Support for Enterprise-specific TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-05
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(grow WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Paolo Lucente , Yunan Gu | ||
| Last updated | 2024-09-19 (Latest revision 2024-03-18) | ||
| Replaces | draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) do provision for data in TLV - Type, Length, Value - format, either in the shape of a TLV message body, ie. Route Mirroring and Stats Reports, or optional TLVs at the end of a BMP message, ie. Peer Up and Peer Down. However the space for Type value is unique and governed by IANA. To allow the usage of vendor-specific TLVs, a mechanism to define per-vendor Type values is required. In this document we introduce an Enterprise Bit, or E-bit, for such purpose.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)