--- 1/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-03.txt 2020-11-16 07:13:23.164954595 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-04.txt 2020-11-16 07:13:23.180955000 -0800 @@ -1,21 +1,21 @@ Global Routing Operations P. Lucente Internet-Draft NTT Updates: 7854 (if approved) Y. Gu Intended status: Standards Track Huawei -Expires: March 13, 2021 H. Smit +Expires: May 20, 2021 H. Smit Independent - September 9, 2020 + November 16, 2020 TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages - draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-03 + draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-04 Abstract Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol (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- @@ -32,21 +32,21 @@ 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 March 13, 2021. + This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2021. Copyright Notice 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 @@ -60,24 +60,25 @@ 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. BMP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.3. TLV data in Peer Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.4. TLV data in other BMP messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Introduction The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) is defined in RFC 7854 [RFC7854]. The Route Monitoring message consists of: o Common Header o Per-Peer Header @@ -128,45 +129,32 @@ ~ Value (variable) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 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 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. This - approach can be useful to build container TLVs to better isolate a - group of TLVs for the same function from TLVs meant for different - functions. This scheme SHOULD be used whenever a certain function - requires a specific mapping related to the order of NLRIs contained - in the Route Monitor BGP message. Here below an example of a TLV for - fictional function 'FuncA' containing two sub-TLV types, 'X' and 'Y': + In Route Monitoring messages there may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs + contained in the BGP Update message, for example, to express + additional characteristics of a specific NLRI. For this purpose + specifically TLVs in Route Monitoring messages can be optionally + indexed, with the index starting at zero to refer to the first NLRI, + and encoded as in the following figure: 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 FuncA (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Sub-Type X (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - ~ Value (variable) ~ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Sub-Type Y (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - ~ Value (variable) ~ - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Sub-Type X (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - ~ Value (variable) ~ + | Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Sub-Type Y (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | + | Index (2 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Value (variable) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2 4. BMP Message Format 4.1. Common Header @@ -210,39 +198,48 @@ 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 +6. Operational Considerations + + In Route Monitoring messages, the number of TLVs can be bound to the + amount of NLRIs carried in the BGP Update message. This may degrade + the packing of information in such messages and have specific impacts + on the memory and CPU used in a BMP implementation. As a result of + that it should always be possible to disable such features to + mitigate their impact. + +7. 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 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 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 of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability. -7. Normative References +8. 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 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, .