draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-07.txt		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-08.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: November 9, 2020 P. Lucente		Expires: 20 May 2021 P. Lucente
	NTT Communications		NTT Communications
	May 8, 2020		16 November 2020
	Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)		Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
	draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-07		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-08
	Abstract		Abstract
	The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to the Adj-RIB-In		The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to various Routing
	and locally originated routes (e.g. routes distributed into BGP from		Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates BMP (RFC 7854) by
	protocols such as static) but not access to the BGP instance Loc-RIB.		adding access to the Local Routing Information Base (Loc-RIB), as
	This document updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by		defined in RFC 4271. The Loc-RIB contains the routes that have been
	adding access to the BGP instance Local-RIB, as defined in RFC 4271		selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision Process.
	the routes that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's
	Decision Process. These are the routes over all peers, locally
	originated, and after best-path selection.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	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 November 9, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 May 2021.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 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/
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		1.1. Alternative Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		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 . . . . . . . . . 13
	6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions . . . . . . . . . . 13		6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions . . . . . . . . . . 13
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8. IANA 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	8.4. Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		8.4. Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Local-RIB state		This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Loc-RIB state of
	for multiple BGP instances without the need for one or more unneeded		remote BGP instances without the need to establish BGP peering
	BGP peering sessions. The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests		sessions. BMP [RFC7854] does not define a method to send the BGP
	that locally originated routes are locally sourced routes, such as		instance Loc-RIB. It does define in section 8.2 of [RFC7854] locally
	redistributed or otherwise added routes to the BGP instance by the		originated routes, but these routes are defined as the routes
	local router. It does not specify routes that are in the BGP		originated into BGP. For example, locally sourced routes that are
	instance Loc-RIB, such as routes after best-path selection.		redistributed.
	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 39 ¶
	| | | |		| | | |
	| Selected -| Selected -| |		| Selected -| Selected -| |
	| 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 section 9.4 of [RFC4271]		As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated section 9.4 of [RFC4271]
	follows a similar flow where the redistributed or otherwise		follows a similar flow where the redistributed or otherwise
	originated routes get installed into the Loc-RIB based on the		originated routes get installed into the Loc-RIB based on the
	decision process selection.		decision process selection.
	/--------------------------------------------------------\		/--------------------------------------------------------\
	| |		| |
	| +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ |		| +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ |
	| | IS-IS | | OSPF | | Static | | BGP | |		| | IS-IS | | OSPF | | Static | | BGP | |
	skipping to change at page 4, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 27 ¶
	| | Loc-RIB | |		| | Loc-RIB | |
	| +----------------------------------------------+ |		| +----------------------------------------------+ |
	| |		| |
	| ROUTER/BGP Instance |		| ROUTER/BGP Instance |
	\--------------------------------------------------------/		\--------------------------------------------------------/
	Figure 2: Locally Originated into Loc-RIB		Figure 2: Locally Originated into Loc-RIB
	The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB access:		The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB access:
	o Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy may still contain hundreds of thousands of		* The Adj-RIB-In for a given peer Post-Policy may contain hundreds
	routes per-peer but only a handful are selected and installed in		of thousands of routes, with only a handful of routes selected and
	the Loc-RIB as part of the best-path selection. Some monitoring		installed in the Loc-RIB after best-path selection. Some
	applications, such as ones that need only to correlate flow		monitoring applications, such as ones that need only to correlate
	records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor the		flow records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor
	routes that are actually selected and used.		the 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
	unwanted data set and to perform the BGP decision process		unwanted data set and to perform the BGP decision process
	selection, which includes having access to the IGP next-hop		selection, which includes having access to the IGP next-hop
	metrics. While it is possible to obtain the IGP topology		metrics. While it is possible to obtain the IGP topology
	information using BGP-LS, it requires the application to implement		information using BGP-LS, it requires the application to implement
	SPF and possibly CSPF based on additional policies. This is		SPF and possibly CSPF based on additional policies. This is
	overly complex for such a simple application that only needed to		overly complex for such a simple application that only needed to
	have access to the Loc-RIB.		have access to the Loc-RIB.
	o It is common to see frequent changes over many BGP peers, but		* It is common to see frequent changes over many BGP peers, but
	those changes do not always result in the router's Loc-RIB		those changes do not always result in the router's Loc-RIB
	changing. The change in the Loc-RIB can have a direct impact on		changing. The change in the Loc-RIB can have a direct impact on
	the forwarding state. It can greatly reduce time to troubleshoot		the forwarding state. It can greatly reduce time to troubleshoot
	and resolve issues if operators had the history of Loc-RIB		and resolve issues if operators had the history of Loc-RIB
	changes. For example, a performance issue might have been seen		changes. For example, a performance issue might have been seen
	for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post troubleshooting this issue		for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post troubleshooting this issue
	without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing changes		without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing changes
	that might have happened during those five minutes.		that might have happened during those five minutes.
	o Operators may wish to validate the impact of policies applied to		* Operators may wish to validate the impact of policies applied to
	Adj-RIB-In by analyzing the final decision made by the router when		Adj-RIB-In by analyzing the final decision made by the router when
	installing into the Loc-RIB. For example, in order to validate if		installing into the Loc-RIB. For example, in order to validate if
	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 of [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes.		replaces Section 8.2 of [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes.
	1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB		1.1. Alternative 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 6, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 37 ¶
	/--| |--\ /--| | --\		/--| |--\ /--| | --\
	| | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | |		| | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | |
	| +------------------+ | | +------------------+ |		| +------------------+ | | +------------------+ |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ROUTER2/BGP Instance | | ROUTER3/BGP Instance |		| ROUTER2/BGP Instance | | ROUTER3/BGP Instance |
	\------------------------/ \-------------------------/		\------------------------/ \-------------------------/
	| |		| |
	v v		v v
	ROUTER2 BMP Feed ROUTER3 BMP Feed		ROUTER2 BMP Feed ROUTER3 BMP Feed
	Figure 3: Current method to monitor Loc-RIB		Figure 3: Alternative method to monitor Loc-RIB
	The setup needed to monitor the Loc-RIB of a router requires another		The setup needed to monitor the Loc-RIB of a router requires another
	router with a peering session to the target router that is to be		router with a peering session to the target router that is to be
	monitored. As shown in Figure 3, the target router Loc-RIB is		monitored. As shown in Figure 3, the target router Loc-RIB is
	advertised via Adj-RIB-Out to the BMP router over a standard BGP		advertised via Adj-RIB-Out to the BMP router over a standard BGP
	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		* Requires at least two routers when only one router was to be
	monitored.		monitored.
	o Requires additional BGP peering to collect the received updates		* 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, VRFs 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		* 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
	multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same router.		multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same router.
	The BMP receiver user is left with the error prone task of		The BMP receiver user is left with the error prone task of
	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		* 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-IDs). This leads to error prone		addresses, ASNs, and BGP-IDs). This leads to error prone
	correlations.		correlations.
	o The BGP-IDs and session addresses to router correlation requires		* 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-IDs and/or session addresses, but requires the BMP receiver to		BGP-IDs and/or session addresses, but requires the BMP receiver 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", "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 BCP
	14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they		14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
	appear in all capitals, as shown here.		appear in all capitals, as shown here.
	3. Definitions		3. Definitions
			* BGP Instance: it refers to an instance of an instance of BGP-4
	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		[RFC4271] and considerations in section 8.1 of [RFC7854] do apply
	to it.		to it.
	o Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains		* 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		* 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 section 9.4 of [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB		* Loc-RIB: As defined in section 9.4 of [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB
	contains the routes that have been selected by the local BGP		contains the routes that have been selected by the local BGP
	speaker's Decision Process." It is further defined that the		speaker's Decision Process." Note that the Loc-RIB state as
	routes selected include locally originated and routes from all		monitored through BMP might also contain routes imported from
	peers.		other routing protocols such as an IGP, or local static routes.
	o Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound		* 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		* 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 of [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		* Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer
	4.2. Peer Flags		4.2. Peer Flags
	In section 4.2 of [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment		In section 4.2 of [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment
	under the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST		under the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST
	be 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 MUST be		* The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This MUST be
	set when only a subset of Loc-RIB routes is sent to the BMP		set when only a subset of Loc-RIB routes is sent to the BMP
	collector.		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
	The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP protocol Decision		The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP protocol Decision
	Process section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes include those learned		Process section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes include those learned
	skipping to change at page 9, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 34 ¶
	otherwise locally originated (ie. aggregate routes).		otherwise locally originated (ie. aggregate routes).
	As mentioned in Section 4.2 a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent to		As mentioned in Section 4.2 a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent to
	a BMP collector by setting the F flag.		a BMP collector by setting the F flag.
	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.		* Peer Type: Set to 3 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer.
	o Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the		* 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.		* 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 Loc-RIB Instance peer type
	considering addresses are zero-filed.		considering addresses are zero-filed.
	o Peer AS: Set to the BGP instance global or default ASN value.		* 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)		* Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g. VRF)
	specific router-id section 1.1 of [RFC7854].		specific router-id section 1.1 of [RFC7854].
	o Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were installed in		* Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were installed in
	The Loc-RIB, expressed in seconds and microseconds since midnight		The Loc-RIB, expressed in seconds and microseconds since midnight
	(zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC). If zero, the time is		(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.
	5.2. Peer UP Notification		5.2. Peer UP Notification
	Peer UP notifications follow section 4.10 of [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.		* Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable.
	o Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable.		* Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable.
	o Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable.		* Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable.
	o Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message.		* 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
	capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring messages.		capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring messages.
	Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB		Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB
	monitoring messages. For example, if add-paths is enabled for		monitoring messages. For example, if add-paths is enabled for
	IPv6 and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the add-paths		IPv6 and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the add-paths
	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		* 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		* Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8
	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.
	skipping to change at page 11, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 18 ¶
	order to support alternate or additional names for the same peer. If		order to support alternate or additional names for the same peer. If
	multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when		multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when
	they are reported.		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		* Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8
	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.
	skipping to change at page 12, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 15 ¶
	5.5. Route Mirroring		5.5. Route Mirroring
	Route mirroring is not applicable to Loc-RIB and Route Mirroring		Route mirroring is not applicable to Loc-RIB and Route Mirroring
	messages SHOULD be ignored.		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.		* 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		* 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-
	bit Gauge.		bit Gauge.
	6. Other Considerations		6. Other Considerations
	6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation		6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation
	There are several methods to implement Loc-RIB efficiently. In all		There are several methods for a BGP speaker to implement Loc-RIB
	methods, the implementation emulates a peer with Peer UP and DOWN		efficiently. In all methods, the implementation emulates a peer with
	messages to convey capabilities as well as Route Monitor messages to		Peer UP and DOWN messages to convey capabilities as well as Route
	convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that conveys the Loc-RIB is		Monitor messages to convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that
	a local router emulated peer.		conveys the Loc-RIB is 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 VRFs. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB 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
	skipping to change at page 13, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 35 ¶
	The same considerations as in section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this		The same considerations as in section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this
	document. Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require to		document. Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require to
	establish sessions with authorized and trusted monitoring devices.		establish sessions with authorized and trusted monitoring devices.
	It is also believed that this document does not add any additional		It is also believed that this document does not add any additional
	security considerations.		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 (https://www.iana.org/assignments/
			bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml).
	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 = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer		* 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		* 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 = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an ASCII		* Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8
	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.
	8.4. Peer Down Reason code		8.4. Peer Down Reason code
	This document defines the following new BMP Peer Down reason code		This document defines the following new BMP Peer Down reason code
	(Section 5.3):		(Section 5.3):
	o Type = TBD3: Local system closed, TLV data follows.		* Type = TBD3: Local system closed, TLV data follows.
	9. References
	9.1. Normative References		9. 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>.
	9.2. URIs
	[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
	parameters.xhtml
	Acknowledgements		Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Jeff Haas and Mukul		The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Jeff Haas and Mukul
	Srivastava for their 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		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
	Manish Bhardwaj		Manish Bhardwaj
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	3700 Cisco Way		3700 Cisco Way
	San Jose, CA 95134		San Jose, CA 95134
	USA		United States of America
	Email: manbhard@cisco.com		Email: manbhard@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
End of changes. 60 change blocks.
	105 lines changed or deleted		93 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/