draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-07.txt   rfc8671.txt 
Global Routing Operations T. Evens Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Evens
Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar Request for Comments: 8671 S. Bayraktar
Updates: 7854 (if approved) Cisco Systems Updates: 7854 Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track P. Lucente Category: Standards Track P. Lucente
Expires: February 6, 2020 NTT Communications ISSN: 2070-1721 NTT Communications
P. Mi P. Mi
Tencent Tencent
S. Zhuang S. Zhuang
Huawei Huawei
August 5, 2019 November 2019
Support for Adj-RIB-Out in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Support for Adj-RIB-Out in the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
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) only defines access to the Adj-RIB-
In Routing Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates the BGP In Routing Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates BMP (RFC
Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by adding access to the Adj-RIB- 7854) by adding access to the Adj-RIB-Out RIBs. It also adds a new
Out RIBs. It adds a new flag to the peer header to distinguish Adj- flag to the peer header to distinguish between Adj-RIB-In and Adj-
RIB-In and Adj-RIB-Out. RIB-Out.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://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 the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 6, 2020. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8671.
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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Definitions
4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Per-Peer Header
5. Adj-RIB-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Adj-RIB-Out
5.1. Post-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.1. Post-policy
5.2. Pre-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Pre-policy
6. BMP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. BMP Messages
6.1. Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring
6.2. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Statistics Report
6.3. Peer Down and Up Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.3. Peer Up and Down Notifications
6.3.1. Peer Up Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.3.1. Peer Up Information
7. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Other Considerations
7.1. Peer and Update Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Peer and Update Groups
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Changes to Existing BMP Session
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations
9.1. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. IANA Considerations
9.2. BMP Statistics Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Addition to BMP Peer Flags Registry
9.3. Peer Up Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.2. Additions to BMP Statistics Types Registry
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.3. Addition to BMP Initiation Message TLVs Registry
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Normative References
10.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Contributors
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines monitoring of the received The 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 pre-policy Adj-RIB-In 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 post-policy Adj-RIB-In 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 versus 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 are the primary
use-case for enabling post-policy monitoring. use cases for enabling post-policy monitoring.
In order for a BMP receiver to receive any BGP data, the BMP sender In order for a BMP receiver to receive any BGP data, the BMP sender
(e.g., router) needs to have an established BGP peering session and (e.g., router) needs to have an established BGP peering session and
actively be receiving updates for an Adj-RIB-In. actively be receiving updates for an Adj-RIB-In.
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 are not feasible.
BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 [RFC7854] only defines Adj- BMP [RFC7854] only defines Adj-RIB-In being sent to BMP receivers.
RIB-In being sent to BMP receivers. This document updates the per- This document updates the per-peer header defined in Section 4.2 of
peer header in section 4.2 of [RFC7854] by adding a new flag to [RFC7854] by adding a new flag to distinguish between Adj-RIB-In and
distinguish Adj-RIB-In versus Adj-RIB-Out. BMP senders use the new Adj-RIB-Out. BMP senders use the new flag to send either Adj-RIB-In
flag to send either Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out. 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
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
appear in all capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Definitions 3. Definitions
o Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains Adj-RIB-Out
the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains the routes for
local speaker's UPDATE messages." advertisement to specific peers by means of the local speaker's
UPDATE messages."
o Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound Pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out
policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally would match what is in the The result before applying the outbound policy to an Adj-RIB-Out.
local RIB. This normally would match what is in the local RIB.
o Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to Post-policy Adj-RIB-Out
an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST convey to the BMP receiver what is The result of applying outbound policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This
actually transmitted to the peer. 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 of [RFC7854] with the following O flag addition: Section 4.2 of [RFC7854] with the addition of the O flag as shown
here:
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 * 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 of [RFC7854] and the The existing flags are defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC7854], and the
remaining bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be transmitted remaining bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be transmitted
as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt. as 0, and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.
When the O flag is set to 1, the following fields in the Per-Peer When the O flag is set to 1, the following fields in the per-peer
Header are redefined: header are redefined:
o Peer Address: The remote IP address associated with the TCP * Peer Address: The remote IP address associated with the TCP
session over which the encapsulated PDU is sent. session over which the encapsulated Protocol Data Unit (PDU) is
sent.
o Peer AS: The Autonomous System number of the peer to which the * Peer AS: The Autonomous System number of the peer to which the
encapsulated PDU is sent. encapsulated PDU is sent.
o Peer BGP ID: The BGP Identifier of the peer to which the * Peer BGP ID: The BGP Identifier of the peer to which the
encapsulated PDU is sent. encapsulated PDU is sent.
o Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were advertised * 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., post-policy Adj-RIB-Out). 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 to the BMP receiver what is hop. Post-policy Adj-RIB-Out MUST convey to the BMP receiver what is
actually transmitted to the peer. actually transmitted to the peer.
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 Similar 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 the BGP peering session type -- Internal BGP (IBGP),
client, EBGP, BGP confederations, Route Server Client) the candidate IBGP route reflector client, External BGP (EBGP), BGP confederations,
routes that make up the Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out do not contain all route server client -- the candidate routes that make up the pre-
local-rib routes. Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out conveys only routes that policy Adj-RIB-Out do not contain all local RIB routes. Pre-policy
are available based on the peering type. Post-Policy represents the Adj-RIB-Out conveys only routes that are available based on the
filtered/changed routes from the available routes. peering type. Post-policy represents the 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 the next hop may be null,
or similar during pre-policy phase. All mandatory attributes, such loopback, or similar during the pre-policy phase. All mandatory
as next-hop, MUST be either ZERO or have an empty length if they are attributes, such as next hop, MUST be either zero or have an empty
unknown at the Pre-Policy phase completion. The BMP receiver will length if they are unknown at the pre-policy phase completion. The
treat zero or empty mandatory attributes as self-originated. BMP receiver will 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
0 in the per-peer header in BMP messages. 0 in the per-peer header in BMP messages.
6.1. Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring 6.1. Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring
The O flag MUST be set accordingly to indicate if the route monitor The O flag MUST be set accordingly to indicate if the route monitor
or route mirroring message conveys Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out. or route mirroring message conveys Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out.
6.2. Statistics Report 6.2. Statistics Report
The Statistics report message has a Stat Type field to indicate the The Statistics Report message has a Stat Type field to indicate the
statistic carried in the Stat Data field. Statistics report messages statistic carried in the Stat Data field. Statistics report messages
are not specific to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out and MUST have the O are not specific to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out and MUST have the O
flag set to zero. The O flag SHOULD be ignored by the BMP receiver. flag set to zero. The O flag SHOULD be ignored by the BMP receiver.
The following new statistic types are added: This document defines the following new statistics types:
o Stat Type = 14: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out * Stat Type = 14: Number of routes in pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out. This
Pre-Policy. statistics type is 64-bit Gauge.
o Stat Type = 15: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out * Stat Type = 15: Number of routes in post-policy Adj-RIB-Out. This
Post-Policy. statistics type is 64-bit Gauge.
o Stat Type = 16: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Pre- * Stat Type = 16: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI pre-policy Adj-
Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family RIB-Out. 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.
o Stat Type = 17: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Post- * Stat Type = 17: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI post-policy Adj-
Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family RIB-Out. 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 Up and Down 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. O flag in Peer Up and Down Notifications.
6.3.1. Peer Up Information 6.3.1. Peer Up Information
The following Peer Up message Information TLV type is added: This document defines the following Peer Up Information TLV type:
o Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-form * Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-form
UTF-8 string whose byte 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 Admin Label is optional.
7. Other Considerations 7. Other Considerations
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 implementations, not a true peers. This is a level of efficiency in implementations, not a true
representation of what is conveyed to a peer in either Pre-Policy or representation of what is conveyed to a peer in either pre-policy or
Post-Policy. post-policy.
One of the use-cases to monitor Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy is to One of the use cases to monitor post-policy Adj-RIB-Out 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 may be 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.
From a BMP perspective, this should be simple to include a group name From a BMP perspective, it should be simple to include a group name
in the Peer Up, but it is more complex than that. BGP in the Peer Up, but it is more complex than that. BGP
implementations have evolved to provide comprehensive and structured implementations have evolved to provide comprehensive and structured
policy grouping, such as session, AFI/SAFI, and template-based based policy grouping, such as session, AFI/SAFI, and template-based group
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 This document defines a new Admin Label type for Peer Up Information
label informational TLV (Section 6.3.1) is added to the Peer Up TLVs (Section 6.3.1) that can be used instead of requiring a group
message. These labels have administrative scope relevance. For name. 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 are BGP
specific. implementation-specific.
8. Security Considerations
The same considerations as in section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this 7.2. Changes to Existing BMP Session
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 In case of any change that results in the alteration of behavior of
an existing BMP session (i.e., changes to filtering and table names),
the session MUST be bounced with a Peer Down/Peer Up sequence.
This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters 8. Security Considerations
to the BMP parameters name space [1].
9.1. BMP Peer Flags The considerations in Section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this document.
Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require establishing sessions
with authorized and trusted monitoring devices. It is also believed
that this document does not add any additional security
considerations.
This document defines the following per-peer header flags 9. IANA Considerations
(Section 4):
o Flag 3 as O flag: The O flag indicates Adj-RIB-In if set to 0 and IANA has assigned the following new parameters to the "BGP Monitoring
Adj-RIB-Out if set to 1. Protocol (BMP) Parameters" registry
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/).
9.2. BMP Statistics Types 9.1. Addition to BMP Peer Flags Registry
This document defines four statistic types for statistics reporting IANA has made the following assignment for the per-peer header flag
(Section 6.2): defined in Section 4 of this document:
o Stat Type = 14: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out +------+-------------+-----------+
Pre-Policy. | Flag | Description | Reference |
+======+=============+===========+
| 3 | O flag | RFC 8671 |
+------+-------------+-----------+
o Stat Type = 15: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out Table 1: Addition to the "BMP
Post-Policy. Peer Flags" Registry
o Stat Type = 16: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Pre- 9.2. Additions to BMP Statistics Types Registry
Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family
Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
o Stat Type = 17: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Post- IANA has made the following assignment for the four statistics types
Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family defined in Section 6.2 of this document:
Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
9.3. Peer Up Information TLV +-----------+------------------------------+-----------+
| Stat Type | Description | Reference |
+===========+==============================+===========+
| 14 | Number of routes in pre- | RFC 8671 |
| | policy Adj-RIB-Out | |
+-----------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 15 | Number of routes in post- | RFC 8671 |
| | policy Adj-RIB-Out | |
+-----------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 16 | Number of routes in per-AFI/ | RFC 8671 |
| | SAFI pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out | |
+-----------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 17 | Number of routes in per-AFI/ | RFC 8671 |
| | SAFI post-policy Adj-RIB-Out | |
+-----------+------------------------------+-----------+
This document defines the following BMP Peer Up Information TLV types Table 2: Additions to the "BMP Statistics Types"
(Section 6.3.1): Registry
o Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-form 9.3. Addition to BMP Initiation Message TLVs Registry
UTF-8 string whose byte length is given by the Information Length
field. The value is administratively assigned. There is no
requirement to terminate the string with null or any other
character.
Multiple admin labels can be included in the Peer Up notification. IANA has made the following assignment per Section 6.3.1 of this
When multiple admin labels are included the BMP receiver MUST document:
preserve their order.
The TLV is optional. +------+-------------+-----------+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+======+=============+===========+
| 4 | Admin Label | RFC 8671 |
+------+-------------+-----------+
10. References Table 3: Addition to the "BMP
Initiation Message TLVs"
Registry
10.1. Normative References 10. 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
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP [RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10.2. URIs
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
parameters.xhtml
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Scudder and Mukul Srivastava for The authors would like to thank John Scudder and Mukul Srivastava for
their valuable input. their valuable input.
Contributors Contributors
Manish Bhardwaj The following individuals contributed to this document:
Cisco Systems
3700 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: manbhard@cisco.com * Manish Bhardwaj, Cisco Systems
Xianyuzheng * Xianyu Zheng, Tencent
Tencent
Tencent Building, Kejizhongyi Avenue,
Hi-techPark, Nanshan District,Shenzhen 518057, P.R.China
Weiguo
Tencent
Tencent Building, Kejizhongyi Avenue,
Hi-techPark, Nanshan District,Shenzhen 518057, P.R.China
Shugang cheng * Wei Guo, Tencent
H3C
* Shugang Cheng, H3C
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 United States of America
Email: tievens@cisco.com Email: tievens@cisco.com
Serpil Bayraktar Serpil Bayraktar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
3700 Cisco Way 3700 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA United States of America
Email: serpil@cisco.com Email: serpil@cisco.com
Paolo Lucente Paolo Lucente
NTT Communications NTT Communications
Siriusdreef 70-72 Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp, WT 2132 2132 Hoofddorp
NL Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net Email: paolo@ntt.net
Penghui Mi Penghui Mi
Tencent
Tengyun Building,Tower A ,No. 397 Tianlin Road
Shanghai 200233
China China
200233
Shanghai
Tengyun Building, Tower A, No. 397 Tianlin Road
Tencent
Email: Penghui.Mi@gmail.com
Email: kevinmi@tencent.com
Shunwan Zhuang Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China China
100095
Beijing
Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Huawei
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
 End of changes. 89 change blocks. 
219 lines changed or deleted 221 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/