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/