BMP Extension for Path Marking TLV
draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-07-05
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         C. Cardona
Internet-Draft                                                P. Lucente
Intended status: Standards Track                                     NTT
Expires: January 6, 2020                                     P. Francois
                                                                    INSA
                                                                   Y. Gu
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           July 05, 2019

                   BMP Extension for Path Marking TLV
                draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-00

Abstract

   The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) provides the monitoring of BGP adj-
   rib-in [RFC7854], BGP local-rib [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib] and BGP
   adj-rib-out [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out] through Route Monitoring
   (RM) messages.  With the capability of allowing optional data to be
   added to the RM Messages in the format of TLV draft-lucente-bmp-tlv
   [I-D.lucente-bmp-tlv], more information about the BGP Update message
   encapsulated in the RM can be revealed.  This document proposes an
   extension to BMP to describe the BGP path status through the
   definition and use of Path Marking 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 6, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            BMP path marking tlv                 July 2019

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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 Marking TLV for the RM Message . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Path Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Reason String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Path Marking TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Path Marking TLV Reason String  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   For a given prefix, multiple paths with different path status, e.g.,
   the "best-path", the "best-external-path" and so on, may co-exist in
   the BGP module upon the local policy processing.  In addition, during
   the whole process, from receiving a BGP route to advertising it, a
   path can also undergo various status in different processing states.
   Such path status information is currently not carried in the BGP
   Update Message RFC4271 [RFC4271].  However, they can be useful to
   enable a lot of applications.  For example, for traffic steering
   purposes in a SDN enviroment, the operator/SDN controller needs the
   reachability information of multiple paths to ensure the selected
   optimized route is reachable.

   This document defines a so-called Path Marking TLV to convey the BGP
   path status information to the BMP server.  The BMP Path Marking is
   defined to be prepended in the BMP Route Monitoring (RM) Message.
Show full document text