Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-13
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (grow WG) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tim Evens , Serpil Bayraktar , Manish Bhardwaj , Paolo Lucente | |||
| Last updated | 2021-10-18 (latest revision 2021-08-31) | |||
| Replaces | draft-evens-grow-bmp-local-rib | |||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | |||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | |||
| Formats | plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex | |||
| Reviews | ||||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | ||
| Document shepherd | Job Snijders | |||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2021-02-10) | |||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC Ed Queue | ||
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
|||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | |||
| Telechat date | ||||
| Responsible AD | Warren Kumari | |||
| Send notices to | Job Snijders <job@fastly.com> | |||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | ||
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | |||
| RFC Editor | RFC Editor state | AUTH48 | ||
| Details | ||||
Global Routing Operations T. Evens
Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar
Updates: 7854 (if approved) M. Bhardwaj
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: 4 March 2022 P. Lucente
NTT Communications
31 August 2021
Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-13
Abstract
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to local Routing
Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates BMP (RFC 7854) by
adding access to the Local Routing Information Base (Loc-RIB), as
defined in RFC 4271. The Loc-RIB contains the routes that have been
selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision Process.
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 4 March 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Alternative Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Peer Up Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1. Peer Up Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. BMP Loc-RIB Instance Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. Peer Up Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.4. Peer Down Reason code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.5. Deprecated entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
1. Introduction
This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Loc-RIB state of
remote BGP instances without the need to establish BGP peering
sessions. BMP [RFC7854] does not define a method to send the BGP
instance Loc-RIB. It does define in section 8.2 of [RFC7854] locally
originated routes, but these routes are defined as the routes
originated into BGP. For example, as defined by Section 9.4 of
[RFC4271]. Loc-RIB includes all selected received routes from BGP
peers in addition to locally originated routes.
Figure 1 shows the flow of received routes from one or more BGP peers
into the Loc-RIB.
+------------------+ +------------------+
| Peer-A | | Peer-B |
/-- | | ---- | | --\
| | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | |
| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
| | | |
| Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| |
| V V |
| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| |
| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
| | | |
| Selected -| Selected -| |
| V V |
| +-----------------------------------------+ |
| | Loc-RIB | |
| +-----------------------------------------+ |
| |
| ROUTER/BGP Instance |
\----------------------------------------------------/
Figure 1: BGP peering Adj-RIBs-In into Loc-RIB
The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB access:
* The Adj-RIB-In for a given peer Post-Policy may contain hundreds
of thousands of routes, with only a handful of routes selected and
installed in the Loc-RIB after best-path selection. Some
monitoring applications, such as ones that need only to correlate
flow records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor
the routes that are actually selected and used.
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
Requiring the applications to collect all Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy
data forces the applications to receive a potentially large
unwanted data set and to perform the BGP decision process
selection, which includes having access to the interior gateway
protocol (IGP) next-hop metrics. While it is possible to obtain
the IGP topology information using BGP Link-State (BGP-LS), it
requires the application to implement shortest path first (SPF)
and possibly constrained shortest path first (CSPF) based on
additional policies. This is overly complex for such a simple
application that only needs to have access to the Loc-RIB.
* It is common to see frequent changes over many BGP peers, but
those changes do not always result in the router's Loc-RIB
changing. The change in the Loc-RIB can have a direct impact on
the forwarding state. It can greatly reduce time to troubleshoot
and resolve issues if operators have the history of Loc-RIB
changes. For example, a performance issue might have been seen
for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post-facto troubleshooting this
issue without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing
changes that might have happened during those five minutes.
* Operators may wish to validate the impact of policies applied to
Adj-RIB-In by analyzing the final decision made by the router when
installing into the Loc-RIB. For example, in order to validate if
multi-path prefixes are installed as expected for all advertising
peers, the Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy and Loc-RIB needs to be
compared. This is only possible if the Loc-RIB is available.
Monitoring the Adj-RIB-In for this router from another router to
derive the Loc-RIB is likely to not show same installed prefixes.
For example, the received Adj-RIB-In will be different if ADD-PATH
[RFC7911] is not enabled or if maximum supported number of equal
paths is different between Loc-RIB and advertised routes.
This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and
replaces Section 8.2 of [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes.
1.1. Alternative Method to Monitor Loc-RIB
Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a
peer. It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by
monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router. This
becomes overly complex and error prone when considering the number of
peers being monitored per router.
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
/------------------------------------------------------\
| ROUTER1 BGP Instance |
| |
| +--------------------------------------------+ |
| | Loc-RIB | |
| +--------------------------------------------+ |
| | | |
| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
| | Peer-ROUTER2 | | Peer-ROUTER3 | |
| | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| |
| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
| Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| |
| V V |
| +-------------------+ +-------------------+ |
| | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| |
| +-------------------+ +-------------------+ |
| | | |
\------------- | ------------------------ | -----------/
BGP | BGP |
Peer | Peer |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| Peer-ROUTER1 | | Peer-ROUTER1 |
/--| |--\ /--| | --\
| | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | |
| +------------------+ | | +------------------+ |
| | | |
| ROUTER2/BGP Instance | | ROUTER3/BGP Instance |
\------------------------/ \-------------------------/
| |
v v
ROUTER2 BMP Feed ROUTER3 BMP Feed
Figure 2: Alternative method to monitor Loc-RIB
The setup needed to monitor the Loc-RIB of a router requires another
router with a peering session to the target router that is to be
monitored. As shown in Figure 2, the target router Loc-RIB is
advertised via Adj-RIB-Out to the BMP router over a standard BGP
peering session. The BMP router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy
to the BMP receiver.
BMP lacking access to Loc-RIB introduces the need for additional
resources:
* Requires at least two routers when only one router was to be
monitored.
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
* Requires additional BGP peering to collect the received updates
when peering may have not even been required in the first place.
For example, virtual routing and forwarding (VRF) tables with no
peers, redistributed BGP-LS with no peers, and segment routing
egress peer engineering where no peers have link-state address
family enabled are all situations with no preexisting BGP peers.
Many complexities are introduced when using a received Adj-RIB-In to
infer a router Loc-RIB:
* Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a
policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more
specific prefixes, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not
only does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity
when multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same
router. The BMP receiver user is left with the error-prone task
of identifying which peering session is the best representative of
the Loc-RIB.
* BGP peering is designed to work between administrative domains and
therefore does not need to include internal system level
information of each peering router (e.g., the system name or
version information). In order to derive the Loc-RIB of a router,
the router name or other system information is needed. The BMP
receiver and user are forced to do some type of correlation using
what information is available in the peering session (e.g.,
peering addresses, autonomous system numbers, and BGP
identifiers). This leads to error-prone correlations.
* Correlating BGP identifiers (BGP-ID) and session addresses to a
router requires additional data, such as router inventory. This
additional data provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and
correlate the BGP-IDs and/or session addresses, but requires the
BMP receiver to somehow obtain this data outside of BMP. How this
data is obtained and the accuracy of the data directly affects the
integrity of the correlation.
2. Terminology
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.
3. Definitions
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
* BGP Instance: refers to an instance of BGP-4 [RFC4271] and
considerations in section 8.1 of [RFC7854] do apply to it.
* Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains
unprocessed routing information that has been advertised to the
local BGP speaker by its peers." This is also referred to as the
pre-policy Adj-RIB-In in this document.
* Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains
the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the
local speaker's UPDATE messages."
* Loc-RIB: As defined in section 9.4 of [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB
contains the routes that have been selected by the local BGP
speaker's Decision Process." Note that the Loc-RIB state as
monitored through BMP might also contain routes imported from
other routing protocols such as an IGP, or local static routes.
* Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound
policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally represents a similar view
of the Loc-RIB but may contain additional routes based on BGP
peering configuration.
* Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to
an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer.
4. Per-Peer Header
4.1. Peer Type
A new peer type is defined for Loc-RIB to distinguish that it
represents the router Loc-RIB, which may have a route distinguisher
(RD). Section 4.2 of [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type,
which is for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance
identifier.
This document defines the following new peer type:
* Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer
4.2. Peer Flags
If locally sourced routes are communicated using BMP, they MUST be
conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type.
The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined
as follows:
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F| | | | | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
* The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This MUST be
set when a filter is applied to Loc-RIB routes sent to the BMP
collector.
The unused bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be
transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.
5. Loc-RIB Monitoring
The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP Decision Process
as described in section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. These routes include those
learned from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy, as well as
routes learned by other means as per section 9.4 of [RFC4271].
Examples of these include redistribution of routes from other
protocols into BGP or otherwise locally originated (i.e., aggregate
routes).
As described in Section 6.1.2, a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent
to a BMP collector by setting the F flag.
5.1. Per-Peer Header
All peer messages that include a per-peer header as defined in
section 4.2 of [RFC7854] MUST use the following values:
* Peer Type: Set to 3 to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer.
* Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the
global instance. Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or
unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc-
RIB belongs to.
* Peer Address: Zero-filled. Remote peer address is not applicable.
The V flag is not applicable with Loc-RIB Instance peer type
considering addresses are zero-filed.
* Peer AS: Set to the primary router BGP autonomous system number
(ASN).
* Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g., VRF)
specific router-id section 1.1 of [RFC7854].
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
* Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were installed in
the Loc-RIB, expressed in seconds and microseconds since midnight
(zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC). If zero, the time is
unavailable. Precision of the timestamp is implementation-
dependent.
5.2. Peer Up Notification
Peer Up notifications follow section 4.10 of [RFC7854] with the
following clarifications:
* Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable.
* Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable.
* Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable.
* Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message.
Capabilities MUST include the 4-octet ASN and all necessary
capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring messages.
Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB
monitoring messages. For example, if ADD-PATH is enabled for IPv6
and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the ADD-PATH capability
should be included for IPv6. In the case of ADD-PATH, the
capability intent of advertise, receive or both can be ignored
since the presence of the capability indicates enough that add-
paths will be used for IPv6.
* Received OPEN Message: Repeat of the same Sent Open Message. The
duplication allows the BMP receiver to parse the expected received
OPEN message as defined in section 4.10 of [RFC7854].
5.2.1. Peer Up Information
The following Peer Up information TLV type is added:
* 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.
The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included to support
implementations that may not have defined a name. If a name is
configured, it MUST be included. The default value of "global"
MUST be used for the default Loc-RIB instance with a zero-filled
distinguisher. If the TLV is included, then it MUST also be
included in the Peer Down notification.
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
Multiple TLVs of the same type can be repeated as part of the same
message, for example to convey a filtered view of a VRF. A BMP
receiver should append multiple TLVs of the same type to a set in
order to support alternate or additional names for the same peer. If
multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when
they are reported.
5.3. Peer Down Notification
Peer Down notification MUST use reason code 6. Following the reason
is data in TLV format. The following Peer Down information TLV type
is defined:
* 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. The VRF/Table Name
informational TLV MUST be included if it was in the Peer Up.
5.4. Route Monitoring
Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the
Loc-RIB. They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes.
As defined in section 4.6 of [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP
header and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU."
5.4.1. ASN Encoding
Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as
indicated in Peer Up sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability.
5.4.2. Granularity
State compression and throttling SHOULD be used by a BMP sender to
reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that are transmitted
to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the final resultant
updates are sent.
For example, prefix 192.0.2.0/24 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times
within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages
results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4
changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression
interval. If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have
been transmitted.
A BMP receiver should expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring
granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation.
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
5.5. Route Mirroring
Section 4.7 of [RFC7854], defines Route Mirroring for verbatim
duplication of messages received. This is not applicable to Loc-RIB
as PDUs are originated by the router. Any received Route Mirroring
messages SHOULD be ignored.
5.6. Statistics Report
Not all Stat Types are relevant to Loc-RIB. The Stat Types that are
relevant are listed below:
* Stat Type = 8: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Loc-RIB.
* Stat Type = 10: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Loc-RIB. The
value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64-
bit Gauge.
6. Other Considerations
6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation
There are several methods for a BGP speaker to implement Loc-RIB
efficiently. In all methods, the implementation emulates a peer with
Peer Up and Down messages to convey capabilities as well as Route
Monitor messages to convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that
conveys the Loc-RIB is a locally emulated peer.
6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers
There MUST be at least one emulated peer for each Loc-RIB instance,
such as with VRFs. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB by the
peer header distinguisher and BGP ID. The BMP receiver uses the VRF/
Table Name from the Peer Up information to associate a name to the
Loc-RIB.
In some implementations, it might be required to have more than one
emulated peer for Loc-RIB to convey different address families for
the same Loc-RIB. In this case, the peer distinguisher and BGP ID
should be the same since they represent the same Loc-RIB instance.
Each emulated peer instance MUST send a Peer Up with the OPEN message
indicating the address family capabilities. A BMP receiver MUST
process these capabilities to know which peer belongs to which
address family.
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers
There maybe be use-cases where BMP receivers should only receive
specific routes from Loc-RIB. For example, IPv4 unicast routes may
include internal BGP (IBGP), external BGP (EBGP), and IGP but only
routes from EBGP should be sent to the BMP receiver. Alternatively,
it may be that only IBGP and EBGP that should be sent and IGP
redistributed routes should be excluded. In these cases where the
Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP
receiver that the Loc-RIB is filtered. If multiple filters are
associated to the same Loc-RIB, a Table Name MUST be used in order to
allow a BMP receiver to make the right associations.
6.1.3. Changes to existing BMP sessions
In case of any change that results in the alteration of behavior of
an existing BMP session, ie. changes to filtering and table names,
the session MUST be bounced with a Peer Down/Peer Up sequence.
7. Security Considerations
The same considerations as in section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this
document. Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require that
sessions are only established with authorized and trusted monitoring
devices. It is also believed that this document does not add any
additional security considerations.
8. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters
to the BMP parameters name space (https://www.iana.org/assignments/
bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml).
8.1. BMP Peer Type
This document defines a new peer type (Section 4.1):
* Peer Type = 3: Loc-RIB Instance Peer
8.2. BMP Loc-RIB Instance Peer Flags
This document requests IANA to rename "BMP Peer Flags" to "BMP Peer
Flags for Peer Types 0 through 2" and create a new registry named
"BMP Peer Flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer Type 3." This document
defines that peer flags are specific to the Loc-RIB instance peer
type. As defined in (Section 4.2):
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
* Flag 0: The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This
indicates that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing
table.
Flags 0 through 3 and 5 through 7 are unassigned. The registration
procedure for the registry is "Standards Action".
8.3. Peer Up Information TLV
This document requests that IANA rename "BMP Initiation Message TLVs"
registry to "BMP Initiation and Peer Up Information TLVs." section
4.4 of [RFC7854] defines that both Initiation and Peer Up share the
same information TLVs. This document defines the following new BMP
Peer Up information TLV type (Section 5.2.1):
* 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.
8.4. Peer Down Reason code
This document defines the following new BMP Peer Down reason code
(Section 5.3):
* Type = 6: Local system closed, TLV data follows.
8.5. Deprecated entries
This document also requests that IANA marks as "deprecated" the F
Flag entry in the "BMP Peer Flags for Peer Types 0 through 2"
registry.
9. Normative References
[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>.
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[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>.
10. Informative References
[RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Jeff Haas and Mukul
Srivastava for their valuable input.
Authors' Addresses
Tim Evens
Cisco Systems
2901 Third Avenue, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98121
United States of America
Email: tievens@cisco.com
Serpil Bayraktar
Cisco Systems
3700 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America
Email: serpil@cisco.com
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BMP Loc-RIB August 2021
Manish Bhardwaj
Cisco Systems
3700 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America
Email: manbhard@cisco.com
Paolo Lucente
NTT Communications
Siriusdreef 70-72
2132 Hoofddorp
Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Evens, et al. Expires 4 March 2022 [Page 15]