--- 1/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-01.txt 2020-03-09 05:16:05.619874301 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-02.txt 2020-03-09 05:16:05.663875417 -0700 @@ -1,56 +1,56 @@ Global Routing Operations P. Lucente Internet-Draft NTT Updates: 7854 (if approved) Y. Gu Intended status: Standards Track Huawei -Expires: April 17, 2020 H. Smit +Expires: September 10, 2020 H. Smit Independent - October 15, 2019 + March 9, 2020 TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages - draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-01 + draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-02 Abstract Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol - (BMP) do provision for optional trailing data; however Route - Monitoring message (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing - Information Base) and Peer Down message (to indicate that a peering + (BMP) do provision for optional trailing data. However, Route + Monitoring messages (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing + Information Base) and Peer Down messages (to indicate that a peering session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV format across all BMP message types allows for an homogeneous and extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use- - cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station. While - this document does not want to cover any specific utilization + cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station. While it + is not intended for this document to cover any specific utilization scenario, it defines a simple way to support optional TLV data in all message types. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2020. + This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2020. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as @@ -87,128 +87,130 @@ The Peer Down Notification message consists of: o Common Header o Per-Peer Header o Reason o Data (only if Reason code is 1, 2 or 3) This means that both Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages have a - non-extensible format. In the Route Monitoring case this is limiting - if wanting to transmit characteristics of transported NLRIs (ie. to - help stateless parsing) or vendor-specific data; in the Peer Down - case this is limiting if wanting to match TLVs shipped with the Peer - Up. The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP version, for - backward compatibility, and allow all message types to provision for - trailing TLV data. + non-extensible format. In the Route Monitoring case, this is + limiting if transmitting characteristics of transported NLRIs is + desired (ie. to help stateless parsing) or vendor-specific data. In + the Peer Down case, this is limiting if matching TLVs sent with the + Peer Up is desired. The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP + version, for backward compatibility, and allow all message types to + provision for trailing TLV data. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 3. TLV encoding - TLV data type is already defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] for the - Initiation and Peer Up message types. A TLV consists of: + The TLV data type is already defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] for + the Initiation and Peer Up message types. A TLV consists of: o 2 octets of TLV Type, o 2 octets of TLV Length, o 0 or more octets of TLV Value. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value (variable, between, 0 and 65535 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1 TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their code point. Multiple TLVs of the same - type can be repeated as part of the same message and it is left to + type can be repeated as part of the same message, and it is left to the specific use-cases whether all, any, the first or the last TLV should be considered. + TLVs can be recursive and include sub-TLVs as their value. + 4. BMP Message Format 4.1. Common Header Section 4.1 of [RFC7854] defines the Common Header. While the structure remains unaltered, the following two definitions are changed: o Version: Indicates the BMP version. This is set to '4' for all messages. o Message Length: Length of the message in bytes (including headers, - data, encapsulated messages and TLV data if any) + data, encapsulated messages and TLV data, if any) 4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring The Route Monitoring message type is defined in Section 4.6 of [RFC7854]. The BGP Update PDU Section 4.3 of [RFC4271] MAY be followed by TLV data. This document defines the following new codes to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs: - o Type = TBD1: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with support for + o Type = TBD1: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with support for the 4-octet AS number capability RFC 6793 [RFC6793], value MUST be boolean. - o Type = TBD2: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with ADD-PATH + o Type = TBD2: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the ADD-PATH capability RFC 7911 [RFC7911], value MUST be boolean. - o Type = TBD3: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with Multiple Labels - capability RFC 8277 [RFC8277], value MUST be boolean. + o Type = TBD3: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the Multiple + Labels capability RFC 8277 [RFC8277], value MUST be boolean. 4.3. TLV data in Peer Down The Peer Down Notification message type is defined in Section 4.9 of - [RFC7854]. In case of Reason code 1 and 3, a BGP Notification PDU - follows; the PDU MAY be followed by TLV data. In case of Reason code - 2, a 2-byte field to give additional FSM info follows; this field MAY - be followed by TLV data. For all other Reason codes, TLV data MAY - follow the Reason field. + [RFC7854]. For Reason codes 1 or 3, a BGP Notification PDU follows; + the PDU MAY be followed by TLV data. For Reason code 2, a 2-byte + field to give additional FSM info follows; this field MAY be followed + by TLV data. For all other Reason codes, TLV data MAY follow the + Reason field. 4.4. TLV data in other BMP messages All other message types defined in RFC7854 [RFC7854] do already provision for TLV data. It is RECOMMENDED that all future BMP message types will provision for trailing TLV data. 5. Security Considerations It is not believed that this document adds any additional security considerations. 6. IANA Considerations This document defines the following new TLV types for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages (Section 4.2): - o Type = TBD1: Support for 4-octet AS number capability. The value - field contains a boolean value. 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed - in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to the - capability. + o Type = TBD1: Support for the 4-octet AS number capability. The + value field contains a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU + enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to + the capability. o Type = TBD2: ADD-PATH capability. The value field contains a - boolean value. 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route + boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability. o Type = TBD3: Multiple Labels capability. The value field contains - a boolean value. 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route + a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability. 7. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A @@ -235,20 +237,21 @@ 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, . Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas for his valuable input. + The authors would also like to thank Greg Skinner for his review. Authors' Addresses Paolo Lucente NTT Siriusdreef 70-72 Hoofddorp, WT 2132 NL Email: paolo@ntt.net