| Internet-Draft | BMP TLV | November 2020 |
| Lucente, et al. | Expires 20 May 2021 | [Page] |
Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) do provision for optional trailing data. However, Route Monitoring messages (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing Information Base) and Peer Down messages (to indicate that a peering session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV format across all BMP message types allows for an homogeneous and extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use-cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station. While it is not intended for this document to cover any specific utilization scenario, it defines a simple way to support optional TLV data in all message types.¶
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 20 May 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.¶
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) is defined in The Route Monitoring message consists of: The Peer Down Notification message consists of: RFC 7854 [RFC7854].¶
This means that both Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages have a non-extensible format. In the Route Monitoring case, this is limiting if wanting to transmit characteristics of transported NLRIs (ie. to help stateless parsing) or to add vendor-specific data. In the Peer Down case, this is limiting if matching TLVs sent with the Peer Up is desired. The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP version, for backward compatibility, and allow all message types to provision for trailing TLV data.¶
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 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
The TLV data type is already defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] for the Initiation and Peer Up message types. A TLV consists of:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Value (variable) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their code point. Multiple TLVs of the same type can be repeated as part of the same message, and it is left to the specific use-cases whether all, any, the first or the last TLV should be considered.¶
In Route Monitoring messages there may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs contained in the BGP Update message, for example, to express additional characteristics of a specific NLRI. For this purpose specifically TLVs in Route Monitoring messages can be optionally indexed, with the index starting at zero to refer to the first NLRI, and encoded as in the following figure:¶
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Index (2 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Value (variable) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Section 4.1 of [RFC7854] defines the Common Header. While the structure remains unaltered, the following two definitions are changed:¶
The Route Monitoring message type is defined in Section 4.6 of [RFC7854]. The BGP Update PDU Section 4.3 of [RFC4271] MAY be followed by TLV data. This document defines the following new code points to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs:¶
The Peer Down Notification message type is defined in Section 4.9 of [RFC7854]. For Reason codes 1 or 3, a BGP Notification PDU follows; the PDU MAY be followed by TLV data. For Reason code 2, a 2-byte field to give additional FSM info follows; this field MAY be followed by TLV data. For all other Reason codes, TLV data MAY follow the Reason field.¶
All other message types defined in [RFC7854] do already provision for TLV data. It is RECOMMENDED that all future BMP message types will provision for trailing TLV data.¶
It is not believed that this document adds any additional security considerations.¶
In Route Monitoring messages, the number of TLVs can be bound to the amount of NLRIs carried in the BGP Update message. This may degrade the packing of information in such messages and have specific impacts on the memory and CPU used in a BMP implementation. As a result of that it should always be possible to disable such features to mitigate their impact.¶
This document defines the following new TLV types for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages (Section 4.2):¶
The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas and Camilo Cardona for their valuable input. The authors would also like to thank Greg Skinner for his review.¶