draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10.txt		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-11.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: 9 September 2021 P. Lucente		Expires: 1 November 2021 P. Lucente
	NTT Communications		NTT Communications
	8 March 2021		30 April 2021
	Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)		Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
	draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-11
	Abstract		Abstract
	The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to various Routing		The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to local Routing
	Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates BMP (RFC 7854) by		Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates BMP (RFC 7854) by
	adding access to the Local Routing Information Base (Loc-RIB), as		adding access to the Local Routing Information Base (Loc-RIB), as
	defined in RFC 4271. The Loc-RIB contains the routes that have been		defined in RFC 4271. The Loc-RIB contains the routes that have been
	selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision Process.		selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision Process.
	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 9 September 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 November 2021.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components		and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
	extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text		extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
	as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are		as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
	provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.		provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Alternative Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . 5		1.1. Alternative Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5.2. Peer UP Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.2. Peer Up Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5.2.1. Peer UP Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.2.1. Peer Up Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 13		6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 12
	6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions . . . . . . . . . . 13		6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.2. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.2. BMP Loc-RIB Instance Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.3. Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		8.3. Peer Up Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.4. Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		8.4. Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
			10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Loc-RIB state of		This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Loc-RIB state of
	remote BGP instances without the need to establish BGP peering		remote BGP instances without the need to establish BGP peering
	sessions. BMP [RFC7854] does not define a method to send the BGP		sessions. BMP [RFC7854] does not define a method to send the BGP
	instance Loc-RIB. It does define in section 8.2 of [RFC7854] locally		instance Loc-RIB. It does define in section 8.2 of [RFC7854] locally
	originated routes, but these routes are defined as the routes		originated routes, but these routes are defined as the routes
	originated into BGP. For example, locally sourced routes that are		originated into BGP. For example, as defined by Section 9.4 of
	redistributed.		[RFC4271]. Loc-RIB includes all selected received routes from BGP
			peers in addition to locally originated routes.
	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) | |
	| +------------------+ +------------------+ |		| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| |		| Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| |
	| V V |		| V V |
	| +------------------ +------------------+ |		| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
	| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| |		| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| |
	| +------------------ +------------------+ |		| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| 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
	Figure 2 (Locally Originated into Loc-RIB) illustrates how
	redistributed or otherwise originated routes get installed into the
	Loc-RIB based on the decision process selection in RFC 4271
	[RFC4271].
	/--------------------------------------------------------\
	| |
	| +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ |
	| | IS-IS | | OSPF | | Static | | BGP | |
	| +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ |
	| | | | | |
	| | | |
	| | Redistributed or originated into BGP | |
	| | | |
	| | | | | |
	| V V V V |
	| +----------------------------------------------+ |
	| | Loc-RIB | |
	| +----------------------------------------------+ |
	| |
	| ROUTER/BGP Instance |
	\--------------------------------------------------------/
	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:
	* The Adj-RIB-In for a given peer Post-Policy may contain hundreds		* The Adj-RIB-In for a given peer Post-Policy may contain hundreds
	of thousands of routes, with only a handful of routes selected and		of thousands of routes, with only a handful of routes selected and
	installed in the Loc-RIB after best-path selection. Some		installed in the Loc-RIB after best-path selection. Some
	monitoring applications, such as ones that need only to correlate		monitoring applications, such as ones that need only to correlate
	flow records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor		flow records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor
	the 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 interior gateway
	metrics. While it is possible to obtain the IGP topology		protocol (IGP) next-hop metrics. While it is possible to obtain
	information using BGP-LS, it requires the application to implement		the IGP topology information using BGP Link-State (BGP-LS), it
	SPF and possibly CSPF based on additional policies. This is		requires the application to implement shortest path first (SPF)
	overly complex for such a simple application that only needs to		and possibly constrained shortest path first (CSPF) based on
	have access to the Loc-RIB.		additional policies. This is overly complex for such a simple
			application that only needs to have access to the Loc-RIB.
	* 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 have the history of Loc-RIB		and resolve issues if operators have 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-facto troubleshooting this
	without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing changes		issue without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing
	that might have happened during those five minutes.		changes that might have happened during those five minutes.
	* 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-PATH
	paths is not enabled or if maximum number of equal paths are		[RFC7911] is not enabled or if maximum supported number of equal
	different from Loc-RIB to routes advertised.		paths is different between Loc-RIB and advertised routes.
	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. Alternative 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. This
	this becomes overly complex and error prone.		becomes overly complex and error prone when considering the number of
			peers being monitored per router.
	/------------------------------------------------------\		/------------------------------------------------------\
	| ROUTER1 BGP Instance |		| ROUTER1 BGP Instance |
	| |		| |
	| +--------------------------------------------+ |		| +--------------------------------------------+ |
	| | Loc-RIB | |		| | Loc-RIB | |
	| +--------------------------------------------+ |		| +--------------------------------------------+ |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| +------------------+ +------------------+ |		| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
	| | Peer-ROUTER2 | | Peer-ROUTER3 | |		| | Peer-ROUTER2 | | Peer-ROUTER3 | |
	skipping to change at page 6, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, 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: Alternative method to monitor Loc-RIB		Figure 2: 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 2, 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.
	BMP lacking access to Loc-RIB introduces the need for additional		BMP lacking access to Loc-RIB introduces the need for additional
	resources:		resources:
	* 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.
	* 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, virtual routing and forwarding (VRF) tables with no
	peers, segment routing egress peer engineering where no peers have		peers, redistributed BGP-LS with no peers, and segment routing
	link-state address family enabled.		egress peer engineering where no peers have link-state address
			family enabled are all situations with no preexisting BGP peers.
	Complexities introduced by the lack of access to Loc-RIB in order to		Many complexities are introduced when using a received Adj-RIB-In to
	derive (e.g. correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB:		infer a router Loc-RIB:
	* 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		specific prefixes, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not
	does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity when		only does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity
	multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same router.		when multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same
	The BMP receiver user is left with the error prone task of		router. The BMP receiver user is left with the error-prone task
	identifying which peering session is the best representative of		of identifying which peering session is the best representative of
	the Loc-RIB.		the Loc-RIB.
	* 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 the Loc-RIB of 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.,
	addresses, ASNs, and BGP-IDs). This leads to error prone		peering addresses, autonomous system numbers, and BGP
	correlations.		identifiers). This leads to error-prone correlations.
	* The BGP-IDs and session addresses to router correlation requires		* Correlating BGP identifiers (BGP-ID) and session addresses to a
	additional data, such as router inventory. This additional data		router requires additional data, such as router inventory. This
	provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and correlate the		additional data provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and
	BGP-IDs and/or session addresses, but requires the BMP receiver to		correlate the BGP-IDs and/or session addresses, but requires the
	somehow obtain this data outside of BMP. How this data is		BMP receiver to somehow obtain this data outside of BMP. How this
	obtained and the accuracy of the data directly effects the		data is obtained and the accuracy of the data directly affects 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: refers to an instance of an instance of BGP-4		* BGP Instance: refers to an instance of BGP-4 [RFC4271] and
	[RFC4271] and considerations in section 8.1 of [RFC7854] do apply		considerations in section 8.1 of [RFC7854] do apply to it.
	to it.
	* 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.
	* 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."
	skipping to change at page 8, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 35 ¶
	peering configuration.		peering configuration.
	* 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 the router Loc-RIB, which may have a route distinguisher
	Section 4.2 of [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type, which is		(RD). Section 4.2 of [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type,
	for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance identifier.		which is 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:
	* 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		If locally sourced routes are communicated using BMP, they MUST be
	under the L flag description is removed. If locally sourced routes		conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type.
	are communicated using BMP, they MUST 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| | | |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	* 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 a filter is applied to Loc-RIB routes sent to the BMP
	collector.		collector.
	The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be		The unused 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 Decision Process
	Process as described in section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes		as described in section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes include those
	include those learned from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In post-policy,		learned from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy, as well as
	as well as routes learned by other means as per section 9.4 of		routes learned by other means as per section 9.4 of [RFC4271].
	[RFC4271]. Examples of these include redistribution of routes from		Examples of these include redistribution of routes from other
	other protocols into BGP or otherwise locally originated (ie.		protocols into BGP or otherwise locally originated (i.e., aggregate
	aggregate routes).		routes).
	As mentioned in Section 4.2 a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent to		As described in Section 6.1.2, a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent
	a BMP collector by setting the F flag.		to 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 section 4.2 of		All peer messages that include a per-peer header as defined in
	[RFC7854] MUST use the following values:		section 4.2 of [RFC7854] MUST use the following values:
	* Peer Type: Set to 3 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer.		* Peer Type: Set to 3 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer.
	* 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.
	* 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 Loc-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.
	* Peer AS: Set to the primary router BGP ASN.		* Peer AS: Set to the primary router BGP autonomous system number
			(ASN).
	* 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].
	* 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:
	* Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable.		* Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable.
	* Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable.		* Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable.
	* Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable.		* Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable.
	* Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message.		* Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message.
	Capabilities MUST include the 4-octet ASN and all necessary		Capabilities MUST include the 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-PATH is enabled for IPv6
	IPv6 and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the add-paths		and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the ADD-PATH capability
	capability should be included for IPv6. In the case of add-paths,		should be included for IPv6. In the case of ADD-PATH, the
	the capability intent of advertise, receive or both can be ignored		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.
	* 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 parse the expected received
			OPEN message as defined in section 4.10 of [RFC7854].
	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:
	* Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8		* 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 to support
	it is RECOMMENDED that the VRF/Table Name always be included. The		implementations that may not have defined a name. If a name is
	default value of "global" MUST be used for the default Loc-RIB		configured, it MUST be included. The default value of "global"
	instance with a zero-filled distinguisher. If the TLV is		MUST be used for the default Loc-RIB instance with a zero-filled
	included, then it MUST also be included in the Peer Down		distinguisher. If the TLV is included, then it MUST also be
	notification.		included in the Peer Down notification.
	Multiple TLVs of the same type can be repeated as part of the same		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		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		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		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 6. Following the reason		Peer Down notification MUST use reason code 6. Following the reason
	is data in TLV format. The following peer Down information TLV type		is data in TLV format. The following Peer Down information TLV type
	is defined:		is defined:
	* Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8		* 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.
	As defined in section 4.3 of [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP		As defined in section 4.6 of [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP
	header 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
	to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the final resultant		to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the final resultant
	updates are sent.		updates are sent.
	For example, prefix 192.0.2.0/24 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times		For example, prefix 192.0.2.0/24 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times
	within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages		within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages
	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 and Route Mirroring		Section 4.7 of [RFC7854], defines Route Mirroring for verbatim
			duplication of messages received. This is not applicable to Loc-RIB
			as PDUs are originated by the router. Any received 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:
	* Stat Type = 8: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Loc-RIB.		* Stat Type = 8: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Loc-RIB.
	* 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 for a BGP speaker to implement Loc-RIB		There are several methods for a BGP speaker to implement Loc-RIB
	efficiently. In all methods, the implementation emulates a peer with		efficiently. In all methods, the implementation emulates a peer with
	Peer UP and DOWN messages to convey capabilities as well as Route		Peer Up and Down messages to convey capabilities as well as Route
	Monitor messages to convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that		Monitor messages to convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that
	conveys the Loc-RIB is a local router emulated peer.		conveys the Loc-RIB is a locally 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 at least one emulated peer for each Loc-RIB instance,
	as with VRFs. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB by the peer		such as with VRFs. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB by the
	header distinguisher and BGP ID. The BMP receiver uses the VRF/		peer 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 they represent 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
	process these capabilities to know which peer belongs to which		process these capabilities to know which peer belongs to which
	address family.		address family.
	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 internal BGP (IBGP), external BGP (EBGP), and IGP but only
	to the BMP receiver. Alternatively, it may be that only IBGP and		routes from EBGP should be sent to the BMP receiver. Alternatively,
	EBGP that should be sent and IGP redistributed routes should be		it may be that only IBGP and EBGP that should be sent and IGP
	excluded. In these cases where the Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag		redistributed routes should be excluded. In these cases where the
	is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP receiver that the Loc-RIB is		Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP
	filtered. If multiple filters are associated to the same Loc-RIB, a		receiver that the Loc-RIB is filtered. If multiple filters are
	Table Name MUST be used in order to allow a BMP receiver to make the		associated to the same Loc-RIB, a Table Name MUST be used in order to
	right associations.		allow a BMP receiver to make the right associations.
	6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions		6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions
	In case of any change that results in the alteration of behaviour of		In case of any change that results in the alteration of behavior of
	an existing BMP session, ie. changes to filtering and table names,		an existing BMP session, ie. changes to filtering and table names,
	the session MUST be bounced with a Peer DOWN/Peer UP sequence.		the session MUST be bounced with a Peer Down/Peer Up sequence.
	7. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	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 that
	establish sessions with authorized and trusted monitoring devices.		sessions are only established with authorized and trusted monitoring
	It is also believed that this document does not add any additional		devices. It is also believed that this document does not add any
	security considerations.		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 (https://www.iana.org/assignments/		to the BMP parameters name space (https://www.iana.org/assignments/
	bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml).		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):
	* Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer		* Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer
	8.2. BMP Peer Flags		8.2. BMP Loc-RIB Instance Peer Flags
	This document defines a new flag (Section 4.2) and proposes that peer		This document requests IANA to rename "BMP Peer Flags" to "BMP Peer
	flags are specific to the peer type:		Flags for Peer Types 0 through 2" and create a new registry named
			"BMP Peer Flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer Type 3" This document
			defines that peer flags are specific to the Loc-RIB instance peer
			type. As defined in (Section 4.2):
	* The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This indicates		* Flag 4: The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This
	that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table.		indicates that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing
			table.
	8.3. Peer UP Information TLV		Flags 0 through 3 and 5 through 7 are unassigned. The registration
			procedure for the registry is "Standards Action".
	This document defines the following new BMP PEER UP informational		8.3. Peer Up Information TLV
	message TLV types (Section 5.2.1):
			This document requests that IANA rename "BMP Initiation Message TLVs"
			registry to "BMP Initiation and Peer Up Information TLVs." section
			4.4 of [RFC7854] defines that both Initiation and Peer Up share the
			same information TLVs. This document defines the following new BMP
			Peer Up information TLV type (Section 5.2.1):
	* Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8		* 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):
	* Type = 6: Local system closed, TLV data follows.		* Type = 6: Local system closed, TLV data follows.
	9. Normative References		9. Normative References
	skipping to change at page 14, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 44 ¶
	[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>.
			[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
			IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
	[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP		[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
	Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,		Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
			10. Informative References
			[RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
			"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.
	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
End of changes. 64 change blocks.
	180 lines changed or deleted		184 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/