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/