Network Working Group | C. Cardona |
Internet-Draft | P. Lucente |
Intended status: Standards Track | NTT |
Expires: January 13, 2021 | P. Francois |
INSA-Lyon | |
Y. Gu | |
Huawei | |
T. Graf | |
Swisscom | |
July 12, 2020 |
BMP Extension for Path Status sub-TLV
draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-04
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) provides an interface for obtaining BGP Path information. BGP Path Information is conveyed within BMP Route Monitoring (RM) messages. This document proposes an extension to BMP to convey the status of a BGP path before and after being processed by the BGP best-path selection algorithm. This extension makes use of the Path Information TLV defined in draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-info-tlv.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 RFC 2119 RFC 8174 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 January 13, 2021.
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 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
For a given prefix, multiple paths with different path status, e.g., the "best-path", "back-up path" and so on, may co-exist in the BGP RIB after being processed by the local policy and the BGP decision process. The path status information is currently not carried in the BGP Update Message RFC4271 or in the BMP Update Message RFC7854.
External systems can use the path status for various applications. The path status is commonly checked by operators when performing troubleshooting. Having such status stored in a centralized system can enable the development of tools that facilitate this process. Optimisation systems can include the path status in their process, and also use the status as a validation source (since it can compare the calculated state to the actual outcome of the network, such as primary and backup path). As a final example, path status information can complement other centralized sources of data, for example, flow collectors.
This document defines a so-called Path Status sub-TLV to convey the BGP path status to the BMP server. The BMP Path Status sub-TLV is encapsulated within the BMP Path Information TLV carried in the BMP Route Monitoring (RM) Message draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-info-tlv.
As stated in draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-info-tlv, the order of the sub-TLVs MUST be in accordance with the prefix order encapsulated in the Update PDU. This document defines two types of Path Status sub-TLVs: one is IANA-registered Path Status sub-TLV, and the other is Enterprise-specific Path Status sub-TLV.
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 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ |E| Type (15 bits) | Length (2 octets) | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Path Status(4 octets) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Reason Code(4 octets) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 2:IANA-Registered Encoding of the path status sub-TLV
+------------+------------------+ | Value | Path type | +-------------------------------+ | 0x00000000 | Unknown | | 0x00000001 | Invalid | | 0x00000002 | Best | | 0x00000004 | Non-selected | | 0x00000008 | Primary | | 0x00000010 | Backup | | 0x00000020 | Non-installed | | 0x00000040 | Best-external | | 0x00000080 | Add-Path | +------------+------------------+ Table 1: IANA-Registered Path Type
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------- | value | reason code | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ |[0x00000000] |invalid for unknown, | |[0x00000001] |invalid for super network, | |[0x00000002] |invalid for dampening, | |[0x00000003] |invalid for history, | |[0x00000004] |invalid for policy deny, | |[0x00000005] |invalid for ROA not validation, | |[0x00000006] |invalid for interface error, | |[0x00000007] |invalid for nexthop route unreachable, | |[0x00000008] |invalid for nexthop tunnel unreachable, | |[0x0000000f] |invalid for nexthop restrain, | |[0x00000010] |invalid for relay BGP LSP, | |[0x00000014] |invalid for being inactive within VPN instance | |[0x00000015] |invalid for prefix-sid not exist, | |[0x00000200] |not preferred for peer address, | |[0x00000300] |not preferred for router ID, | |[0x00000400] |not preferred for Cluster List, | |[0x00000500] |not preferred for IGP cost, | |[0x00000600] |not preferred for peer type, | |[0x00000700] |not preferred for MED, | |[0x00000800] |not preferred for origin, | |[0x00000900] |not preferred for AS-Path, | |[0x00000a00] |not preferred for route type, | |[0x00000b00] |not preferred for Local_Pref, | |[0x00000c00] |not preferred for PreVal, | |[0x00000f00] |not preferred for not direct route, | |[0x00001000] |not preferred for nexthop bit error, | |[0x00001100] |not preferred for received path-id, | |[0x00001200] |not preferred for validation, | |[0x00001300] |not preferred for originate IP, | |[0x00001500] |not preferred for route distinguisher, | |[0x00001600] |not preferred for route-select delay, | |[0x00001700] |not preferred for being imported route, | |[0x00001800] |not preferred for med-plus-igp, | |[0x00001c00] |not preferred for AIGP, | |[0x00001d00] |not preferred for nexthop-resolved aigp, | |[0x00002000] |not preferred for nexthop unreachable, | |[0x00002100] |not preferred for nexthop IP, | |[0x00002300] |not preferred for high-priority, | |[0x00002400] |not preferred for nexthop-priority, | |[0x00002500] |not preferred for process ID, | |[0xFFFFFFFF] |no reason code | -----------------------------------------------------------------+ Table 2: IANA-Registered Reason Code
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 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ |E| Type (15 bits) | Length (2 octets) | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | PEN number (4 octets) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Path Status(4 octets) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Reason Code(variable) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 3: Enterprise-specific encoding of Path Status sub-TLV
The E-bit mechanism allows the usage of vendor-specific TLVs in addition to IANA-registered one. In this document, both encoding options for the Path Status sub-TLV are described.
We would like to thank Jeff Haas for his valuable comments.
This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters to the BMP parameters name space.
Type = TBD1 (15 Bits): indicates that it is the IANA-registered Path Status sub-TLV.
It is not believed that this document adds any additional security considerations.
[I-D.cppy-grow-bmp-path-info-tlv] | Cardona, C., Lucente, P., Francois, P., Gu, Y. and T. Graf, "BMP Extension for Path Information TLV", Internet-Draft draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-info-tlv-00, July 2020. |
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv] | Lucente, P., Gu, Y. and H. Smit, "TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-02, March 2020. |
[I-D.ietf-idr-best-external] | Marques, P., Fernando, R., Chen, E., Mohapatra, P. and H. Gredler, "Advertisement of the best external route in BGP", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-best-external-05, January 2012. |
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic] | Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C. and P. Mohapatra, "BGP Prefix Independent Convergence", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-11, February 2020. |
[I-D.lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations] | Lapukhov, P. and J. Tantsura, "Equal-Cost Multipath Considerations for BGP", Internet-Draft draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations-04, May 2020. |
[I-D.lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit] | Lucente, P. and Y. Gu, "Support for Enterprise-specific TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol", Internet-Draft draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-01, May 2020. |
[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., Li, T. and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006. |
[RFC7854] | Scudder, J., Fernando, R. and S. Stuart, "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016. |
[RFC7911] | Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E. and J. Scudder, "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911, DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016. |
[RFC8174] | Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017. |