BMP Peer Up Message Namespace
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-01

GROW                                                        J.S. Scudder
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Updates: 7854, 8671, 9069 (if approved)                       P. Lucente
Intended status: Standards Track                                     NTT
Expires: 8 January 2024                                      7 July 2023

                     BMP Peer Up Message Namespace
                     draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-01

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 8 January 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Scudder & Lucente        Expires 8 January 2024                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            BMP Peer Up Namespace                July 2023

   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

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 8 January 2024                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            BMP Peer Up Namespace                July 2023

2.  String Definition

   A string TLV is a free-form sequence of UTF-8 characters whose length
   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 "Peer Up TLVs" registry 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 8 January 2024                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            BMP Peer Up Namespace                July 2023

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 8 January 2024                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            BMP Peer Up Namespace                July 2023

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  |
                +=============+==========================+
                |   0-32767   |     Standards Action     |
                +-------------+--------------------------+
                | 32768-65530 | First Come, First Served |
                +-------------+--------------------------+
                | 65531-65534 |       Experimental       |
                +-------------+--------------------------+
                |    65535    |         Reserved         |
                +-------------+--------------------------+

                                 Table 1

   Initial values for this registry are:

                +=======+================+===============+
                |  Type |  Description   |   Reference   |
                +=======+================+===============+
                |   0   |     String     | this document |
                +-------+----------------+---------------+
                |   3   | VRF/Table Name | this document |
                +-------+----------------+---------------+
                |   4   |  Admin Label   | this document |
                +-------+----------------+---------------+
                | 65535 |    Reserved    | this document |
                +-------+----------------+---------------+

                                 Table 2

5.  Security Considerations

   This rearrangement of deck chairs does not change the underlying
   security issues inherent in the existing [RFC7854].

6.  Acknowledgements

   TBD

7.  Normative References

Scudder & Lucente        Expires 8 January 2024                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            BMP Peer Up Namespace                July 2023

   [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>.

   [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 8 January 2024                 [Page 6]