Internet DRAFT - draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-info-tlv
draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-info-tlv
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 Information TLV
draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-info-tlv-00
Abstract
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 additional path information that is not already
encapsulated in the BGP Update PDU, e.g., BPG path status. This
extension makes use of the TLV mechanims described in draft-grow-bmp-
tlv [I-D.grow-bmp-tlv].
Requirements Language
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.
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."
Cardona, et al. Expires January 13, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP path information tlv July 2020
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2021.
Copyright Notice
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Path Information TLV for the RM Message . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC7854 [RFC7854] is used to monitor
BGP sessions. Additional information is allowed to be carried in the
format of TLV with the BMP Initiation, Peer Up, and Termination
Messages RFC7854 [RFC7854] draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up]. draft-grow-bmp-tlv [I-D.grow-bmp-tlv]
provides the capability of conveying optional data in TLV format in
BMP Route Monitoring (RM) and Peer Down Messages, and such TLV types
are to be defined for each application. This document defines the
Path Information TLV, making use of the TLV mechanism defined for BMP
RM Message draft-grow-bmp-tlv [I-D.grow-bmp-tlv]. The Path
Information TLV is used to describe the path information, e.g., path
status (best, best-external), out interface, and so on. Specific
path information can be defined as sub-TLVs encapsulated within the
Path Information TLV.
2. Path Information TLV for the RM Message
The Path Information TLV is defined as follows.
Cardona, et al. Expires January 13, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP path information tlv July 2020
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) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Count (2 octets) |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Path Information value(variable) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Path Information TLV
o Type = TBD1 (2 Octets): indicates that it's the Path Information
TLV.
o Length (2 Octets): indicates the length of the value field of the
Path Information TLV.
o Count (2 Octets): indicates the number of sub TLVs followed in the
Path Information Value field.
o Path Information value (Variable): indicates the value of the Path
Informtion TLV, which consists of one or multiple sub TLVs.
Each RM Message allows at most one Path Information TLV. As stated
in Appendix F.1 of RFC4271 [RFC4271], multiple address prefixes
(i.e., NLRI) with the same path attributes are allowed to be
specified in one BGP message. However, such multiple prefixes may
have different path information. Thus, to distinguish the sub-TLV
for different prefixes, the order of the sub-TLVs MUST be in
accordance with the prefix order encapsulated in the Update PDU.
3. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters
to the BMP parameters name space.
Type = TBD1 (2 Octets): indicates that it's the Path Information TLV.
4. Security Considerations
It is not believed that this document adds any additional security
considerations.
5. Normative References
Cardona, et al. Expires January 13, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP path information tlv July 2020
[I-D.grow-bmp-tlv]
Lucente, P., Gu, Y., and H. Smit, "TLV support for BMP
Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages", draft-grow-bmp-
tlv-00 (work in progress), September 2019.
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up]
Scudder, J., "BMP Peer Up Message Namespace", draft-ietf-
grow-bmp-peer-up-00 (work in progress), July 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses
Camilo Cardona
NTT
164-168, Carrer de Numancia
Barcelona 08029
Spain
Email: camilo@ntt.net
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp, WT 2132
Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Cardona, et al. Expires January 13, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP path information tlv July 2020
Pierre Francois
INSA-Lyon
Lyon
France
Email: Pierre.Francois@insa-lyon.fr
Yunan Gu
Huawei
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: guyunan@huawei.com
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Binzring 17
Zurich 8045
Switzerland
Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Cardona, et al. Expires January 13, 2021 [Page 5]
