draft-ietf-idr-fsm-subcode-03.txt   rfc6608.txt 
Network Working Group J. Dong Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Dong
Internet-Draft M. Chen Request for Comments: 6608 M. Chen
Updates: 4271 (if approved) Huawei Technologies Updates: 4271 Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track A. Suryanarayana Category: Standards Track A. Suryanarayana
Expires: August 17, 2012 Cisco Systems ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems
February 14, 2012 May 2012
Subcodes for BGP Finite State Machine Error Subcodes for BGP Finite State Machine Error
draft-ietf-idr-fsm-subcode-03
Abstract Abstract
This document defines several subcodes for BGP Finite State Machine This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Finite State
(FSM) Error that could provide more information to help network Machine (FSM) Error that could provide more information to help
operators in diagnosing BGP FSM issues and correlating network network operators in diagnosing BGP FSM issues and correlating
events. This document updates RFC 4271. network events. This document updates RFC 4271.
Requirements Language
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].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further
information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of
RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2012. Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6608.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Definition of Finite State Machine Error Subcodes . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language ...........................................2
3. Usage of FSM Error Subcodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Definition of Finite State Machine Error Subcodes ...............2
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Usage of FSM Error Subcodes .....................................2
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations .........................................3
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations .............................................3
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Contributors ....................................................4
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Acknowledgements ................................................4
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. References ......................................................4
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9.1. Normative References .......................................4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9.2. Informative References .....................................4
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines several subcodes for BGP [RFC4271] Finite State This document defines several subcodes for the BGP [RFC4271] Finite
Machine Error that could provide more information to help network State Machine (FSM) Error that could provide more information to help
operators in diagnosing BGP FSM issues and correlating network network operators in diagnosing BGP FSM issues and correlating
events. This information is also helpful to developers in lab network events. This information is also helpful to developers in
situations. This document updates [RFC4271] by requiring BGP lab situations. This document updates [RFC4271] by requiring that
implementations to insert appropriate FSM Error subcodes in BGP implementations insert appropriate FSM Error subcodes in
NOTIFICATION messages for BGP FSM errors. NOTIFICATION messages for BGP FSM errors.
2. Definition of Finite State Machine Error Subcodes 2. Requirements Language
This document defines following subcodes for BGP Finite State Machine The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
Error: "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
0 - Unspecific Error 3. Definition of Finite State Machine Error Subcodes
This document defines the following subcodes for the BGP Finite State
Machine Error:
0 - Unspecified Error
1 - Receive Unexpected Message in OpenSent State 1 - Receive Unexpected Message in OpenSent State
2 - Receive Unexpected Message in OpenConfirm State 2 - Receive Unexpected Message in OpenConfirm State
3 - Receive Unexpected Message in Established State 3 - Receive Unexpected Message in Established State
3. Usage of FSM Error Subcodes 4. Usage of FSM Error Subcodes
If a BGP speaker receives an unexpected message (e.g. KEEPALIVE/ If a BGP speaker receives an unexpected message (e.g., KEEPALIVE/
UPDATE/ROUTE-REFRESH message) on a session in OpenSent state, it MUST UPDATE/ROUTE-REFRESH message) on a session in OpenSent state, it MUST
send to the neighbor a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code send to the neighbor a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code
Finite State Machine Error and the Error Subcode "Receive Unexpected Finite State Machine Error and the Error Subcode "Receive Unexpected
Message in OpenSent State". The Data field is a 1-octet unsigned Message in OpenSent State". The Data field is a 1-octet, unsigned
integer which indicates type of the unexpected message. integer that indicates the type of the unexpected message.
If a BGP speaker receives an unexpected message (e.g. OPEN/UPDATE/ If a BGP speaker receives an unexpected message (e.g., OPEN/UPDATE/
ROUTE-REFRESH message) on a session in OpenConfirm state, it MUST ROUTE-REFRESH message) on a session in OpenConfirm state, it MUST
send to the neighbor a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code send a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code Finite State Machine
Finite State Machine Error and the Error Subcode "Receive Unexpected Error and the Error Subcode "Receive Unexpected Message in
Message in OpenConfirm State". The Data field is a 1-octet unsigned OpenConfirm State" to the neighbor. The Data field is a 1-octet,
integer which indicates type of the unexpected message. unsigned integer that indicates the type of the unexpected message.
If a BGP speaker receives an unexpected message (e.g. OPEN message) If a BGP speaker receives an unexpected message (e.g., OPEN message)
on a session in Established state, it MUST send to the neighbor a on a session in Established State, it MUST send to the neighbor a
NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code Finite State Machine Error NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code Finite State Machine Error
and the Error Subcode "Receive Unexpected Message in Established and the Error Subcode "Receive Unexpected Message in Established
State". The Data field is a 1-octet unsigned integer which indicates State". The Data field is a 1-octet, unsigned integer that indicates
type of the unexpected message. the type of the unexpected message.
4. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
Specification, implementation, and deployment of the proposed BGP FSM Specification, implementation, and deployment of the proposed BGP FSM
Error subcodes could make BGP implementation fingerprinting easier Error subcodes could make BGP implementation fingerprinting easier
and probably more accurate. Operators using BGP need to consider and probably more accurate. Operators using BGP need to consider
this as an operational security consideration of their BGP deployment this as an operational security consideration of their BGP deployment
decisions. decisions.
[BFMR2010]discusses a number of BGP security issues and potential [BFMR2010] discusses a number of BGP security issues and potential
solutions that might be relevant both to BGP implementers and BGP solutions that might be relevant both to BGP implementers and BGP
operators. operators.
5. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create the registry "BGP Finite State Machine IANA has created the registry "BGP Finite State Machine Error
Error Subcodes", within the "BGP Error Subcodes" registry, with a Subcodes", within the "BGP Error Subcodes" registry, with a
Registration Procedure of "Standards Action" as defined in [RFC5226]. Registration Procedure of "Standards Action" as defined in [RFC5226]
(early allocation of such subcodes is allowed, in accordance with (early allocation of such subcodes is allowed, in accordance with
[RFC4020]) [RFC4020]).
The registry should be populated with the following values: The registry has been populated with the following values:
Value Name Value Name
0 Unspecified Error 0 Unspecified Error
1 Receive Unexpected Message in OpenSent State 1 Receive Unexpected Message in OpenSent State
2 Receive Unexpected Message in OpenConfirm State 2 Receive Unexpected Message in OpenConfirm State
3 Receive Unexpected Message in Established State 3 Receive Unexpected Message in Established State
6. Contributors 7. Contributors
The following individuals contributed to this document: The following individuals contributed to this document:
Xiaoming Gu EMail: guxiaoming@huawei.com Xiaoming Gu
EMail: guxiaoming@huawei.com
Chong Wang EMail: chongwang@huawei.com Chong Wang
EMail: chongwang@huawei.com
7. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Jeffrey Haas, Susan The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Jeffrey Haas, Susan
Hares, Keyur Patel, Enke Chen, Ruediger Volk and Ran Atkinson for Hares, Keyur Patel, Enke Chen, Ruediger Volk, and Ran Atkinson for
their valuable suggestions and comments to this document. their valuable suggestions and comments to this document.
8. References 9. References
8.1. 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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February
February 2005. 2005.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January
2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[BFMR2010] [BFMR2010] Butler, K., Farley, T., Mcdaniel, P., and J. Rexford, "A
Butler, K., Farley, T., Mcdaniel, P., and J. Rexford, "A Survey of BGP Security Issues and Solutions", January
Survey of BGP Security Issues and Solutions", 2010.
January 2010.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jie Dong Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com EMail: jie.dong@huawei.com
Mach Chen Mach Chen
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com EMail: mach.chen@huawei.com
Anantharamu Suryanarayana Anantharamu Suryanarayana
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
USA USA
Email: asuryana@cisco.com EMail: asuryana@cisco.com
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
92 lines changed or deleted 93 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/