Support for Enterprise-specific TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Paolo Lucente , Yunan Gu | ||
| Last updated | 2022-07-27 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-00
Global Routing Operations P. Lucente
Internet-Draft NTT
Updates: 7854 (if approved) Y. Gu
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: 12 January 2023 11 July 2022
Support for Enterprise-specific TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-00
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 optional TLVs at the end of a BMP message or Stats
Reports TLVs. 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.
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 12 January 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Lucente & Gu Expires 12 January 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV EBIT July 2022
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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. IANA-registered TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Enterprise-specific TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. TLV encoding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) is defined in RFC 7854 [RFC7854].
Support for trailing TLV data is extended by TLV support for BMP
Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv].
Vendors need the ability to define proprietary Information Elements
for various reasons such as delivering a pre-standard product. This
aligns with Also for code point assignment to be eligible, an IETF
document needs to be adopted at a Working Group and in a stable
condition. In this context E-bit helps during early development
phases where inter-operability among vendors is tested and shipped to
network operators for testing. This aligns with This document re-
defines the format of IANA-registered TLVs in a backward compatible
manner with respect to previous documents and existing IANA
allocations; it also defines the format for newly introduced
enterprise-specific TLVs. The concept of an E-bit, or Enterprise
Bit, is not new. For example, such mechanism is defined in
Section 4.1 of [RFC8126]. Section 4.2 of [RFC8126]. Section 3.2 of
[RFC7011] for a very similar purpose.
Lucente & Gu Expires 12 January 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV EBIT July 2022
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. TLV encoding
3.1. IANA-registered TLV encoding
Existing TLV encodings are defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854]
(Information TLVs), Section 4.8 of [RFC7854] (Stats Reports TLVs),
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv] and
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up] and are
updated as follows:
* 1 bit to flag an enterprise-specific TLV set to zero. The TLV
Type value must have been defined in IANA-BMP [IANA-BMP]
* 15 bits of TLV Type,
* 2 octets of TLV Value length,
* 0 or more octets of TLV Value.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| Type | Length (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their code point.
3.2. Enterprise-specific TLV encoding
Enterprise-specific TLV encoding is defined as follows:
* 1 bit to flag an enterprise-specific TLV set to one
* 15 bits of TLV Type,
Lucente & Gu Expires 12 January 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV EBIT July 2022
* 2 octets of IANA PEN plus TLV value length,
* 4 octets of IANA Private Enterprise Number IANA-PEN [IANA-PEN]
* 0 or more octets of TLV Value.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| Type | Length (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Enterprise number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2
3.3. TLV encoding remarks
The TLV encoding specified in this document applies to all existing
BMP Message Types and their namespaces defined in Future BMP Message
Types MUST make use of the TLV encoding defined in this document.
Multiple TLVs of the same type can be repeated as part of the same
message and it is left to the specific use-cases whether all, any,
the first or the last TLV should be considered. RFC 7854 [RFC7854],
TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv] and BMP Peer Up Message Namespace
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up]. While the proposed encoding is not per-
se backward compatible, there is no existing IANA-allocated Type
value that makes use of the most significant bit (which is being used
in this document to define the E-bit).
4. Security Considerations
This document does not add any additional security considerations.
5. Operational Considerations
It is recommended that vendors making use of the Enterprise Bit
extension have a well-defined internal registry for privately
assigned code points that is also exposed to the public.
Lucente & Gu Expires 12 January 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV EBIT July 2022
6. IANA Considerations
The TLV Type values used by BMP are managed by IANA as are the
Private Enterprise Numbers used by enterprise-specific Type values
IANA-PEN [IANA-PEN]. This document makes no changes to these
registries.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up]
Scudder, J., "BMP Peer Up Message Namespace", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-00,
24 July 2019, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
grow-bmp-peer-up-00.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv]
Lucente, P. and Y. Gu, "TLV support for BMP Route
Monitoring and Peer Down Messages", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-07, 7 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-
07.txt>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[IANA-BMP] IANA, "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Parameters", 2016,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
parameters.xhtml>.
Lucente & Gu Expires 12 January 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV EBIT July 2022
[IANA-PEN] IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers", 1982,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Thomas Graf, Jeff Haas and Pierre
Francois for their valuable input.
Authors' Addresses
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
2132 Hoofddorp
Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Yunan Gu
Huawei
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: guyunan@huawei.com
Lucente & Gu Expires 12 January 2023 [Page 6]