--- 1/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-00.txt 2009-04-08 04:12:04.000000000 +0200 +++ 2/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-01.txt 2009-04-08 04:12:04.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,45 +1,54 @@ Network Working Group J. Scudder Internet-Draft R. Fernando Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks -Expires: May 23, 2009 S. Stuart +Expires: October 10, 2009 S. Stuart Google - November 19, 2008 + April 8, 2009 BGP Monitoring Protocol - draft-ietf-grow-bmp-00 + draft-ietf-grow-bmp-01 Status of this Memo - By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any - applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware - have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. + This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the + provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. - This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2009. + This Internet-Draft will expire on October 10, 2009. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of + publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). + Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights + and restrictions with respect to this document. Abstract This document proposes a simple protocol, BMP, which can be used to monitor BGP sessions. BMP is intended to provide a more convenient interface for obtaining route views for research purpose than the screen-scraping approach in common use today. The design goals are to keep BMP simple, useful, easily implemented, and minimally service-affecting. BMP is not suitable for use as a routing protocol. @@ -54,21 +63,20 @@ 2.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Stat Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Using BMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. Introduction Many researchers wish to have access to the contents of routers' BGP RIBs as well as a view of protocol updates that the router is receiving. This monitoring task cannot be realized by standard protocol mechanisms. At present, this data can only be obtained through screen-scraping. The BMP protocol provides access to the Adj-RIB-In of a peer on an @@ -133,23 +141,23 @@ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Timestamp (microseconds) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ o Version (1 byte): Indicates the BMP version. This is set to '1' for all messages defined in this specification. o Message Type (1 byte): This identifies the type of the BMP message, - * Type = 1: Route Monitoring - * Type = 2: Statistics Report - * Type = 3: Peer Down Notification + * Type = 0: Route Monitoring + * Type = 1: Statistics Report + * Type = 2: Peer Down Notification o Peer Type (1 byte): These bits identify the type of the peer. Currently only two types of peers are identified, * Peer Type = 0: Global Instance Peer * Peer Type = 1: L3 VPN Instance Peer o Peer Flags (1 byte): These flags provide more information about the peer. The flags are defined as follows. @@ -234,30 +242,30 @@ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ o Stat Type (2 bytes): Defines the type of the statistic carried in the "Stat Data" field. o Stat Len (2 bytes): Defines the length of the "Stat Data" Field. This specification defines the following statistics. All statistics are 4-byte quantities and the stats data are counters. - o Stat Type = 1: Number of prefixes rejected by inbound policy. + o Stat Type = 0: Number of prefixes rejected by inbound policy. - o Stat Type = 2: Number of (known) duplicate prefix advertisements. + o Stat Type = 1: Number of (known) duplicate prefix advertisements. - o Stat Type = 3: Number of (known) duplicate withdraws. + o Stat Type = 2: Number of (known) duplicate withdraws. - o Stat Type = 4: Number of updates invalidated due to CLUSTER_LIST + o Stat Type = 3: Number of updates invalidated due to CLUSTER_LIST loop. - o Stat Type = 5: Number of updates invalidated due to AS_PATH loop. + o Stat Type = 4: Number of updates invalidated due to AS_PATH loop. Note that the current specification only specifies 4-byte counters as "Stat Data". This does not preclude future versions from incorporating more complex TLV-type "Stat Data" (for example, one which can carry prefix specific data). SR messages are optional. However if an SR message is transmitted, this specification requires at least one statistic to be carried in it. 2.3. Peer Down Notification @@ -361,39 +369,39 @@ dump procedure visits that prefix, then the router would clean up that route from its internal state and will not forward it to the monitoring station. In this case, the monitoring station may receive a bogus withdraw which it can safely ignore. 6. IANA Considerations This document defines three message types for transferring BGP messages between cooperating systems (Section 2): - o Type 1: Route Monitor - o Type 2: Statistics Report - o Type 3: Peer Down Notification + o Type 0: Route Monitor + o Type 1: Statistics Report + o Type 2: Peer Down Notification - Type values 4 through 255 MUST be assigned using the "IETF Consensus" + Type values 3 through 255 MUST be assigned using the "IETF Consensus" policy defined in [RFC5226]. This document defines five statistics types for statistics reporting (Section 2.2): - o Stat Type = 1: Number of prefixes rejected by inbound policy. - o Stat Type = 2: Number of (known) duplicate prefix advertisements. - o Stat Type = 3: Number of (known) duplicate withdraws. - o Stat Type = 4: Number of updates invalidated due to CLUSTER_LIST + o Stat Type = 0: Number of prefixes rejected by inbound policy. + o Stat Type = 1: Number of (known) duplicate prefix advertisements. + o Stat Type = 2: Number of (known) duplicate withdraws. + o Stat Type = 3: Number of updates invalidated due to CLUSTER_LIST loop. - o Stat Type = 5: Number of updates invalidated due to AS_PATH loop. + o Stat Type = 4: Number of updates invalidated due to AS_PATH loop. - Stat Type values 6 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the "IETF + Stat Type values 5 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the "IETF Consensus" policy, and values 32768 through 65535 using the "First Come First Served" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. 7. Security Considerations This document defines a mechanism to obtain a full dump or provide continuous monitoring of a BGP speaker's local BGP table, including received BGP messages. This capability could allow an outside party to obtain information not otherwise obtainable. @@ -443,50 +451,10 @@ Email: rex@juniper.net Stephen Stuart Google 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 USA Email: sstuart@google.com - -Full Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). - - This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions - contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors - retain all their rights. - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND - THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS - OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF - THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED - WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. - -Intellectual Property - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org.