draft-ietf-grow-bmp-16.txt   draft-ietf-grow-bmp-17.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: May 15, 2016 Cisco Systems Expires: July 16, 2016 Cisco Systems
S. Stuart S. Stuart
Google Google
November 12, 2015 January 13, 2016
BGP Monitoring Protocol BGP Monitoring Protocol
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-16 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-17
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 convenient interface for BGP sessions. BMP is intended to provide a convenient interface for
obtaining route views. Prior to introduction of BMP, screen-scraping obtaining route views. Prior to introduction of BMP, screen-scraping
was the most commonly-used approach to obtaining such views. The was the most commonly-used approach to obtaining such views. The
design goals are to keep BMP simple, useful, easily implemented, and design goals are to keep BMP simple, useful, easily implemented, and
minimally service-affecting. BMP is not suitable for use as a minimally service-affecting. BMP is not suitable for use as a
routing protocol. routing protocol.
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 15, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 24, line 4 skipping to change at page 24, line 5
Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require manual configuration Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require manual configuration
of the monitored and monitoring devices. of the monitored and monitoring devices.
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, or could monitoring station into accepting false information, or could
masquerade as a monitoring station and gain unauthorized access to masquerade as a monitoring station and gain unauthorized access to
BMP data. Unless a transport that provides confidentiality is used, BMP data. Unless a transport that provides confidentiality is used,
a passive or active attacker could gain access to or tamper with the a passive or active attacker could gain access to or tamper with the
BMP data in flight. However, BGP is not commonly deployed over a BMP data in flight.
transport providing confidentiality, so it's debatable whether it's
crucial to provide confidentiality once the data is propagated into
BMP.
This document does not specify any security mechanism for BMP. Where the security considerations outlined above are a concern, users
of this protocol should use IPsec [RFC4303] in tunnel mode with
preshared keys.
12. Acknowledgements 12. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ebben Aries, Michael Axelrod, Serpil Bayraktar, Tim Evens, Thanks to Ebben Aries, Michael Axelrod, Serpil Bayraktar, Tim Evens,
Pierre Francois, Jeffrey Haas, John ji Ioannidis, John Kemp, Mack Pierre Francois, Jeffrey Haas, John ji Ioannidis, John Kemp, Mack
McBride, Danny McPherson, David Meyer, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Tom McBride, Danny McPherson, David Meyer, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Tom
Petch, Robert Raszuk, Erik Romijn, Peter Schoenmaker and the members Petch, Robert Raszuk, Erik Romijn, Peter Schoenmaker and the members
of the GROW working group for their comments. of the GROW working group for their comments.
13. References 13. References
skipping to change at page 25, line 22 skipping to change at page 25, line 22
[RFC1155] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and identification [RFC1155] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and identification
of management information for TCP/IP-based internets", of management information for TCP/IP-based internets",
STD 16, RFC 1155, DOI 10.17487/RFC1155, May 1990, STD 16, RFC 1155, DOI 10.17487/RFC1155, May 1990,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1155>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1155>.
[RFC2856] Bierman, A., McCloghrie, K., and R. Presuhn, "Textual [RFC2856] Bierman, A., McCloghrie, K., and R. Presuhn, "Textual
Conventions for Additional High Capacity Data Types", Conventions for Additional High Capacity Data Types",
RFC 2856, DOI 10.17487/RFC2856, June 2000, RFC 2856, DOI 10.17487/RFC2856, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2856>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2856>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>. 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
Appendix A. Changes Between BMP Versions 1 and 2 Appendix A. Changes Between BMP Versions 1 and 2
o Added Peer Up Message o Added Peer Up Message
o Added L flag o Added L flag
o Editorial changes o Editorial changes
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 13 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/