Support for Enterprise-specific TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-11-02
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml 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)
Global Routing Operations                                     P. Lucente
Internet-Draft                                                       NTT
Updates: 7854 (if approved)                                        Y. Gu
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: May 3, 2020                                    October 31, 2019

  Support for Enterprise-specific TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
                   draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-00

Abstract

   Message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) do
   provision for optional trailing data in TLV - Type, Length, Value -
   format; 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.  With this document we
   want to 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 May 3, 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

Lucente & Gu               Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                BMP TLV EBIT                  October 2019

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   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.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   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,
   because, for example, they are delivering a pre-standards product, or
   the Information Element is in some way commercially sensitive.

   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 3.2 of [RFC7011] for a very
   similar purpose.

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.

Lucente & Gu               Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                BMP TLV EBIT                  October 2019

3.  TLV encoding

3.1.  IANA-registered TLV encoding

   Existing TLV encoding defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] is reviewed
   as follows:

   o  1 bit to flag an enterprise-specific TLV set to zero.  The TLV
Show full document text