Protocol Assisted Protocol (PAP)
draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol-01
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2019-07-08
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
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 Z. Li
Internet-Draft L. Li
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Gu
Expires: January 9, 2020 Huawei
July 8, 2019
Protocol Assisted Protocol (PAP)
draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol-01
Abstract
For routing protocol troubleshooting, different approaches exibit
merits w.r.t. different situations. They can be generally divided
into two categories, the distributive way and the centralized way. A
very commonly used distributive approach is to log in possiblly all
related devices one by one to check massive data via CLI. Such
approach provides very detailed device information, however it
requires operators with high NOC (Network Operation Center)
experience and suffers from low troubleshooting efficiency and high
cost. The centralized approach is realized by collecting data from
devices via approaches, like the streaming Telemetry or BMP(BGP
Monitoring Protocol) RFC7854 [RFC7854], for the centralized server to
analyze all gathered data. Such approach allows a comprehensive view
fo the whole network and facilitates automated troubleshooting, but
is limited by the data collection boundary set by different
management domains, as well as high network bandwidth and CPU
computation costs.
This document proposes a semi-distributive and semi-centralized
approach for fast routing protocol troubleshooting, localizing the
target device and possibly the root cause, more precisely. It
defines a new protocol, called the PAP (Protocol assisted Protocol),
for devices to exchange protocol related information between each
other in both active and on-demand manners. It allow devices to
request specific information from other devices and receive replies
to the requested data. It also allows actively transmission of
information without request to inform other devices to better react
w.r.t. network issues.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Protocol Assisted Protocol July 2019
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 January 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. PAP Usage Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1. Use Case 1: BGP Route Oscillation . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2. Use Case 2: RSVP-TE Set Up Failure . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. PAP Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. PAP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Negotiation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5. Notification Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. ACK Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Show full document text