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/