Figure 3, the target router Loc-RIB is
   advertised via Adj-RIB-Out to the BMP router over a standard BGP
   peering session.  The BMP router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy
   to the BMP receiver.

   The current method introduces the need for additional resources:

   o  Requires at least two routers when only one router was to be
      monitored.





Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


   o  Requires additional BGP peering to collect the received updates
      when peering may have not even been required in the first place.
      For example, VRFs with no peers, redistributed BGP-LS with no
      peers, segment routing egress peer engineering where no peers have
      link-state address family enabled.

   Complexities introduced with current method in order to derive (e.g.
   correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB:

   o  Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a
      policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more
      specifics, manipulates attributes, or filters routes.  Not only
      does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity when
      multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same router.
      The BMP receiver user is left with the error prone task of
      identifying which peering session is the best representative of
      the Loc-RIB.

   o  BGP peering is designed to work between administrative domains and
      therefore does not need to include internal system level
      information of each peering router (e.g. the system name or
      version information).  In order to derive a Loc-RIB to a router,
      the router name or other system information is needed.  The BMP
      receiver and user are forced to do some type of correlation using
      what information is available in the peering session (e.g. peering
      addresses, ASNs, and BGP-IDs).  This leads to error prone
      correlations.

   o  The BGP-IDs and session addresses to router correlation requires
      additional data, such as router inventory.  This additional data
      provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and correlate the
      BGP-IDs and/or session addresses, but requires the BMP receiver to
      somehow obtain this data outside of BMP.  How this data is
      obtained and the accuracy of the data directly effects the
      integrity of the correlation.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
   appear in all capitals, as shown here.








Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


3.  Definitions

   o  BGP Instance: it refers to an instance of an instance of BGP-4
      [RFC4271] and considerations in section 8.1 of [RFC7854] do apply
      to it.

   o  Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains
      unprocessed routing information that has been advertised to the
      local BGP speaker by its peers."  This is also referred to as the
      pre-policy Adj-RIB-In in this document.

   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  Loc-RIB: As defined in section 9.4 of [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB
      contains the routes that have been selected by the local BGP
      speaker's Decision Process."  It is further defined that the
      routes selected include locally originated and routes from all
      peers.

   o  Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound
      policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally represents a similar view
      of the Loc-RIB but may contain additional routes based on BGP
      peering configuration.

   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.

4.  Per-Peer Header

4.1.  Peer Type

   A new peer type is defined for Loc-RIB to distinguish that it
   represents Loc-RIB with or without RD and local instances.
   Section 4.2 of [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type, which is
   for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance identifier.

   This document defines the following new peer type:

   o  Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer

4.2.  Peer Flags

   In section 4.2 of [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment
   under the L flag description is removed.  Locally sourced routes MUST
   be conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type.




Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


   The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined
   as follows:

                              0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
                             +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                             |F|  Reserved   |
                             +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered.  This MUST be
      set when only a subset of Loc-RIB routes is sent to the BMP
      collector.

      The remaining bits are reserved for future use.  They MUST be
      transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.

5.  Loc-RIB Monitoring

   The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP protocol Decision
   Process section 9.1 of [RFC4271].  These routes include those learned
   from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In post-policy, as well as routes
   learned by other means section 9.4 of [RFC4271].  Examples of these
   include redistribution of routes from other protocols into BGP or
   otherwise locally originated (ie. aggregate routes).

   As mentioned in Section 4.2 a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent to
   a BMP collector by setting the F flag.

5.1.  Per-Peer Header

   All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the
   following values:

   o  Peer Type: Set to 3 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer.

   o  Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the
      global instance.  Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or
      unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc-
      RIB belongs to.

   o  Peer Address: The remote IP address associated with the TCP
      session over which the encapsulated PDU was received.  If zero-
      filled, the information is not available and setting the V flag is
      not applicable.

   o  Peer AS: Set to the BGP instance global or default ASN value.

   o  Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g.  VRF)
      specific router-id section 1.1 of [RFC7854].



Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


   o  Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were installed in
      The Loc-RIB, expressed in seconds and microseconds since midnight
      (zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC).  If zero, the time is
      unavailable.  Precision of the timestamp is implementation-
      dependent.

5.2.  Peer UP Notification

   Peer UP notifications follow section 4.10 of [RFC7854] with the
   following clarifications:

   o  Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable.

   o  Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable.

   o  Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable.

   o  Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message.
      Capabilities MUST include 4-octet ASN and all necessary
      capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring messages.
      Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB
      monitoring messages.  For example, if add-paths is enabled for
      IPv6 and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the add-paths
      capability should be included for IPv6.  In the case of add-paths,
      the capability intent of advertise, receive or both can be ignored
      since the presence of the capability indicates enough that add-
      paths will be used for IPv6.

   o  Received OPEN Message: Repeat of the same Sent Open Message.  The
      duplication allows the BMP receiver to use existing parsing.

5.2.1.  Peer UP Information

   The following Peer UP information TLV type is added:

   o  Type = 3: VRF/Table Name.  The Information field contains an ASCII
      string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table
      name (e.g.  RD instance name) being conveyed.  The string size
      MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.

      The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included.  For consistency,
      it is RECOMMENDED that the VRF/Table Name always be included.  The
      default value of "global" MUST be used for the default Loc-RIB
      instance with a zero-filled distinguisher.  If the TLV is
      included, then it MUST also be included in the Peer Down
      notification.





Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


   Multiple TLVs of the same type can be repeated as part of the same
   message, for example to convey a filtered view of a VRF.  A BMP
   receiver should append multiple TLVs of the same type to a set in
   order to support alternate or additional names for the same peer.  If
   multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when
   they are reported.

5.3.  Peer Down Notification

   Peer down notification MUST use reason code TBD3.  Following the
   reason is data in TLV format.  The following peer Down information
   TLV type is defined:

   o  Type = 3: VRF/Table Name.  The Information field contains an ASCII
      string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table
      name (e.g.  RD instance name) being conveyed.  The string size
      MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.  The VRF/Table Name
      informational TLV MUST be included if it was in the Peer UP.

5.4.  Route Monitoring

   Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the
   Loc-RIB.  They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes.

   As defined in section 4.3 of [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP
   header and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU."

5.4.1.  ASN Encoding

   Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as
   indicated in PEER UP sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability.

5.4.2.  Granularity

   State compression and throttling SHOULD be used by a BMP sender to
   reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that are transmitted
   to BMP receivers.  With state compression, only the final resultant
   updates are sent.

   For example, prefix 10.0.0.0/8 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times
   within 1 second.  State compression of BMP route monitor messages
   results in only the final change being transmitted.  The other 4
   changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression
   interval.  If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have
   been transmitted.

   A BMP receiver should expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring
   granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation.



Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


5.5.  Route Mirroring

   Route mirroring is not applicable to Loc-RIB and Route Mirroring
   messages SHOULD be ignored.

5.6.  Statistics Report

   Not all Stat Types are relevant to Loc-RIB.  The Stat Types that are
   relevant are listed below:

   o  Stat Type = 8: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Loc-RIB.

   o  Stat Type = 10: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Loc-RIB.  The
      value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-
      bit Gauge.

6.  Other Considerations

6.1.  Loc-RIB Implementation

   There are several methods to implement Loc-RIB efficiently.  In all
   methods, the implementation emulates a peer with Peer UP and DOWN
   messages to convey capabilities as well as Route Monitor messages to
   convey Loc-RIB.  In this sense, the peer that conveys the Loc-RIB is
   a local router emulated peer.

6.1.1.  Multiple Loc-RIB Peers

   There MUST be multiple emulated peers for each Loc-RIB instance, such
   as with VRFs.  The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB by the peer
   header distinguisher and BGP ID.  The BMP receiver uses the VRF/
   Table Name from the PEER UP information to associate a name to the
   Loc-RIB.

   In some implementations, it might be required to have more than one
   emulated peer for Loc-RIB to convey different address families for
   the same Loc-RIB.  In this case, the peer distinguisher and BGP ID
   should be the same since it represents the same Loc-RIB instance.
   Each emulated peer instance MUST send a PEER UP with the OPEN message
   indicating the address family capabilities.  A BMP receiver MUST
   process these capabilities to know which peer belongs to which
   address family.

6.1.2.  Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers

   There maybe be use-cases where BMP receivers should only receive
   specific routes from Loc-RIB.  For example, IPv4 unicast routes may
   include IBGP, EBGP, and IGP but only routes from EBGP should be sent



Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


   to the BMP receiver.  Alternatively, it may be that only IBGP and
   EBGP that should be sent and IGP redistributed routes should be
   excluded.  In these cases where the Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag
   is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP receiver that the Loc-RIB is
   filtered.  If multiple filters are associated to the same Loc-RIB, a
   Table Name MUST be used in order to allow a BMP receiver to make the
   right associations.

6.1.3.  Changes to existing BMP sessions

   In case of any change that results in the alteration of behaviour of
   an existing BMP session, ie. changes to filtering and table names,
   the session MUST be bounced with a Peer DOWN/Peer UP sequence.

7.  Security Considerations

   The same considerations as in section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this
   document.  Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require to
   establish sessions with authorized and trusted monitoring devices.
   It is also believed that this document does not add any additional
   security considerations.

8.  IANA Considerations

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

8.1.  BMP Peer Type

   This document defines a new peer type (Section 4.1):

   o  Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer

8.2.  BMP Peer Flags

   This document defines a new flag (Section 4.2) and proposes that peer
   flags are specific to the peer type:

   o  The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered.  This indicates
      that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table.

8.3.  Peer UP Information TLV

   This document defines the following new BMP PEER UP informational
   message TLV types (Section 5.2.1):

   o  Type = 3: VRF/Table Name.  The Information field contains an ASCII
      string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table



Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


      name (e.g.  RD instance name) being conveyed.  The string size
      MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.

8.4.  Peer Down Reason code

   This document defines the following new BMP Peer Down reason code
   (Section 5.3):

   o  Type = TBD3: Local system closed, TLV data follows.

9.  References

9.1.  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>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

9.2.  URIs

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

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Jeff Haas and Mukul
   Srivastava for their valuable input.

Authors' Addresses







Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                BMP Local-RIB                  August 2019


   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


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

   Email: manbhard@cisco.com


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

   Email: paolo@ntt.net

















Evens, et al.           Expires February 6, 2020               [Page 15]


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