draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-04.txt   draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05.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: September 25, 2019 NTT Communications Expires: December 9, 2019 NTT Communications
P. Mi P. Mi
Tencent Tencent
S. Zhuang S. Zhuang
Huawei Huawei
March 24, 2019 June 7, 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-04 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05
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 September 25, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 9, 2019.
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 3, line 23 skipping to change at page 3, line 23
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.
This document updates BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 This document updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854
[RFC7854] peer header by adding a new flag to distinguish Adj-RIB-In [RFC7854] peer header by adding a new flag to distinguish Adj-RIB-In
verses Adj-RIB-Out. verses Adj-RIB-Out.
Adding Adj-RIB-Out enables the ability for a BMP sender to send to a Adding Adj-RIB-Out provides the ability for a BMP sender to send to a
BMP receiver what it advertises to BGP peers, which can be used for BMP receiver what it advertises to BGP peers, which can be used for
outbound policy validation and to monitor RIBs that were advertised. outbound policy validation and to monitor RIBs that were 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Definitions 3. Definitions
skipping to change at page 4, line 49 skipping to change at page 4, line 49
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 what is actually
transmitted to the peer, next-hop and any attribute set during transmitted to the peer, next-hop and any attribute set during
transmission should also be set and transmitted to the BMP receiver. 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
As with Adj-RIB-In policy validation, there are use-cases that pre- Similarly to Adj-RIB-In policy validation, pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out can
policy Adj-RIB-Out is used to validate and audit outbound policies. be used to validate and audit outbound policies. For example, a
For example, a comparison between pre-policy and post-policy can be comparison between pre-policy and post-policy can be used to validate
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,
e.g. Post-Policy. It is common that next-hop may be null, loopback, ie. 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 this phase. All mandatory attributes, such as
next-hop, MUST be either ZERO or have an empty length if they are 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 unknown at the Pre-Policy phase. The BMP receiver will treat zero or
empty mandatory attributes as self originated. 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
skipping to change at page 6, line 49 skipping to change at page 6, line 49
7.1. Peer and Update Groups 7.1. Peer and Update Groups
Peer and update groups are used to group updates shared by many Peer and update groups are used to group updates shared by many
peers. This is a level of efficiency in the implementation, not a peers. This is a level of efficiency in the implementation, not a
true representation of what is conveyed to a peer in either Pre- true representation of what is conveyed to a peer in either Pre-
Policy or Post-Policy. Policy or Post-Policy.
One of the use-cases to monitor Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy is to One of the use-cases to monitor Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy is to
validate and continually ensure the egress updates match what is validate and continually ensure the egress updates match what is
expected. For example, wholesale peers should never have routes with expected. For example, wholesale peers should never have routes with
community X:Y sent to them. In this use-case, there maybe hundreds community X:Y sent to them. In this use-case, there may be hundreds
of wholesale peers but a single peer could have represented the of wholesale peers but a single peer could have represented the
group. group.
A single peer could be used to represent a group. From a BMP From a BMP perspective, this should be simple to include a group name
perspective, this should be simple to include a group name in the in the PEER UP, but it is more complex than that. BGP
PEER UP, but it is more complex than that. BGP implementations have implementations have evolved to provide comprehensive and structured
evolved to provide comprehensive and structured policy grouping, such policy grouping, such as session, afi/safi, and template based group
as session, afi/safi, and template based group policy inheritances. policy inheritances.
This level of structure and inheritance of polices does not provide a This level of structure and inheritance of polices does not provide a
simple peer group name or ID, such as wholesale peer. simple peer group name or ID, such as wholesale peer.
Instead of requiring a group name to be used, a new administrative 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 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.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 17 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/