draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-13.txt   rfc9069.txt 
Global Routing Operations T. Evens Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Evens
Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar Request for Comments: 9069 Cisco Systems
Updates: 7854 (if approved) M. Bhardwaj Updates: 7854 S. Bayraktar
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Category: Standards Track Menlo Security
Expires: 4 March 2022 P. Lucente ISSN: 2070-1721 M. Bhardwaj
Cisco Systems
P. Lucente
NTT Communications NTT Communications
31 August 2021 February 2022
Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Support for Local RIB in the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-13
Abstract Abstract
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to local 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 is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 March 2022. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9069.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 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
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction
1.1. Alternative Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Alternative Method to Monitor Loc-RIB
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Terminology
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Definitions
4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Per-Peer Header
4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Peer Type
4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Peer Flags
5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Loc-RIB Monitoring
5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Per-Peer Header
5.2. Peer Up Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Peer Up Notification
5.2.1. Peer Up Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2.1. Peer Up Information
5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Peer Down Notification
5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.4. Route Monitoring
5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.4.1. ASN Encoding
5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.4.2. Granularity
5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.5. Route Mirroring
5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.6. Statistics Report
6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Other Considerations
6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation
6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers
6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers
6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1.3. Changes to Existing BMP Sessions
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations
8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.1. BMP Peer Type
8.2. BMP Loc-RIB Instance Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.2. BMP Loc-RIB Instance Peer Flags
8.3. Peer Up Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.3. Peer Up Information TLV
8.4. Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.4. Peer Down Reason Code
8.5. Deprecated entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.5. Deprecated Entries
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. References
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.1. Normative References
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Informative References
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
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 locally originated routes in
originated routes, but these routes are defined as the routes Section 8.2 of [RFC7854], but these routes are defined as the routes
originated into BGP. For example, as defined by Section 9.4 of that originated into BGP (e.g., Section 9.4 of [RFC4271]). Loc-RIB
[RFC4271]. Loc-RIB includes all selected received routes from BGP includes all selected received routes from BGP peers in addition to
peers in addition to locally originated routes. 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) | |
| +------------------+ +------------------+ | | +------------------+ +------------------+ |
| | | | | | | |
skipping to change at page 3, line 40 skipping to change at line 123
| | | | | | | |
| 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
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 those 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 interior gateway selection, which includes having access to the interior gateway
protocol (IGP) next-hop metrics. While it is possible to obtain protocol (IGP) next-hop metrics. While it is possible to obtain
the IGP topology information using BGP Link-State (BGP-LS), it the IGP topology information using BGP - Link State (BGP-LS), it
requires the application to implement shortest path first (SPF) requires the application to implement Shortest Path First (SPF)
and possibly constrained shortest path first (CSPF) based on and possibly Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) based on
additional policies. This is overly complex for such a simple additional policies. This is overly complex for such a simple
application that only needs to have access to the Loc-RIB. 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 the time to
and resolve issues if operators have the history of Loc-RIB troubleshoot and resolve issues if operators have the history of
changes. For example, a performance issue might have been seen Loc-RIB changes. For example, a performance issue might have been
for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post-facto troubleshooting this seen for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post-facto troubleshooting
issue without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing this issue without Loc-RIB history hides any decision-based
changes that might have happened during those five minutes. routing changes that might have happened during those 5 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 the Adj-RIB-In by analyzing the final decision made by the router
installing into the Loc-RIB. For example, in order to validate if when installing into the Loc-RIB. For example, in order to
multi-path prefixes are installed as expected for all advertising validate if multipath prefixes are installed as expected for all
peers, the Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy and Loc-RIB needs to be advertising peers, the Adj-RIB-In post-policy and Loc-RIB need to
compared. This is only possible if the Loc-RIB is available. be 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 the same installed
For example, the received Adj-RIB-In will be different if ADD-PATH prefixes. For example, the received Adj-RIB-In will be different
[RFC7911] is not enabled or if maximum supported number of equal if ADD-PATH [RFC7911] is not enabled or if the maximum supported
paths is different between Loc-RIB and advertised routes. number of equal 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. This monitoring the Adj-RIB-In pre-policy from another router. This
becomes overly complex and error prone when considering the number of becomes overly complex and error prone when considering the number of
peers being monitored per router. peers being monitored per router.
/------------------------------------------------------\ /------------------------------------------------------\
| ROUTER1 BGP Instance | | ROUTER1 BGP Instance |
| | | |
| +--------------------------------------------+ | | +--------------------------------------------+ |
| | Loc-RIB | | | | Loc-RIB | |
| +--------------------------------------------+ | | +--------------------------------------------+ |
| | | | | | | |
skipping to change at page 5, line 37 skipping to change at line 211
/--| |--\ /--| | --\ /--| |--\ /--| | --\
| | 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 2: 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 2, 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 the 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 the Adj-RIB-In pre-
to the BMP receiver. policy to the BMP receiver.
BMP lacking access to Loc-RIB introduces the need for additional A 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 not have even been required in the first place.
For example, virtual routing and forwarding (VRF) tables with no For example, virtual routing and forwarding (VRF) tables with no
peers, redistributed BGP-LS with no peers, and segment routing peers, redistributed BGP-LS with no peers, and segment routing
egress peer engineering where no peers have link-state address egress peer engineering where no peers have link-state address
family enabled are all situations with no preexisting BGP peers. family enabled are all situations with no preexisting BGP peers.
Many complexities are introduced when using a received Adj-RIB-In to Many complexities are introduced when using a received Adj-RIB-In to
infer a 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 generates aggregates, suppresses more specific
specific prefixes, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not prefixes, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not only
only does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity when
when multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same router.
router. The BMP receiver user is left with the error-prone task The BMP receiver user is left with the error-prone task of
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.
* 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 the Loc-RIB of 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., whatever information is available in the peering session (e.g.,
peering addresses, autonomous system numbers, and BGP peering addresses, autonomous system numbers, and BGP
identifiers). This leads to error-prone correlations. identifiers). This leads to error-prone correlations.
* Correlating BGP identifiers (BGP-ID) and session addresses to a * Correlating BGP identifiers (BGP-ID) and session addresses to a
router requires additional data, such as router inventory. This router requires additional data, such as router inventory. This
additional data provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and additional data provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and
correlate the BGP-IDs and/or session addresses, but requires the correlate the BGP-IDs and/or session addresses but requires the
BMP receiver to somehow obtain this data outside of BMP. How this BMP receiver to somehow obtain this data outside of the BMP. How
data is obtained and the accuracy of the data directly affects the this data is obtained and the accuracy of the data directly affect
integrity of the correlation. the 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 BGP-4 [RFC4271] and
considerations in section 8.1 of [RFC7854] do apply to it.
* Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains BGP Instance: Refers to an instance of BGP-4 [RFC4271], and
considerations in Section 8.1 of [RFC7854] apply to it.
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
the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the local
local speaker's UPDATE messages." speaker's UPDATE messages."
* Loc-RIB: As defined in section 9.4 of [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB Loc-RIB: As defined in Section 1.1 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." Note that the Loc-RIB state as speaker's Decision Process." Note that the Loc-RIB state as
monitored through BMP might also contain routes imported from monitored through BMP might also contain routes imported from
other routing protocols such as an IGP, or local static routes. other routing protocols such as an IGP or local static routes.
* 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.
* Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying the outbound policy
an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer. to 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 indicate that it represents
represents the router Loc-RIB, which may have a route distinguisher the router Loc-RIB, which may have a route distinguisher (RD).
(RD). Section 4.2 of [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type, Section 4.2 of [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type, which is
which is for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance identifier.
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
If locally sourced routes are communicated using BMP, they MUST be If locally sourced routes are communicated using BMP, they MUST be
conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type. conveyed using the Loc-RIB Instance Peer Type.
The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined The per-peer header flags for the Loc-RIB Instance Peer Type are
as follows: defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F| | | | | | | | |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 a filter is applied to Loc-RIB routes sent to the BMP set when a filter is applied to Loc-RIB routes sent to the BMP
collector. collector.
The unused 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 Decision Process The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP Decision Process
as described in section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes include those as described in Section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes include those
learned from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy, as well as learned from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In post-policy, as well as
routes learned by other means as per section 9.4 of [RFC4271]. routes learned by other means as per Section 9.4 of [RFC4271].
Examples of these include redistribution of routes from other Examples of these include redistribution of routes from other
protocols into BGP or otherwise locally originated (i.e., aggregate protocols into BGP or those otherwise locally originated (i.e.,
routes). aggregate routes).
As described in Section 6.1.2, a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent As described in Section 6.1.2, a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent
to 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 as defined in All peer messages that include a per-peer header as defined in
section 4.2 of [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
global instance. Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or instance. Otherwise, set to the route distinguisher or unique
unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc- locally defined value of the particular instance to which the Loc-
RIB belongs to. RIB belongs.
* Peer Address: Zero-filled. Remote peer address is not applicable. Peer Address: Zero-filled. The remote peer address is not
The V flag is not applicable with Loc-RIB Instance peer type applicable. The V flag is not applicable with the Loc-RIB
considering addresses are zero-filed. Instance Peer Type considering addresses are zero-filled.
* Peer AS: Set to the primary router BGP autonomous system number Peer Autonomous System (AS): Set to the primary router BGP
(ASN). autonomous system number (ASN).
* Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g., VRF) Peer BGP ID: Set the ID to the router-id of the VRF instance if VRF
specific router-id section 1.1 of [RFC7854]. is used; otherwise, set to the global instance router-id.
* 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; the local address is not applicable.
* Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable. Local Port: Set to 0; the local port is not applicable.
* Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable. Remote Port: Set to 0; the 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-PATH is enabled for IPv6 monitoring messages. For example, if ADD-PATH is enabled for IPv6
and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the ADD-PATH capability and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the ADD-PATH capability
should be included for IPv6. In the case of ADD-PATH, the should be included for IPv6. In the case of ADD-PATH, 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
paths will be used for IPv6. additional 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 parse the expected received duplication allows the BMP receiver to parse the expected received
OPEN message as defined in section 4.10 of [RFC7854]. 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 to support The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included to support
implementations that may not have defined a name. If a name is implementations that may not have defined a name. If a name is
configured, it MUST be included. The default value of "global" configured, it MUST be included. The default value of "global"
MUST be used for the default Loc-RIB instance with a zero-filled MUST be used for the default Loc-RIB instance with a zero-filled
distinguisher. If the TLV is included, then it MUST also be distinguisher. If the TLV is included, then it MUST also be
included in the Peer Down notification. included in the Peer Down notification.
The Information field contains a UTF-8 string whose value MUST be
equal to the value of the VRF or table name (e.g., RD instance name)
being conveyed. The string size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255
bytes.
The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included to support
implementations that may not have defined a name. If a name is
configured, it MUST be included. The default value of "global" MUST
be used for the default Loc-RIB instance with a zero-filled
distinguisher. If the TLV is included, then it MUST also be 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 The Peer Down notification MUST use reason code 6. Following the
is data in TLV format. The following Peer Down information TLV type reason is data in TLV format. The following Peer Down Information
is defined: TLV type 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 4.6 of [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP As described 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 Monitoring messages MUST use a 4-byte ASN encoding as
indicated in Peer Up sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability. indicated in the 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 Monitoring 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 the granularity of Loc-RIB Route
granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation. Monitoring can vary depending on the BMP sender implementation.
5.5. Route Mirroring 5.5. Route Mirroring
Section 4.7 of [RFC7854], defines Route Mirroring for verbatim Section 4.7 of [RFC7854] defines Route Mirroring for verbatim
duplication of messages received. This is not applicable to Loc-RIB duplication of messages received. This is not applicable to Loc-RIB
as PDUs are originated by the router. Any received Route Mirroring 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
bit Gauge. 64-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 locally 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 at least one emulated peer for each Loc-RIB instance, There MUST be at least one emulated peer for each Loc-RIB instance,
such as with VRFs. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB by the such as with VRFs. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB by the
peer 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 with 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 they represent 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 may 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 internal BGP (IBGP), external BGP (EBGP), and IGP but only include internal BGP (IBGP), external BGP (EBGP), and IGP, but only
routes from EBGP should be sent to the BMP receiver. Alternatively, routes from EBGP should be sent to the BMP receiver. Alternatively,
it may be that only IBGP and EBGP that should be sent and IGP it may be that only IBGP and EBGP should be sent and IGP
redistributed routes should be excluded. In these cases where the redistributed routes excluded. In these cases where the Loc-RIB is
Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP filtered, the F flag is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP receiver that
receiver that the Loc-RIB is filtered. If multiple filters are the Loc-RIB is filtered. If multiple filters are associated with the
associated to the same Loc-RIB, a Table Name MUST be used in order to same Loc-RIB, a table name MUST be used in order to allow a BMP
allow a BMP receiver to make the right associations. 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 behavior 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, i.e., 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 that document. Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require that
sessions are only established with authorized and trusted monitoring sessions only be established with authorized and trusted monitoring
devices. It is also believed that this document does not add any devices. It is also believed that this document does not introduce
additional security considerations. any additional security considerations.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters IANA has assigned new parameters to the "BGP Monitoring Protocol
to the BMP parameters name space (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ (BMP) Parameters" registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-
bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml). parameters/).
8.1. BMP Peer Type 8.1. BMP Peer Type
This document defines a new peer type (Section 4.1): IANA has registered the following new peer type (Section 4.1):
* Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer +===========+=======================+
| Peer Type | Description |
+===========+=======================+
| 3 | Loc-RIB Instance Peer |
+-----------+-----------------------+
Table 1: BMP Peer Type
8.2. BMP Loc-RIB Instance Peer Flags 8.2. BMP Loc-RIB Instance Peer Flags
This document requests IANA to rename "BMP Peer Flags" to "BMP Peer IANA has renamed "BMP Peer Flags" to "BMP Peer Flags for Peer Types 0
Flags for Peer Types 0 through 2" and create a new registry named through 2" and created a new registry named "BMP Peer Flags for Loc-
"BMP Peer Flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer Type 3." This document RIB Instance Peer Type 3".
defines that peer flags are specific to the Loc-RIB instance peer
type. As defined in (Section 4.2):
* Flag 0: The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This This document defines peer flags that are specific to the Loc-RIB
indicates that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing Instance Peer Type. IANA has registered the following in the "BMP
table. Peer Flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer Type 3" registry:
Flags 0 through 3 and 5 through 7 are unassigned. The registration +======+=============+
procedure for the registry is "Standards Action". | Flag | Description |
+======+=============+
| 0 | F flag |
+------+-------------+
Table 2: Loc-RIB
Instance Peer Type
As noted in Section 4.2, the F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is
filtered. This indicates that the Loc-RIB does not represent the
complete routing table.
Flags 1 through 7 are unassigned. The registration procedure for the
registry is Standards Action.
8.3. Peer Up Information TLV 8.3. Peer Up Information TLV
This document requests that IANA rename "BMP Initiation Message TLVs" IANA has renamed the "BMP Initiation Message TLVs" registry to "BMP
registry to "BMP Initiation and Peer Up Information TLVs." section Initiation and Peer Up Information TLVs". Section 4.4 of [RFC7854]
4.4 of [RFC7854] defines that both Initiation and Peer Up share the indicates that both Initiation and Peer Up share the same information
same information TLVs. This document defines the following new BMP TLVs. This document defines the following new BMP Peer Up
Peer Up information TLV type (Section 5.2.1): Information TLV type (Section 5.2.1):
* 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 | Type | Description |
name (e.g., RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size +======+================+
MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. | 3 | VRF/Table Name |
+------+----------------+
8.4. Peer Down Reason code Table 3: BMP Peer Up
Information TLV Type
This document defines the following new BMP Peer Down reason code The Information field contains a UTF-8 string whose value MUST be
equal to the value of the VRF or table name (e.g., RD instance name)
being conveyed. The string size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255
bytes.
8.4. Peer Down Reason Code
IANA has registered the following new BMP Peer Down reason code
(Section 5.3): (Section 5.3):
* Type = 6: Local system closed, TLV data follows. +======+=======================================+
| Type | Description |
+======+=======================================+
| 6 | Local system closed, TLV data follows |
+------+---------------------------------------+
8.5. Deprecated entries Table 4: BMP Peer Down Reason Code
This document also requests that IANA marks as "deprecated" the F 8.5. Deprecated Entries
Flag entry in the "BMP Peer Flags for Peer Types 0 through 2"
registry.
9. Normative References Per this document, IANA has marked the F Flag entry in the "BMP Peer
Flags for Peer Types 0 through 2" registry as "deprecated".
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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 9.2. Informative References
[RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, [RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911, "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>. <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
Seattle, WA 98121 Seattle, WA 98121
United States of America United States of America
Email: tievens@cisco.com Email: tievens@cisco.com
Serpil Bayraktar Serpil Bayraktar
Cisco Systems Menlo Security
3700 Cisco Way 800 W El Camino Real, Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95134 Mountain View, CA 94040
United States of America United States of America
Email: serpil@cisco.com Email: serpil.bayraktar@menlosecurity.com
Manish Bhardwaj Manish Bhardwaj
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
3700 Cisco Way 3700 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America United States of America
Email: manbhard@cisco.com Email: manbhard@cisco.com
Paolo Lucente Paolo Lucente
NTT Communications NTT Communications
 End of changes. 99 change blocks. 
239 lines changed or deleted 281 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/