Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up
GROW J.S. Scudder
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Updates: 7854, 8671, 9069 (if approved) P. Lucente
Intended status: Standards Track NTT
Expires: 9 August 2024 6 February 2024
BMP Peer Up Message Namespace
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-03
Abstract
RFC 7854, BMP, uses different message types for different purposes.
Most of these are Type, Length, Value (TLV) structured. One message
type, the Peer Up message, lacks a set of TLVs defined for its use,
instead sharing a namespace with the Initiation message. Subsequent
experience has shown that this namespace sharing was a mistake, as it
hampers the extension of the protocol.
This document updates RFC 7854 by creating an independent namespace
for the Peer Up message. It also updates RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 by
moving the defined codepoints in the newly introduced registry. The
changes in this document are formal only, compliant implementations
of RFC 7854, RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 also comply with this
specification.
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 9 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Scudder & Lucente Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP Peer Up Namespace February 2024
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. String Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Changes to existing RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Revision to Information TLV, Renamed as Initiation
Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Revision to Peer Up Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Definition of Peer Up Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
[RFC7854] defines a number of different BMP message types. With the
exception of the Route Monitoring message type, these messages are
TLV-structured. Most message types have distinct namespaces and IANA
registries. However, the namespace of the Peer Up message overlaps
that of the Initiation message. As the BMP protocol has been
extended, this oversight has become problematic. In this document,
we create a distinct namespace for the Peer Up message to eliminate
this overlap, and create the corresponding missing registry.
The changes in this document are formal only, compliant
implementations of [RFC7854], [RFC8671] and [RFC9069] also comply
with this specification.
1.1. 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Scudder & Lucente Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP Peer Up Namespace February 2024
2. String Definition
A string TLV is a free-form sequence of UTF-8 characters whose length
in bytes is given by the TLV's Length field. There is no requirement
to terminate the string with a null (or any other particular)
character -- the Length field gives its termination.
3. Changes to existing RFCs
We update [RFC7854] as follows:
* The "Information TLV" of section 4.4, that was shared between the
Initiation and Peer Up message types, is renamed as the
"Initiation Information TLV", and is only relevant to the
Initiation message type.
* A "Peer Up Information TLV" is defined, and is relevant to the
Peer Up message type.
* A "BMP Peer Up Information TLVs" registry is is created, seeded
with the Peer Up Information TLV.
Other than as summarized above, and detailed below, there are no
other changes.
3.1. Revision to Information TLV, Renamed as Initiation Information TLV
The Information TLV defined in section 4.4 of [RFC7854] is renamed
"Initiation Information TLV". It is used only by the Initiation
message, not by the Peer Up message.
The definition of Type = 0 is revised to be:
* Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string
(Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If multiple
strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when they
are reported.
* Type = 1: sysDescr. The Information field contains an ASCII
string whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the
sysDescr MIB-II [RFC1213] object.
* Type = 2: sysName. The Information field contains an ASCII string
whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the sysName
MIB-II [RFC1213] object.
Scudder & Lucente Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP Peer Up Namespace February 2024
3.2. Revision to Peer Up Notification
The final paragraph of section 4.10 of [RFC7854] references the
Information TLV (which is revised above (Section 3.1)). That
paragraph is replaced by the following:
* Information: Information about the peer, using the Peer Up
Information TLV format defined below (Section 3.3). The String
type may be repeated. Inclusion of the Information field is
OPTIONAL. Its presence or absence can be inferred by inspection
of the Message Length in the common header.
3.3. Definition of Peer Up Information TLV
The Peer Up Information TLV is used by the Peer Up message.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Information Type | Information Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Information (variable) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
* Information Type (2 bytes): Type of information provided. Defined
types are:
- Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string
(Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If
multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved
when they are reported.
- Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a
UTF-8 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF
or table name (e.g., RD instance name) being conveyed. The
string size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.
- Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-
form UTF-8 string whose byte length is given by the Information
Length field. The value is administratively assigned. There
is no requirement to terminate the string with null or any
other character.
* Information Length (2 bytes): The length of the following
Information field, in bytes.
* Information (variable): Information about the monitored router,
according to the type.
Scudder & Lucente Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP Peer Up Namespace February 2024
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create a registry within the BMP group, named
"BMP Peer Up Message TLVs", reference this document.
Registration procedures for this registry are:
+=============+==========================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=============+==========================+
| 0, 3-32767 | Standards Action |
+-------------+--------------------------+
| 32768-65530 | First Come, First Served |
+-------------+--------------------------+
| 65531-65534 | Experimental |
+-------------+--------------------------+
| 1-2, 65535 | Reserved |
+-------------+--------------------------+
Table 1
Initial values for this registry are:
+=======+================+===============+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+=======+================+===============+
| 0 | String | this document |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
| 1 | Reserved | this document |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
| 2 | Reserved | this document |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
| 3 | VRF/Table Name | this document |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
| 4 | Admin Label | this document |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
| 65535 | Reserved | this document |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
Table 2
IANA is also requested to rename the existing "BMP Initiation and
Peer Up Information TLVs" registry to "BMP Initiation Information
TLVs" and seed it with the following values:
Scudder & Lucente Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BMP Peer Up Namespace February 2024
+=======+=============+===============+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+=======+=============+===============+
| 0 | String | this document |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| 1 | sysDescr | this document |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| 2 | sysName | this document |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| 3 | Reserved | this document |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| 4 | Reserved | this document |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| 65535 | Reserved | this document |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
Table 3
5. Security Considerations
This rearrangement of deck chairs does not change the underlying
security issues inherent in the existing [RFC7854].
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Maxence Younsi for his review.
7. Normative References
[RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II",
STD 17, RFC 1213, DOI 10.17487/RFC1213, March 1991,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1213>.
[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>.
[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>.
Scudder & Lucente Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BMP Peer Up Namespace February 2024
[RFC8671] Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Lucente, P., Mi, P., and S.
Zhuang, "Support for Adj-RIB-Out in the BGP Monitoring
Protocol (BMP)", RFC 8671, DOI 10.17487/RFC8671, November
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8671>.
[RFC9069] Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Bhardwaj, M., and P. Lucente,
"Support for Local RIB in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
(BMP)", RFC 9069, DOI 10.17487/RFC9069, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9069>.
Authors' Addresses
John Scudder
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America
Email: jgs@juniper.net
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Veemweg 23
3771 Barneveld
Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Scudder & Lucente Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 7]
