draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-04.txt		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-05.txt
	Global Routing Operations P. Lucente		Global Routing Operations P. Lucente
	Internet-Draft NTT		Internet-Draft NTT
	Updates: 7854 (if approved) Y. Gu		Updates: 7854 (if approved) Y. Gu
	Intended status: Standards Track Huawei		Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
	Expires: May 20, 2021 H. Smit		Expires: 28 January 2022 27 July 2021
	Independent
	November 16, 2020
	TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages		TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages
	draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-04		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol		Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol
	(BMP) do provision for optional trailing data. However, Route		(BMP) do provision for optional trailing data. However, Route
	Monitoring messages (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing		Monitoring messages (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing
	Information Base) and Peer Down messages (to indicate that a peering		Information Base) and Peer Down messages (to indicate that a peering
	session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV		session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV
	format across all BMP message types allows for an homogeneous and		format across all BMP message types allows for an homogeneous and
	extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use-		extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use-
	skipping to change at page 1, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 41 ¶
	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 May 20, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 January 2022.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 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		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
	described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. BMP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. BMP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4.1. Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4.1. Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4.3. TLV data in Peer Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4.3. TLV data in Peer Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.4. TLV data in other BMP messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4.4. TLV data in other BMP messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) is defined in RFC 7854 [RFC7854].		The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) is defined in The Route Monitoring
			message consists of: The Peer Down Notification message consists of:
	The Route Monitoring message consists of:		RFC 7854 [RFC7854].
	o Common Header
	o Per-Peer Header		* Common Header
	o BGP Update PDU		* Per-Peer Header
	The Peer Down Notification message consists of:		* BGP Update PDU
	o Common Header		* Common Header
	o Per-Peer Header		* Per-Peer Header
	o Reason		* Reason
	o Data (only if Reason code is 1, 2 or 3)		* Data (only if Reason code is 1, 2 or 3)
	This means that both Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages have a		This means that both Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages have a
	non-extensible format. In the Route Monitoring case, this is		non-extensible format. In the Route Monitoring case, this is
	limiting if wanting to transmit characteristics of transported NLRIs		limiting if wanting to transmit characteristics of transported NLRIs
	(ie. to help stateless parsing) or to add vendor-specific data. In		(ie. to help stateless parsing) or to add vendor-specific data. In
	the Peer Down case, this is limiting if matching TLVs sent with the		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		Peer Up is desired. The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP
	version, for backward compatibility, and allow all message types to		version, for backward compatibility, and allow all message types to
	provision for trailing TLV data.		provision for trailing TLV data.
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	skipping to change at page 3, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 26 ¶
	"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. TLV encoding		3. TLV encoding
	The TLV data type is already defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] for		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:		the Initiation and Peer Up message types. A TLV consists of:
	o 2 octets of TLV Type,		* 2 octets of TLV Type,
	o 2 octets of TLV Length,		* 2 octets of TLV Length,
	o 0 or more octets of TLV Value.		* 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		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) |		| Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	~ Value (variable) ~		~ Value (variable) ~
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 1		Figure 1
	TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their code point. Multiple TLVs of the same		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		the specific use-cases whether all, any, the first or the last TLV
	should be considered.		should be considered.
	In Route Monitoring messages there may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs		Route Monitoring messages may require per-NLRI TLVs, that is, there
	contained in the BGP Update message, for example, to express		may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs contained in the BGP Update
	additional characteristics of a specific NLRI. For this purpose		message, for example, to express additional characteristics of a
	specifically TLVs in Route Monitoring messages can be optionally		specific NLRI. For this purpose specifically, TLVs in Route
	indexed, with the index starting at zero to refer to the first NLRI,		Monitoring messages can be optionally indexed, with the index
	and encoded as in the following figure:		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		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) |		| Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Index (2 octets) |		| Index (2 octets) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	~ Value (variable) ~		~ Value (variable) ~
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 2		Figure 2
			Of the BMP message types defined so far, indexed TLVs do apply only
			to Route Monitoring messages and, for example, they do not apply to
			Route Mirroring ones because the sender may not be aware of the
			payload of the transported BGP Update message.
	4. BMP Message Format		4. BMP Message Format
	4.1. Common Header		4.1. Common Header
	Section 4.1 of [RFC7854] defines the Common Header. While the		Section 4.1 of [RFC7854] defines the Common Header. While the
	structure remains unaltered, the following two definitions are		structure remains unaltered, the following two definitions are
	changed:		changed:
	o Version: Indicates the BMP version. This is set to '4' for all		* Version: Indicates the BMP version. This is set to '4' for all
	messages.		messages.
	o Message Length: Total length of the message in bytes (including		* Message Length: Total length of the message in bytes (including
	headers, encapsulated BGP message and optional data)		headers, encapsulated BGP message and optional data)
	4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring		4.2. TLV data in Route Monitoring
	The Route Monitoring message type is defined in Section 4.6 of		The Route Monitoring message type is defined in Section 4.6 of
	[RFC7854]. The BGP Update PDU Section 4.3 of [RFC4271] MAY be		[RFC7854]. The BGP Update PDU Section 4.3 of [RFC4271] MAY be
	followed by TLV data. This document defines the following new code		followed by TLV data. This document defines the following new code
	points to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs:		points to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs:
	o Type = TBD1: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with support for the		* Type = TBD1: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with support for the
	4-octet AS number capability RFC 6793 [RFC6793], value MUST be		4-octet AS number capability RFC 6793 [RFC6793], value MUST be
	boolean.		boolean.
	o Type = TBD2: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the ADD-PATH		* Type = TBD2: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the ADD-PATH
	capability RFC 7911 [RFC7911], value MUST be boolean.		capability RFC 7911 [RFC7911], value MUST be boolean.
	o Type = TBD3: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the Multiple		* Type = TBD3: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the Multiple
	Labels capability RFC 8277 [RFC8277], value MUST be boolean.		Labels capability RFC 8277 [RFC8277], value MUST be boolean.
	4.3. TLV data in Peer Down		4.3. TLV data in Peer Down
	The Peer Down Notification message type is defined in Section 4.9 of		The Peer Down Notification message type is defined in Section 4.9 of
	[RFC7854]. For Reason codes 1 or 3, a BGP Notification PDU follows;		[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		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		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		by TLV data. For all other Reason codes, TLV data MAY follow the
	Reason field.		Reason field.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 45 ¶
	the packing of information in such messages and have specific impacts		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		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		that it should always be possible to disable such features to
	mitigate their impact.		mitigate their impact.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	This document defines the following new TLV types for BMP Route		This document defines the following new TLV types for BMP Route
	Monitoring and Peer Down messages (Section 4.2):		Monitoring and Peer Down messages (Section 4.2):
	o Type = TBD1: Support for the 4-octet AS number capability. The		* Type = TBD1: Support for the 4-octet AS number capability. The
	value field contains a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU		value field contains a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU
	enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to		enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to
	the capability.		the capability.
	o Type = TBD2: ADD-PATH capability. The value field contains a		* Type = TBD2: ADD-PATH capability. The value field contains a
	boolean value of 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.		Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability.
	o Type = TBD3: Multiple Labels capability. The value field contains		* Type = TBD3: Multiple Labels capability. The value field contains
	a boolean value of 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.		Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability.
	8. Normative References		8. 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>.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 46 ¶
	[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>.
	[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address		[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
	Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,		Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
	Acknowledgements		Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas and Camilo Cardona for		The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas, Camilo Cardona, Thomas
	their valuable input. The authors would also like to thank Greg		Graf and Pierre Francois for their valuable input. The authors would
	Skinner for his review.		also like to thank Greg Skinner for his review.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Paolo Lucente		Paolo Lucente
	NTT		NTT
	Siriusdreef 70-72		Siriusdreef 70-72
	Hoofddorp, WT 2132		2132 Hoofddorp
	NL		Netherlands
	Email: paolo@ntt.net		Email: paolo@ntt.net
	Yunan Gu		Yunan Gu
	Huawei		Huawei
	Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.		Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
	Beijing 100095		Beijing
			100095
	China		China
	Email: guyunan@huawei.com		Email: guyunan@huawei.com
	Henk Smit
	Independent
	NL
	Email: hhw.smit@xs4all.nl
End of changes. 31 change blocks.
	51 lines changed or deleted		53 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/