draft-ietf-grow-bmp-10.txt   draft-ietf-grow-bmp-11.txt 
Network Working Group J. Scudder, Ed. Network Working Group J. Scudder, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track R. Fernando Intended status: Standards Track R. Fernando
Expires: January 21, 2016 Cisco Systems Expires: January 21, 2016 Cisco Systems
S. Stuart S. Stuart
Google Google
July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015
BGP Monitoring Protocol BGP Monitoring Protocol
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-10 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-11
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a protocol, BMP, that can be used to monitor This document defines a protocol, BMP, that can be used to monitor
BGP sessions. BMP is intended to provide a more convenient interface BGP sessions. BMP is intended to provide a more convenient interface
for obtaining route views for research purpose than the screen- for obtaining route views for research purpose than the screen-
scraping approach in common use today. The design goals are to keep scraping approach in common use today. The design goals are to keep
BMP simple, useful, easily implemented, and minimally service- BMP simple, useful, easily implemented, and minimally service-
affecting. BMP is not suitable for use as a routing protocol. affecting. BMP is not suitable for use as a routing protocol.
skipping to change at page 3, line 9 skipping to change at page 3, line 9
9. Using BMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. Using BMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. BMP Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10.1. BMP Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.2. BMP Statistics Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10.2. BMP Statistics Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.3. BMP Initiation Message TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.3. BMP Initiation Message TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.4. BMP Termination Message TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.4. BMP Termination Message TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.5. BMP Termination Message Reason Codes . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.5. BMP Termination Message Reason Codes . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.6. BMP Peer Down Reason Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10.6. BMP Peer Down Reason Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.7. Route Mirroring TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10.7. Route Mirroring TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.8. BMP Route Mirroring Information Codes . . . . . . . . . 22 10.8. BMP Route Mirroring Information Codes . . . . . . . . . 22
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. Changes Between BMP Versions 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix A. Changes Between BMP Versions 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix B. Changes Between BMP Versions 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix B. Changes Between BMP Versions 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 20, line 12 skipping to change at page 20, line 12
monitoring station. In this case, the monitoring station may receive monitoring station. In this case, the monitoring station may receive
a bogus withdraw it can safely ignore. a bogus withdraw it can safely ignore.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create the registries for the following BMP IANA is requested to create the registries for the following BMP
parameters. parameters.
10.1. BMP Message Types 10.1. BMP Message Types
This document defines five message types for transferring BGP This document defines seven message types for transferring BGP
messages between cooperating systems (Section 4): messages between cooperating systems (Section 4):
o Type 0: Route Monitor o Type 0: Route Monitor
o Type 1: Statistics Report o Type 1: Statistics Report
o Type 2: Peer Down Notification o Type 2: Peer Down Notification
o Type 3: Peer Up Notification o Type 3: Peer Up Notification
o Type 4: Initiation o Type 4: Initiation
o Type 5: Termination o Type 5: Termination
o Type 6: Mirroring o Type 6: Mirroring
Type values 7 through 128 MUST be assigned using the "Standards Type values 0 through 128 MUST be assigned using the "Standards
Action" policy, and values 129 through 250 using the "Specification Action" policy, and values 129 through 250 using the "Specification
Required" policy defined in [RFC5226]. Values 251 through 254 are Required" policy defined in [RFC5226]. Values 251 through 254 are
"Experimental" and value 255 is reserved. "Experimental" and value 255 is reserved.
10.2. BMP Statistics Types 10.2. BMP Statistics Types
This document defines nine statistics types for statistics reporting This document defines fourteen statistics types for statistics
(Section 4.8): reporting (Section 4.8):
o Stat Type = 0: Number of prefixes rejected by inbound policy. o Stat Type = 0: Number of prefixes rejected by inbound policy.
o Stat Type = 1: Number of (known) duplicate prefix advertisements. o Stat Type = 1: Number of (known) duplicate prefix advertisements.
o Stat Type = 2: Number of (known) duplicate withdraws. o Stat Type = 2: Number of (known) duplicate withdraws.
o Stat Type = 3: Number of updates invalidated due to CLUSTER_LIST o Stat Type = 3: Number of updates invalidated due to CLUSTER_LIST
loop. loop.
o Stat Type = 4: Number of updates invalidated due to AS_PATH loop. o Stat Type = 4: Number of updates invalidated due to AS_PATH loop.
o Stat Type = 5: Number of updates invalidated due to ORIGINATOR_ID. o Stat Type = 5: Number of updates invalidated due to ORIGINATOR_ID.
o Stat Type = 6: Number of updates invalidated due to a loop found o Stat Type = 6: Number of updates invalidated due to a loop found
in AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET. in AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE or AS_CONFED_SET.
o Stat Type = 7: Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-In. o Stat Type = 7: Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-In.
o Stat Type = 8: Number of routes in Loc-RIB. o Stat Type = 8: Number of routes in Loc-RIB.
o Stat Type = 9: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-In. o Stat Type = 9: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-In.
o Stat Type = 10: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Loc-RIB. o Stat Type = 10: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Loc-RIB.
o Stat Type = 11: Number of updates subjected to treat-as-withdraw. o Stat Type = 11: Number of updates subjected to treat-as-withdraw.
o Stat Type = 12: Number of prefixes subjected to treat-as-withdraw. o Stat Type = 12: Number of prefixes subjected to treat-as-withdraw.
o Stat Type = 13: Number of duplicate update messages received. o Stat Type = 13: Number of duplicate update messages received.
Stat Type values 14 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the Stat Type values 0 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the
"Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the "Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the
"Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531 "Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531
through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved. through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved.
10.3. BMP Initiation Message TLVs 10.3. BMP Initiation Message TLVs
This document defines three types for information carried in the This document defines three types for information carried in the
Initiation message (Section 4.3): Initiation message (Section 4.3):
o Type = 0: String. o Type = 0: String.
o Type = 1: sysDescr. o Type = 1: sysDescr.
o Type = 2: sysName. o Type = 2: sysName.
Information type values 3 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the Information type values 0 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the
"Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the "Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the
"Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531 "Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531
through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved. through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved.
10.4. BMP Termination Message TLVs 10.4. BMP Termination Message TLVs
This document defines two types for information carried in the This document defines two types for information carried in the
Termination message (Section 4.5): Termination message (Section 4.5):
o Type = 0: String. o Type = 0: String.
o Type = 1: Reason. o Type = 1: Reason.
Information type values 2 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the Information type values 0 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the
"Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the "Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the
"Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531 "Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531
through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved. through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved.
10.5. BMP Termination Message Reason Codes 10.5. BMP Termination Message Reason Codes
This document defines four types for information carried in the This document defines five types for information carried in the
Termination message (Section 4.5) Reason code,: Termination message (Section 4.5) Reason code,:
o Type = 0: Administratively closed. o Type = 0: Administratively closed.
o Type = 1: Unspecified reason. o Type = 1: Unspecified reason.
o Type = 2: Out of resources. o Type = 2: Out of resources.
o Type = 3: Redundant connection. o Type = 3: Redundant connection.
o Type = 4: Permanently administratively closed. o Type = 4: Permanently administratively closed.
Information type values 5 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the Information type values 0 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the
"Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the "Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the
"Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531 "Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531
through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved. through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved.
10.6. BMP Peer Down Reason Codes 10.6. BMP Peer Down Reason Codes
This document defines five types for information carried in the Peer This document defines five types for information carried in the Peer
Down Notification (Section 4.9) Reason code: Down Notification (Section 4.9) Reason code (and reserves one further
type):
o Type = 0 is reserved.
o Type = 1: Local system closed, NOTIFICATION PDU follows. o Type = 1: Local system closed, NOTIFICATION PDU follows.
o Type = 2: Local system closed, FSM Event follows. o Type = 2: Local system closed, FSM Event follows.
o Type = 3: Remote system closed, NOTIFICATION PDU follows. o Type = 3: Remote system closed, NOTIFICATION PDU follows.
o Type = 4: Remote system closed, no data. o Type = 4: Remote system closed, no data.
o Type = 5: Peer de-configured. o Type = 5: Peer de-configured.
Information type values 6 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the Information type values 0 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the
"Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the "Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the
"Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531 "Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531
through 65534 are "Experimental" and values 0 and 65535 are reserved. through 65534 are "Experimental" and values 0 and 65535 are reserved.
10.7. Route Mirroring TLVs 10.7. Route Mirroring TLVs
This document defines two types for information carried in the Route This document defines two types for information carried in the Route
Mirroring message (Section 4.7): Mirroring message (Section 4.7):
o Type = 0: BGP Message. o Type = 0: BGP Message.
o Type = 1: Information. o Type = 1: Information.
Information type values 2 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the Information type values 0 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the
"Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the "Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the
"Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531 "Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531
through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved. through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved.
10.8. BMP Route Mirroring Information Codes 10.8. BMP Route Mirroring Information Codes
This document defines two types for information carried in the Route This document defines two types for information carried in the Route
Mirroring Information (Section 4.7) code: Mirroring Information (Section 4.7) code:
o Type = 0: Errored PDU. o Type = 0: Errored PDU.
o Type = 1: Messages Lost. o Type = 1: Messages Lost.
Information type values 2 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the Information type values 0 through 32767 MUST be assigned using the
"Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the "Standards Action" policy, and values 32768 through 65530 using the
"Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531 "Specification Required" policy, defined in [RFC5226]. Values 65531
through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved. through 65534 are "Experimental" and value 65535 is reserved.
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
This document defines a mechanism to obtain a full dump or provide This document defines a mechanism to obtain a full dump or provide
continuous monitoring of a BGP speaker's local BGP table, including continuous monitoring of a BGP speaker's local BGP table, including
received BGP messages. This capability could allow an outside party received BGP messages. This capability could allow an outside party
to obtain information not otherwise obtainable. to obtain information not otherwise obtainable.
skipping to change at page 23, line 21 skipping to change at page 23, line 28
protection. protection.
Unless a transport that provides mutual authentication is used, an Unless a transport that provides mutual authentication is used, an
attacker could masquerade as the monitored router and trick a attacker could masquerade as the monitored router and trick a
monitoring station into accepting false information. monitoring station into accepting false information.
12. Acknowledgements 12. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Michael Axelrod, Tim Evens, Pierre Francois, John ji Thanks to Michael Axelrod, Tim Evens, Pierre Francois, John ji
Ioannidis, John Kemp, Mack McBride, Danny McPherson, David Meyer, Ioannidis, John Kemp, Mack McBride, Danny McPherson, David Meyer,
Dimitri Papadimitriou, Robert Raszuk, Erik Romijn, and the members of Dimitri Papadimitriou, Tom Petch, Robert Raszuk, Erik Romijn, and the
the GROW working group for their comments. members of the GROW working group for their comments.
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-error-handling] [I-D.ietf-idr-error-handling]
Chen, E., Scudder, J., Mohapatra, P., and K. Patel, Chen, E., Scudder, J., Mohapatra, P., and K. Patel,
"Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", draft- "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", draft-
ietf-idr-error-handling-19 (work in progress), April 2015. ietf-idr-error-handling-19 (work in progress), April 2015.
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 19 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/