< draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-06.txt   draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-07.txt >
Global Routing Operations T. Evens Global Routing Operations T. Evens
Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar
Updates: 7854 (if approved) Cisco Systems Updates: 7854 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track P. Lucente Intended status: Standards Track P. Lucente
Expires: December 25, 2019 NTT Communications Expires: February 6, 2020 NTT Communications
P. Mi P. Mi
Tencent Tencent
S. Zhuang S. Zhuang
Huawei Huawei
June 23, 2019 August 5, 2019
Support for Adj-RIB-Out in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Support for Adj-RIB-Out in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-06 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-07
Abstract Abstract
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to only the Adj-RIB- The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to only the Adj-RIB-
In Routing Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates the BGP In Routing Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates the BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by adding access to the Adj-RIB- 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- Out RIBs. It adds a new flag to the peer header to distinguish Adj-
RIB-In and Adj-RIB-Out. RIB-In and Adj-RIB-Out.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 25, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 6, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
5.2. Pre-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Pre-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. BMP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. BMP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.3. Peer Down and Up Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.3. Peer Down and Up Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3.1. Peer Up Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.3.1. Peer Up Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Peer and Update Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Peer and Update Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. BMP Statistics Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.2. BMP Statistics Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.3. Peer Up Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.3. Peer Up Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines monitoring of the received BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines monitoring of the received
(e.g., Adj-RIB-In) Routing Information Bases (RIBs) per peer. The (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 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 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 BMP receiver all RIB data after policy filters and/or modifications
have been applied. An example of pre-policy verses post-policy is have been applied. An example of pre-policy versus post-policy is
when an inbound policy applies attribute modification or filters. when an inbound policy applies attribute modification or filters.
Pre-policy would contain information prior to the inbound policy Pre-policy would contain information prior to the inbound policy
changes or filters of data. Post policy would convey the changed changes or filters of data. Post policy would convey the changed
data or would not contain the filtered data. data or would not contain the filtered data.
Monitoring the received updates that the router received before any Monitoring the received updates that the router received before any
policy has been applied is the primary level of monitoring for most policy has been applied is the primary level of monitoring for most
use-cases. Inbound policy validation and auditing is the primary use-cases. Inbound policy validation and auditing is the primary
use-case for enabling post-policy monitoring. use-case for enabling post-policy monitoring.
skipping to change at page 3, line 24 skipping to change at page 3, line 24
Being able to only monitor the Adj-RIB-In puts a restriction on what 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). 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 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 enabled for BMP or when it is not accessible for administrative
reasons. For example, a service provider advertises prefixes to a reasons. For example, a service provider advertises prefixes to a
customer, but the service provider cannot see what it advertises via customer, but the service provider cannot see what it advertises via
BMP. Asking the customer to enable BMP and monitoring of the Adj- BMP. Asking the customer to enable BMP and monitoring of the Adj-
RIB-In is not feasible. RIB-In is not feasible.
BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 [RFC7854] only defines Adj- BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 [RFC7854] only defines Adj-
RIB-In being sent to BMP receivers. This document updates section RIB-In being sent to BMP receivers. This document updates the per-
4.2 [RFC7854] per-peer header by adding a new flag to distinguish peer header in section 4.2 of [RFC7854] by adding a new flag to
Adj-RIB-In verses Adj-RIB-Out. BMP senders use the new flag to send distinguish Adj-RIB-In versus Adj-RIB-Out. BMP senders use the new
either Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out. flag to send either Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out.
Adding Adj-RIB-Out provides the ability for a BMP sender to send to Adding Adj-RIB-Out provides the ability for a BMP sender to send to
BMP receivers what it advertises to BGP peers, which can be used for BMP receivers what it advertises to BGP peers, which can be used for
outbound policy validation and to monitor routes that were outbound policy validation and to monitor routes that were
advertised. advertised.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
skipping to change at page 4, line 6 skipping to change at page 4, line 6
o Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains o Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains
the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the
local speaker's UPDATE messages." local speaker's UPDATE messages."
o Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound 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 policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally would match what is in the
local RIB. local RIB.
o Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to 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. an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST convey to the BMP receiver what is
actually transmitted to the peer.
4. Per-Peer Header 4. Per-Peer Header
The per-peer header has the same structure and flags as defined in The per-peer header has the same structure and flags as defined in
section 4.2 [RFC7854] with the following O flag addition: section 4.2 of [RFC7854] with the following O flag addition:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V|L|A|O| Resv | |V|L|A|O| Resv |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o The O flag indicates Adj-RIB-In if set to 0 and Adj-RIB-Out if set o The O flag indicates Adj-RIB-In if set to 0 and Adj-RIB-Out if set
to 1. to 1.
The existing flags are defined in section 4.2 [RFC7854] and the The existing flags are defined in section 4.2 of [RFC7854] and the
remaining bits are reserved for future use. They SHOULD be remaining bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be transmitted
transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt. as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.
The following fields in the Per-Peer Header are redefined: When the O flag is set to 1, the following fields in the Per-Peer
Header are redefined:
o Peer Address: The remote IP address associated with the TCP o Peer Address: The remote IP address associated with the TCP
session over which the encapsulated PDU is sent. session over which the encapsulated PDU is sent.
o Peer AS: The Autonomous System number of the peer from which the o Peer AS: The Autonomous System number of the peer to which the
encapsulated PDU was sent. encapsulated PDU is sent.
o Peer BGP ID: The BGP Identifier of the peer from which the o Peer BGP ID: The BGP Identifier of the peer to which the
encapsulated PDU was sent. encapsulated PDU is sent.
o Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were advertised o Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were advertised
(one may also think of this as the time when they were installed (one may also think of this as the time when they were installed
in the Adj-RIB-Out), expressed in seconds and microseconds since in the Adj-RIB-Out), expressed in seconds and microseconds since
midnight (zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC). If zero, the time is midnight (zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC). If zero, the time is
unavailable. Precision of the timestamp is implementation- unavailable. Precision of the timestamp is implementation-
dependent. dependent.
5. Adj-RIB-Out 5. Adj-RIB-Out
5.1. Post-Policy 5.1. Post-Policy
The primary use-case in monitoring Adj-RIB-Out is to monitor the The primary use-case in monitoring Adj-RIB-Out is to monitor the
updates transmitted to a BGP peer after outbound policy has been updates transmitted to a BGP peer after outbound policy has been
applied. These updates reflect the result after modifications and applied. These updates reflect the result after modifications and
filters have been applied (e.g., Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy). Some filters have been applied (e.g., Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy). Some
attributes are set when the BGP message is transmitted, such as next- attributes are set when the BGP message is transmitted, such as next-
hop. Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy MUST convey what is actually hop. Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy MUST convey to the BMP receiver what is
transmitted to the peer, next-hop and any attributes set during actually transmitted to the peer.
transmission should also be set and transmitted to the BMP receiver.
The L flag MUST be set to 1 to indicate post-policy. The L flag MUST be set to 1 to indicate post-policy.
5.2. Pre-Policy 5.2. Pre-Policy
Similarly to Adj-RIB-In policy validation, pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out can Similarly to Adj-RIB-In policy validation, pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out can
be used to validate and audit outbound policies. For example, a be used to validate and audit outbound policies. For example, a
comparison between pre-policy and post-policy can be used to validate comparison between pre-policy and post-policy can be used to validate
the outbound policy. the outbound policy.
Depending on BGP peering session type (IBGP, IBGP route reflector Depending on BGP peering session type (IBGP, IBGP route reflector
client, EBGP, BGP confederations, Route Server Client) the candidate client, EBGP, BGP confederations, Route Server Client) the candidate
routes that make up the Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out do not contain all 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 local-rib routes. Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out conveys only routes that
are available based on the peering type. Post-Policy represents the are available based on the peering type. Post-Policy represents the
filtered/changed routes from the available routes. filtered/changed routes from the available routes.
Some attributes are set only during transmission of the BGP message, Some attributes are set only during transmission of the BGP message,
i.e., Post-Policy. It is common that next-hop may be null, loopback, i.e., Post-Policy. It is common that next-hop may be null, loopback,
or similar during this phase. All mandatory attributes, such as or similar during pre-policy phase. All mandatory attributes, such
next-hop, MUST be either ZERO or have an empty length if they are as next-hop, MUST be either ZERO or have an empty length if they are
unknown at the Pre-Policy phase completion. The BMP receiver will unknown at the Pre-Policy phase completion. The BMP receiver will
treat zero or empty mandatory attributes as self-originated. treat zero or empty mandatory attributes as self-originated.
The L flag MUST be set to 0 to indicate pre-policy. The L flag MUST be set to 0 to indicate pre-policy.
6. BMP Messages 6. BMP Messages
Many BMP messages have a per-peer header but some are not applicable Many BMP messages have a per-peer header but some are not applicable
to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out monitoring, such as peer up and down to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out monitoring, such as peer up and down
notifications. Unless otherwise defined, the O flag should be set to notifications. Unless otherwise defined, the O flag should be set to
skipping to change at page 6, line 27 skipping to change at page 6, line 29
Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family
Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge. (SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
6.3. Peer Down and Up Notifications 6.3. Peer Down and Up Notifications
Peer Up and Down notifications convey BGP peering session state to Peer Up and Down notifications convey BGP peering session state to
BMP receivers. The state is independent of whether or not route BMP receivers. The state is independent of whether or not route
monitoring or route mirroring messages will be sent for Adj-RIB-In, monitoring or route mirroring messages will be sent for Adj-RIB-In,
Adj-RIB-Out, or both. BMP receiver implementations SHOULD ignore the Adj-RIB-Out, or both. BMP receiver implementations SHOULD ignore the
O flag in Peer Up and Down notifications. BMP receiver O flag in Peer Up and Down notifications.
implementations MUST use the per-peer header O flag in route
monitoring and mirroring messages to identify if the message is for
Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out.
6.3.1. Peer Up Information 6.3.1. Peer Up Information
The following Peer Up message Information TLV type is added: The following Peer Up message Information TLV type is added:
o Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-form o Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-form
UTF-8 string whose length is given by the Information Length UTF-8 string whose byte length is given by the Information Length
field. The value is administratively assigned. There is no field. The value is administratively assigned. There is no
requirement to terminate the string with null or any other requirement to terminate the string with null or any other
character. character.
Multiple admin labels can be included in the Peer Up notification. Multiple admin labels can be included in the Peer Up notification.
When multiple admin labels are included the BMP receiver MUST When multiple admin labels are included the BMP receiver MUST
preserve their order. preserve their order.
The TLV is optional. The TLV is optional.
skipping to change at page 7, line 38 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
label informational TLV (Section 6.3.1) is added to the Peer Up label informational TLV (Section 6.3.1) is added to the Peer Up
message. These labels have administrative scope relevance. For message. These labels have administrative scope relevance. For
example, labels "type=wholesale" and "region=west" could be used to example, labels "type=wholesale" and "region=west" could be used to
monitor expected policies. monitor expected policies.
Configuration and assignment of labels to peers is BGP implementation Configuration and assignment of labels to peers is BGP implementation
specific. specific.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
It is not believed that this document adds any additional security The same considerations as in section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this
considerations. 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.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters
to the BMP parameters name space [1]. to the BMP parameters name space [1].
9.1. BMP Peer Flags 9.1. BMP Peer Flags
This document defines the following per-peer header flags This document defines the following per-peer header flags
(Section 4): (Section 4):
skipping to change at page 8, line 35 skipping to change at page 8, line 40
Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family
Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge. (SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
9.3. Peer Up Information TLV 9.3. Peer Up Information TLV
This document defines the following BMP Peer Up Information TLV types This document defines the following BMP Peer Up Information TLV types
(Section 6.3.1): (Section 6.3.1):
o Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-form o Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-form
UTF-8 string whose length is given by the Information Length UTF-8 string whose byte length is given by the Information Length
field. The value is administratively given by the Information field. The value is administratively assigned. There is no
Length field. The value is administratively assigned. There is requirement to terminate the string with null or any other
no requirement to terminate the string with null or any other
character. character.
Multiple admin labels can be included in the Peer Up notification.
When multiple admin labels are included the BMP receiver MUST
preserve their order.
The TLV is optional.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
38 lines changed or deleted 44 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/