draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02.txt   draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-03.txt 
Global Routing Operations T. Evens Global Routing Operations T. Evens
Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar
Updates: 7854 (if approved) M. Bhardwaj Updates: 7854 (if approved) M. Bhardwaj
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: March 21, 2019 P. Lucente Expires: September 25, 2019 P. Lucente
NTT Communications NTT Communications
September 17, 2018 March 24, 2019
Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-03
Abstract Abstract
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to the Adj-RIB-In The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to the Adj-RIB-In
and locally originated routes (e.g. routes distributed into BGP from and locally originated routes (e.g. routes distributed into BGP from
protocols such as static) but not access to the BGP instance Loc-RIB. protocols such as static) but not access to the BGP instance Loc-RIB.
This document updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by This document updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by
adding access to the BGP instance Local-RIB, as defined in RFC 4271 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 the routes that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's
Decision Process. These are the routes over all peers, locally Decision Process. These are the routes over all peers, locally
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 March 21, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 25, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Peer UP Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Peer UP Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1. Peer UP Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2.1. Peer UP Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3. Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.3. Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.4. Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests that locally originated The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests that locally originated
routes are locally sourced routes, such as redistributed or otherwise routes are locally sourced routes, such as redistributed or otherwise
added routes to the BGP instance by the local router. It does not 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 specify routes that are in the BGP instance Loc-RIB, such as routes
after best-path selection. after best-path selection.
skipping to change at page 8, line 33 skipping to change at page 8, line 33
4.1. Peer Type 4.1. Peer Type
A new peer type is defined for Loc-RIB to distinguish that it A new peer type is defined for Loc-RIB to distinguish that it
represents Loc-RIB with or without RD and local instances. represents Loc-RIB with or without RD and local instances.
Section 4.2 [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type, which is Section 4.2 [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type, which is
for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance identifier. for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance identifier.
This document defines the following new peer type: This document defines the following new peer type:
o Peer Type = TBD1: Loc-RIB Instance Peer o Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer
4.2. Peer Flags 4.2. Peer Flags
In section 4.2 [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment under In section 4.2 [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment under
the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST be the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST be
conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type. conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type.
The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined
as follows: as follows:
skipping to change at page 9, line 31 skipping to change at page 9, line 31
specific routes. The end result of VRF "Blue" Loc-RIB is conveyed. specific routes. The end result of VRF "Blue" Loc-RIB is conveyed.
Even though the import is filtered, the result is complete for VRF Even though the import is filtered, the result is complete for VRF
"Blue" Loc-RIB. The F flag is not set in this case since the Loc-RIB "Blue" Loc-RIB. The F flag is not set in this case since the Loc-RIB
is complete and not filtered to the BMP receiver. is complete and not filtered to the BMP receiver.
5.1. Per-Peer Header 5.1. Per-Peer Header
All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the
following values: following values:
o Peer Type: Set to TBD1 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer. o Peer Type: Set to 3 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer.
o Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the o Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the
global instance. Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or global instance. Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or
unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc- unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc-
RIB belongs to. RIB belongs to.
o Peer Address: Zero-filled. Remote peer address is not applicable. o Peer Address: Zero-filled. Remote peer address is not applicable.
The V flag is not applicable with Local-RIB Instance peer type The V flag is not applicable with Local-RIB Instance peer type
considering addresses are zero-filed. considering addresses are zero-filed.
skipping to change at page 10, line 25 skipping to change at page 10, line 25
capability should be included for IPv6. In the case of 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 the capability intent of advertise, receive or both can be ignored
since the presence of the capability indicates enough that add- since the presence of the capability indicates enough that add-
paths will be used for IPv6. paths will be used for IPv6.
o Received OPEN Message: Repeat of the same Sent Open Message. The o Received OPEN Message: Repeat of the same Sent Open Message. The
duplication allows the BMP receiver to use existing parsing. duplication allows the BMP receiver to use existing parsing.
5.2.1. Peer UP Information 5.2.1. Peer UP Information
The following peer UP information TLV types are added: The following peer UP information TLV type is added:
o Type = TBD2: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an o Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII
ASCII string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table
table name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size
size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.
The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included. For consistency, The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included. For consistency,
it is RECOMMENDED that the VRF/Table Name always be included. The it is RECOMMENDED that the VRF/Table Name always be included. The
default value of "global" SHOULD be used for the default Loc-RIB default value of "global" SHOULD be used for the default Loc-RIB
instance with a zero-filled distinguisher. If the TLV is instance with a zero-filled distinguisher. If the TLV is
included, then it SHOULD also be included in the Peer Down included, then it SHOULD also be included in the Peer Down
notification. notification.
5.3. Peer Down Notification 5.3. Peer Down Notification
Peer down notification SHOULD follow the section 4.9 [RFC7854] reason Peer down notification SHOULD use reason code TBD3. Following the
2. reason is data in TLV format. The following peer Down information
TLV type is defined:
The VRF/Table Name informational TLV SHOULD be included if it was in o Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII
the Peer UP. 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 SHOULD be included if it was in the Peer UP.
5.4. Route Monitoring 5.4. Route Monitoring
Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the
Loc-RIB. They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes. Loc-RIB. They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes.
As defined in section 4.3 [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP header As defined in section 4.3 [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP header
and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU." and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU."
5.4.1. ASN Encoding 5.4.1. ASN Encoding
skipping to change at page 12, line 49 skipping to change at page 13, line 9
8. IANA Considerations 8. 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].
8.1. BMP Peer Type 8.1. BMP Peer Type
This document defines a new peer type (Section 4.1): This document defines a new peer type (Section 4.1):
o Peer Type = TBD1: Loc-RIB Instance Peer o Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer
8.2. BMP Peer Flags 8.2. BMP Peer Flags
This document defines a new flag (Section 4.2) and proposes that peer This document defines a new flag (Section 4.2) and proposes that peer
flags are specific to the peer type: flags are specific to the peer type:
o The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This indicates o The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This indicates
that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table. that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table.
8.3. Peer UP Information TLV 8.3. Peer UP Information TLV
This document defines the following new BMP PEER UP informational This document defines the following new BMP PEER UP informational
message TLV types (Section 5.2.1): message TLV types (Section 5.2.1):
o Type = TBD2: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an o Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII
ASCII string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table
table name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size
size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. 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. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. 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>.
skipping to change at page 13, line 49 skipping to change at page 14, line 17
DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
9.2. URIs 9.2. URIs
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp- [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
parameters.xhtml parameters.xhtml
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Scudder for his valuable input. The authors would like to thank John Scudder and Jeff Haas for their
valuable input.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Tim Evens Tim Evens
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
2901 Third Avenue, Suite 600 2901 Third Avenue, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98121 Seattle, WA 98121
USA USA
Email: tievens@cisco.com Email: tievens@cisco.com
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
28 lines changed or deleted 41 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/