Internet-Draft BMP YANG Module March 2022
Cardona, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page]
Workgroup:
GROW
Internet-Draft:
draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
C. Cardona
NTT
P. Lucente
NTT
T. Graf
Swisscom
B. Claise
Huawei

BMP YANG Module

Abstract

This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers a refresh of the session of a BMP station.

Status of This Memo

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 8 September 2022.

Table of Contents

1. Terminology

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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Routing Information Bases, peers, monitoring stations are defined in [RFC7854].

2. Introduction

This document specifies a YANG module for configuring and monitoring the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854]. The model provides parameters for defining BMP monitoring stations, the selection of the BGP Routing Information Bases (RIBs), provides operational metrics and enables to reset BMP monitoring sessions.

3. Model summary

The BMP YANG model provides the methods for managing BMP monitoring stations. It includes:

4. Base ietf-bmp YANG module

4.1. Tree View

The following tree diagram provides an overview of the ietf-bmp.yang data model.

INSERT_TEXT_FROM_FILE(ietf-bmp-trees.txt)

4.2. YANG Module

<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-bmp@2022-01-27.yang"

INSERT_TEXT_FROM_FILE(ietf-bmp.yang)

<CODE ENDS>

5. Security Considerations

The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC8446].

BGP data is sensible for security considerations. The model described in this document could be used to send BGP information to malicious BMP stations. Write access to this model should therefore be properly protected.

The session-reset action can demand considerable amount of resources from network elements. It should thus be protected from illegal access.

6. IANA Considerations

6.1. The IETF XML Registry

This document registers two URIs in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688]. Following the format in [RFC3688], the following registrations are requested:

   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bmp
   Registrant Contact: The NETCONF WG of the IETF.
   XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

7. Open Issues

8. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688]
Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC6241]
Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242]
Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC7854]
Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
[RFC8040]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8446]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Pierre Vander Vorst for his review and feedback.

Authors' Addresses

Camilo Cardona
NTT
164-168, Carrer de Numancia
08029 Barcelona
Spain
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
2132 Hoofddorp
Netherlands
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Binzring 17
CH- Zurich 8045
Switzerland
Benoit Claise
Huawei