BMP Extension for Path Marking TLV
draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-03-09
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized 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: September 9, 2020                                   P. Francois
                                                               INSA-Lyon
                                                                   Y. Gu
                                                                  Huawei
                                                                 T. Graf
                                                                Swisscom
                                                          March 08, 2020

                   BMP Extension for Path Marking TLV
                draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-03

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 the status of a BGP path after being processed by
   the BGP best-path selection algorithm.  This extension makes use of
   the TLV mechanims described in draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv
   [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv] and draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit
   [I-D.lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit].

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 September 9, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            BMP path marking tlv                March 2020

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2020.

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.  Prefix Information TLV for the RM Message . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Path Marking sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  IANA-registered Path Markinig sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Enterprise-specific Path Marking sub-TLV  . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   For a given prefix, multiple paths with different path status, e.g.,
   the "best-path", "back-up path" and so on, may co-exist in the BGP
   RIB after being processed by the local policy and the BGP decision
   process.  The path status information is currently not carried in the
   BGP Update Message RFC4271 [RFC4271] or in the BMP Update Message
   RFC7854 [RFC7854].

   External systems can use the path status for various applications.
   The path status is commonly checked by operators when performing
   troubleshooting.  Having such status stored in a centralized system
   can enable the development of tools facilitating this process.
   Optimisation systems can include the path status in their process,
   and also use the status as a validation source (since it can compare
   the calculated state to the actual outcome of the network, such as
   primary and backup path).  As a final example, path status

Cardona, et al.         Expires September 9, 2020               [Page 2]
Show full document text