draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-04.txt		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-05.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: December 9, 2019 P. Lucente		Expires: February 6, 2020 P. Lucente
	NTT Communications		NTT Communications
	June 7, 2019		August 5, 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-04		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-05
	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 December 9, 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 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 16 ¶
	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
	1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		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		6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
			8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		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		8.4. Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		9.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests that locally originated		This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Local-RIB state
	routes are locally sourced routes, such as redistributed or otherwise		for multiple BGP instances without the need for one or more unneeded
	added routes to the BGP instance by the local router. It does not		BGP peering sessions. The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests
	specify routes that are in the BGP instance Loc-RIB, such as routes		that locally originated routes are locally sourced routes, such as
	after best-path selection.		redistributed or otherwise 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 after best-path selection.
	Figure 1 shows the flow of received routes from one or more BGP peers		Figure 1 shows the flow of received routes from one or more BGP peers
	into the Loc-RIB.		into the Loc-RIB.
	+------------------+ +------------------+		+------------------+ +------------------+
	| Peer-A | | Peer-B |		| Peer-A | | Peer-B |
	/-- | | ---- | | --\		/-- | | ---- | | --\
	| | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | |		| | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | |
	| +------------------+ +------------------+ |		| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
	| | | |		| | | |
	skipping to change at page 3, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 35 ¶
	| V V |		| V V |
	| +-----------------------------------------+ |		| +-----------------------------------------+ |
	| | Loc-RIB | |		| | Loc-RIB | |
	| +-----------------------------------------+ |		| +-----------------------------------------+ |
	| |		| |
	| ROUTER/BGP Instance |		| ROUTER/BGP Instance |
	\----------------------------------------------------/		\----------------------------------------------------/
	Figure 1: BGP peering Adj-RIBs-In into Loc-RIB		Figure 1: BGP peering Adj-RIBs-In into Loc-RIB
	As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated follows a similar flow where		As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated section 9.4 of [RFC4271]
	the redistributed or otherwise originated routes get installed into		follows a similar flow where the redistributed or otherwise
	the Loc-RIB based on the decision process selection.		originated routes get installed into the Loc-RIB based on the
			decision process selection.
	/--------------------------------------------------------\		/--------------------------------------------------------\
	| |		| |
	| +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ |		| +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ |
	| | IS-IS | | OSPF | | Static | | BGP | |		| | IS-IS | | OSPF | | Static | | BGP | |
	| +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ |		| +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ |
	| | | | | |		| | | | | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| | Redistributed or originated into BGP | |		| | Redistributed or originated into BGP | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	skipping to change at page 4, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 25 ¶
	| V V V V |		| V V V V |
	| +----------------------------------------------+ |		| +----------------------------------------------+ |
	| | Loc-RIB | |		| | Loc-RIB | |
	| +----------------------------------------------+ |		| +----------------------------------------------+ |
	| |		| |
	| ROUTER/BGP Instance |		| ROUTER/BGP Instance |
	\--------------------------------------------------------/		\--------------------------------------------------------/
	Figure 2: Locally Originated into Loc-RIB		Figure 2: Locally Originated into Loc-RIB
	BGP instance Loc-RIB usually provides a similar, if not exact,		The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB access:
	forwarding information base (FIB) view of the routes from BGP that
	the router will use. The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB
	access:
	o Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy may still contain hundreds of thousands of		o Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy may still contain hundreds of thousands of
	routes per-peer but only a handful are selected and installed in		routes per-peer but only a handful are selected and installed in
	the Loc-RIB as part of the best-path selection. Some monitoring		the Loc-RIB as part of the best-path selection. Some monitoring
	applications, such as ones that need only to correlate flow		applications, such as ones that need only to correlate flow
	records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor the		records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor the
	routes that are actually selected and used.		routes that are actually selected and used.
	Requiring the applications to collect all Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy		Requiring the applications to collect all Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy
	data forces the applications to receive a potentially large		data forces the applications to receive a potentially large
	skipping to change at page 5, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 18 ¶
	multi-path prefixes are installed as expected for all advertising		multi-path prefixes are installed as expected for all advertising
	peers, the Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy and Loc-RIB needs to be		peers, the Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy and Loc-RIB needs to be
	compared. This is only possible if the Loc-RIB is available.		compared. This is only possible if the Loc-RIB is available.
	Monitoring the Adj-RIB-In for this router from another router to		Monitoring the Adj-RIB-In for this router from another router to
	derive the Loc-RIB is likely to not show same installed prefixes.		derive the Loc-RIB is likely to not show same installed prefixes.
	For example, the received Adj-RIB-In will be different if add-		For example, the received Adj-RIB-In will be different if add-
	paths is not enabled or if maximum number of equal paths are		paths is not enabled or if maximum number of equal paths are
	different from Loc-RIB to routes advertised.		different from Loc-RIB to routes advertised.
	This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and		This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and
	replaces Section 8.2 [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes.		replaces Section 8.2 of [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes.
	1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB		1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB
	Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a		Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a
	peer. It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by		peer. It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by
	monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router. At scale		monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router. At scale
	this becomes overly complex and error prone.		this becomes overly complex and error prone.
	/------------------------------------------------------\		/------------------------------------------------------\
	| ROUTER1 BGP Instance |		| ROUTER1 BGP Instance |
	skipping to change at page 7, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 7 ¶
	peering session. The BMP router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy		peering session. The BMP router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy
	to the BMP receiver.		to the BMP receiver.
	The current method introduces the need for additional resources:		The current method introduces the need for additional resources:
	o Requires at least two routers when only one router was to be		o Requires at least two routers when only one router was to be
	monitored.		monitored.
	o Requires additional BGP peering to collect the received updates		o Requires additional BGP peering to collect the received updates
	when peering may have not even been required in the first place.		when peering may have not even been required in the first place.
	For example, VRF's with no peers, redistributed bgp-ls with no		For example, VRFs with no peers, redistributed BGP-LS with no
	peers, segment routing egress peer engineering where no peers have		peers, segment routing egress peer engineering where no peers have
	link-state address family enabled.		link-state address family enabled.
	Complexities introduced with current method in order to derive (e.g.		Complexities introduced with current method in order to derive (e.g.
	correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB:		correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB:
	o Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a		o Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a
	policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more		policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more
	specifics, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not only		specifics, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not only
	does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity when		does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity when
	skipping to change at page 7, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 30 ¶
	identifying which peering session is the best representative of		identifying which peering session is the best representative of
	the Loc-RIB.		the Loc-RIB.
	o BGP peering is designed to work between administrative domains and		o BGP peering is designed to work between administrative domains and
	therefore does not need to include internal system level		therefore does not need to include internal system level
	information of each peering router (e.g. the system name or		information of each peering router (e.g. the system name or
	version information). In order to derive a Loc-RIB to a router,		version information). In order to derive a Loc-RIB to a router,
	the router name or other system information is needed. The BMP		the router name or other system information is needed. The BMP
	receiver and user are forced to do some type of correlation using		receiver and user are forced to do some type of correlation using
	what information is available in the peering session (e.g. peering		what information is available in the peering session (e.g. peering
	addresses, ASNs, and BGP-ID's). This leads to error prone		addresses, ASNs, and BGP-IDs). This leads to error prone
	correlations.		correlations.
	o The BGP-ID's and session addresses to router correlation requires		o The BGP-IDs and session addresses to router correlation requires
	additional data, such as router inventory. This additional data		additional data, such as router inventory. This additional data
	provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and correlate the		provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and correlate the
	BGP-ID's and/or session addresses, but requires the BMP receiver		BGP-IDs and/or session addresses, but requires the BMP receiver to
	to somehow obtain this data outside of BMP. How this data is		somehow obtain this data outside of BMP. How this data is
	obtained and the accuracy of the data directly effects the		obtained and the accuracy of the data directly effects the
	integrity of the correlation.		integrity of the correlation.
	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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
			14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
			appear in all capitals, as shown here.
	3. Definitions		3. Definitions
			o BGP Instance: it refers to an instance of an instance of BGP-4
			[RFC4271] and considerations in section 8.1 of [RFC7854] do apply
			to it.
	o Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains		o Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains
	unprocessed routing information that has been advertised to the		unprocessed routing information that has been advertised to the
	local BGP speaker by its peers." This is also referred to as the		local BGP speaker by its peers." This is also referred to as the
	pre-policy Adj-RIB-In in this document.		pre-policy Adj-RIB-In in this document.
	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 Loc-RIB: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB contains the routes		o Loc-RIB: As defined in section 9.4 of [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB
	that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision		contains the routes that have been selected by the local BGP
	Process." It is further defined that the routes selected include		speaker's Decision Process." It is further defined that the
	locally originated and routes from all peers.		routes selected include locally originated and routes from all
			peers.
	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 represents a similar view		policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally represents a similar view
	of the Loc-RIB but may contain additional routes based on BGP		of the Loc-RIB but may contain additional routes based on BGP
	peering configuration.		peering configuration.
	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 be what is actually sent to the peer.
	4. Per-Peer Header		4. Per-Peer Header
	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 of [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 = 3: 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 of [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment
	the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST be		under the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST
	conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type.		be 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:
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|F| Reserved |		|F| Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	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 MUST be
	that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table.		set when only a subset of Loc-RIB routes is sent to the BMP
			collector.
	The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be		The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be
	transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.		transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.
	5. Loc-RIB Monitoring		5. Loc-RIB Monitoring
	Loc-RIB contains all routes from BGP peers as well as any and all		The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP protocol Decision
	routes redistributed or otherwise locally originated. In this		Process section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes include those learned
	context, only the BGP instance Loc-RIB is included. Routes from		from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In post-policy, as well as routes
	other routing protocols that have not been redistributed, originated		learned by other means section 9.4 of [RFC4271]. Examples of these
	by or into BGP, or received via Adj-RIB-In are not considered.		include redistribution of routes from other protocols into BGP or
			otherwise locally originated (ie. aggregate routes).
	Loc-RIB in this context does not attempt to maintain a pre-policy and
	post-policy representation. Loc-RIB is the selected and used routes,
	which is equivalent to post-policy.
	For example, VRF "Blue" imports several targets but filters out		As mentioned in Section 4.2 a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent to
	specific routes. The end result of VRF "Blue" Loc-RIB is conveyed.		a BMP collector by setting the F flag.
	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
	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 3 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: The remote IP address associated with the TCP
	The V flag is not applicable with Local-RIB Instance peer type		session over which the encapsulated PDU was received. If zero-
	considering addresses are zero-filed.		filled, the information is not available and setting the V flag is
			not applicable.
	o Peer AS: Set to the BGP instance global or default ASN value.		o Peer AS: Set to the BGP instance global or default ASN value.
	o Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g. VRF)		o Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g. VRF)
	specific router-id.		specific router-id section 1.1 of [RFC7854].
			o Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were installed in
			The Loc-RIB, expressed in seconds and microseconds since midnight
			(zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC). If zero, the time is
			unavailable. Precision of the timestamp is implementation-
			dependent.
	5.2. Peer UP Notification		5.2. Peer UP Notification
	Peer UP notifications follow section 4.10 [RFC7854] with the		Peer UP notifications follow section 4.10 of [RFC7854] with the
	following clarifications:		following clarifications:
	o Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable.		o Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable.
	o Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable.		o Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable.
	o Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable.		o Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable.
	o Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message.		o Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message.
	Capabilities MUST include 4-octet ASN and all necessary		Capabilities MUST include 4-octet ASN and all necessary
	skipping to change at page 10, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 38 ¶
	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 type is added:		The following Peer UP information TLV type is added:
	o Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII		o Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII
	string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table		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		name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string 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" MUST be used for the default Loc-RIB		default value of "global" MUST 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 MUST also be included in the Peer Down		included, then it MUST also be included in the Peer Down
	notification.		notification.
			Multiple TLVs of the same type can be repeated as part of the same
			message, for example to convey a filtered view of a VRF. A BMP
			receiver should append multiple TLVs of the same type to a set in
			order to support alternate or additional names for the same peer. If
			multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when
			they are reported.
	5.3. Peer Down Notification		5.3. Peer Down Notification
	Peer down notification MUST use reason code TBD3. Following the		Peer down notification MUST use reason code TBD3. Following the
	reason is data in TLV format. The following peer Down information		reason is data in TLV format. The following peer Down information
	TLV type is defined:		TLV type is defined:
	o Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII		o Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII
	string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table		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		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		MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. The VRF/Table Name
	informational TLV MUST be included if it was in the Peer UP.		informational TLV MUST 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 of [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP
	and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU."		header and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU."
	5.4.1. ASN Encoding		5.4.1. ASN Encoding
	Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as		Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as
	indicated in PEER UP sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability.		indicated in PEER UP sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability.
	5.4.2. Granularity		5.4.2. Granularity
	State compression and throttling SHOULD be used by a BMP sender to		State compression and throttling SHOULD be used by a BMP sender to
	reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that are transmitted		reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that are transmitted
	skipping to change at page 11, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 7 ¶
	results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4		results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4
	changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression		changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression
	interval. If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have		interval. If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have
	been transmitted.		been transmitted.
	A BMP receiver should expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring		A BMP receiver should expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring
	granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation.		granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation.
	5.5. Route Mirroring		5.5. Route Mirroring
	Route mirroring is not applicable to Loc-RIB.		Route mirroring is not applicable to Loc-RIB and Route Mirroring
			messages SHOULD be ignored.
	5.6. Statistics Report		5.6. Statistics Report
	Not all Stat Types are relevant to Loc-RIB. The Stat Types that are		Not all Stat Types are relevant to Loc-RIB. The Stat Types that are
	relevant are listed below:		relevant are listed below:
	o Stat Type = 8: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Loc-RIB.		o Stat Type = 8: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Loc-RIB.
	o Stat Type = 10: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Loc-RIB. The		o Stat Type = 10: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Loc-RIB. The
	value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-		value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-
	skipping to change at page 12, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 34 ¶
	There are several methods to implement Loc-RIB efficiently. In all		There are several methods to implement Loc-RIB efficiently. In all
	methods, the implementation emulates a peer with Peer UP and DOWN		methods, the implementation emulates a peer with Peer UP and DOWN
	messages to convey capabilities as well as Route Monitor messages to		messages to convey capabilities as well as Route Monitor messages to
	convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that conveys the Loc-RIB is		convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that conveys the Loc-RIB is
	a local router emulated peer.		a local router emulated peer.
	6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers		6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers
	There MUST be multiple emulated peers for each Loc-RIB instance, such		There MUST be multiple emulated peers for each Loc-RIB instance, such
	as with VRF's. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB's by the peer		as with VRFs. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB by the peer
	header distinguisher and BGP ID. The BMP receiver uses the VRF/		header distinguisher and BGP ID. The BMP receiver uses the VRF/
	Table Name from the PEER UP information to associate a name to the		Table Name from the PEER UP information to associate a name to the
	Loc-RIB.		Loc-RIB.
	In some implementations, it might be required to have more than one		In some implementations, it might be required to have more than one
	emulated peer for Loc-RIB to convey different address families for		emulated peer for Loc-RIB to convey different address families for
	the same Loc-RIB. In this case, the peer distinguisher and BGP ID		the same Loc-RIB. In this case, the peer distinguisher and BGP ID
	should be the same since it represents the same Loc-RIB instance.		should be the same since it represents the same Loc-RIB instance.
	Each emulated peer instance MUST send a PEER UP with the OPEN message		Each emulated peer instance MUST send a PEER UP with the OPEN message
	indicating the address family capabilities. A BMP receiver MUST		indicating the address family capabilities. A BMP receiver MUST
	skipping to change at page 12, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 8 ¶
	6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers		6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers
	There maybe be use-cases where BMP receivers should only receive		There maybe be use-cases where BMP receivers should only receive
	specific routes from Loc-RIB. For example, IPv4 unicast routes may		specific routes from Loc-RIB. For example, IPv4 unicast routes may
	include IBGP, EBGP, and IGP but only routes from EBGP should be sent		include IBGP, EBGP, and IGP but only routes from EBGP should be sent
	to the BMP receiver. Alternatively, it may be that only IBGP and		to the BMP receiver. Alternatively, it may be that only IBGP and
	EBGP that should be sent and IGP redistributed routes should be		EBGP that should be sent and IGP redistributed routes should be
	excluded. In these cases where the Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag		excluded. In these cases where the Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag
	is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP receiver that the Loc-RIB is		is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP receiver that the Loc-RIB is
	filtered.		filtered. If multiple filters are associated to the same Loc-RIB, a
			Table Name MUST be used in order to allow a BMP receiver to make the
			right associations.
			6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions
			In case of any change that results in the alteration of behaviour of
			an existing BMP session, ie. changes to filtering and table names,
			the session MUST be bounced with a Peer DOWN/Peer UP sequence.
	7. Security Considerations		7. 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.
	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):
	skipping to change at page 14, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 33 ¶
	[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
			2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
			May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	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 and Jeff Haas for their		The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Jeff Haas and Mukul
	valuable input.		Srivastava 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
	Serpil Bayraktar		Serpil Bayraktar
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
End of changes. 39 change blocks.
	74 lines changed or deleted		106 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/