Enhancement for Monitoring VRF's Loc-RIB
draft-zhuang-grow-bmp-enhancement-for-vrf-loc-rib-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Shunwan Zhuang , Nan Geng , Haibo Wang | ||
| Last updated | 2025-11-05 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-zhuang-grow-bmp-enhancement-for-vrf-loc-rib-00
Network Working Group S. Zhuang
Internet-Draft N. Geng
Intended status: Standards Track H. Wang
Expires: 9 May 2026 Huawei Technologies
5 November 2025
Enhancement for Monitoring VRF’s Loc-RIB
draft-zhuang-grow-bmp-enhancement-for-vrf-loc-rib-00
Abstract
BMP Loc-RIB [RFC9069] enforces that the BMP router sets the Peer
Address value of a VPN route information to zero, and sets the Peer
Distinguisher value of a VPN route information to the route
distinguisher or unique locally defined value of the particular
instance the Loc-RIB belongs to. This document introduces the option
to communicate the Remote VRF Information from which a VPN route was
received when reporting that VPN route information with BMP Loc-RIB.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in
all capitals, as shown here.
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 9 May 2026.
Zhuang, et al. Expires 9 May 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft bmp-vrf-loc-rib-enhancement November 2025
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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 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. TLV Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Remote VRF Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. VPN Label TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. VPN SRv6 SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
The generation of BGP Adj-RIB-In, Loc-RIB and Adj-RIB-Out comes from
BGP route exchange and route policy processing. BGP Monitoring
Protocol (BMP) provides the monitoring of BGP Adj-RIB-In [RFC7854],
BGP Loc-RIB [RFC9069] and BGP Adj-RIB-Out [RFC8671]. Using BMP Loc-
RIB [RFC9069], the Peer Address field of a Per-Peer header is Zero-
filled, and the Peer Distinguisher value of a VPN route information
is setted to the route distinguisher or unique locally defined value
of the particular instance the Loc-RIB belongs to. The following
usecase is used as an example to describe the problems faced by the
current solution.
Zhuang, et al. Expires 9 May 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft bmp-vrf-loc-rib-enhancement November 2025
+-------+
| BMP |
|Server |
+---+---+
/
/
/lo0:10.10.10.1 lo0:10.10.10.2
+---+---+ +-------+
| PE1 +-----+ +--------+ PE2 |
+-------+ | | +-------+
VPN11(RD11,I-RT1)| | VPN21(RD21,E-RT1)---CE21(Prefix P1)
| | VPN22(RD22,E-RT1)---CE22(Prefix P1)
| | VPN23(RD23,E-RT1)---CE23(Prefix P1)
+-+----+-+
| RR | lo0:10.10.10.100
+--------+
|
|
| +-------+
+------+ PE3 | lo0:10.10.10.3
+-------+
VPN31(RD31,E-RT1)---CE31(Prefix P1)
Figure 1: Monitoring VRF?s Loc-RIB
PE1, PE2, and PE3 establish BGP VPNv4 peer sessions with the RR, as
shown in the above figure, PE1 receives multiple VPNv4 routes with
the address prefix P1:
+-----+-------+-----------+-----------+-------------+----+------+
| RD | Prefix| Nexthop | Originator| Peer Address| RT | Label|
+-----+-------+-----------+-----------+-------------+----+------+
| RD21| P1 | 10.10.10.2| 10.10.10.2| 10.10.10.100| RT1| L21 |
+-----+-------+-----------+-----------+-------------+----+------+
| RD22| P1 | 10.10.10.2| 10.10.10.2| 10.10.10.100| RT1| L22 |
+-----+-------+-----------+-----------+-------------+----+------+
| RD23| P1 | 10.10.10.2| 10.10.10.2| 10.10.10.100| RT1| L23 |
+-----+-------+-----------+-----------+-------------+----+------+
| RD31| P1 | 10.10.10.3| 10.10.10.3| 10.10.10.100| RT1| L31 |
+-----+-------+-----------+-----------+-------------+----+------+
...
Figure 2: VPNv4 Routes in PE1
Zhuang, et al. Expires 9 May 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft bmp-vrf-loc-rib-enhancement November 2025
The above 4 routes carry the route target RT1 and the import route
target of the VPN instance VPN11 of PE1 is RT1, VPN11 of PE1 will
selects one route from the 4 routes as the best route, for example,
the route with RD22, and import the route with RD22 to the routing
table of the VPN instance VPN11 of PE1.
+-------+-----------+-----------+-------------+----+------+----+
| Prefix| Nexthop | Originator| Peer Address| RT | Label|R-RD|
+-------+-----------+-----------+-------------+----+------+----+
| P1 | 10.10.10.2| 10.10.10.2| 10.10.10.100| RT1| L22 |RD22|
+-------+-----------------------+-------------+----+------+----+
...
Figure 3: VPN Routes in the routing table of the VPN instance VPN11
PE1 uses the solution defined in RFC9069 to report the Loc-RIB route
information in VPN11 to the BMP server.
Prefix: P1
Nexthop: 10.10.10.2
Peer Distinguisher: RD11 --> The RD of VPN11 on PE1
Peer Address: 0.0.0.0
Peer BGP ID: 10.10.10.1 --> The router-id of the VRF instance VPN11
Figure 4: The Loc-RIB routing information in VPN11 to the BMP server
PE1 reports the Loc-RIB routing information in VPN11 to the BMP
server through an RM message.
Problem: After obtaining the above route information via the RM
message, the BMP server cannot deduce the remote VPN instance
information corresponding to the VPN route information because the
reported information does not contain the remote device address and
the RD of the remote VPN instance.
When reporting the Loc-RIB routing information in VPN11 to the BMP
server by using an RM message, PE1 reports the remote device address
and the RD of the remote VPN instance by using TLVs newly added in
this draft.
2. TLV Encoding
This section describes a solution based on BMPv4 TLVs. Section 2.1
describes a BMPv4 TLV used to convey the Remote VRF Information TLV.
Section 2.2 and 2.3 introduces optional TLVs to report the label/SRv6
ID carried in the remote VPN route.
Zhuang, et al. Expires 9 May 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft bmp-vrf-loc-rib-enhancement November 2025
2.1. Remote VRF Information TLV
The format of the Remote VRF Information TLV is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Information Type | Information Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|G| Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI | SAFI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote BGP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Route Distinguisher |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Route Distinguisher (Cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: The format of the Remote VRF Information TLV
Where:
Information Type: indicates a Remote VRF Information TLV, the value
is TBD1.
Information Length: indicates the length of the value of the Remote
VRF Information TLV, it excludes the 2 octets of the index field.
Index: The Index field is 2-byte long of which the top-most bit,
G-bit, is used to flag a Group Index. It is defined in
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv].
AFI: address family information
SAFI: sub-address family information
Remote BGP ID: remote peer address or BGP ID or Originater
Remote Route Distinguisher: indicates the RD of the remote VPN
instance.
Zhuang, et al. Expires 9 May 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft bmp-vrf-loc-rib-enhancement November 2025
2.2. VPN Label TLV
In some usecases, the label carried in the remote VPN route needs to
be reported. Therefore, the following TLV are defined in this
document:
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Information Type | Information Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|G| Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MPLS Label for Remote VPN Route |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: The format of the VPN Label TLV
Where:
Information Type: indicates a VPN Label TLV, the value is TBD2.
Information Length: indicates the length of the value of the VPN
Label TLV, it excludes the 2 octets of the index field.
Index: The Index field is 2-byte long of which the top-most bit,
G-bit, is used to flag a Group Index. It is defined in
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv].
MPLS Label for Remote VPN Route: indicates the MPLS Label of the
remote VPN route.
2.3. VPN SRv6 SID TLV
In some usecases, the SRv6 ID carried in the remote VPN route needs
to be reported. Therefore, the following TLV are defined in this
document:
Zhuang, et al. Expires 9 May 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft bmp-vrf-loc-rib-enhancement November 2025
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Information Type | Information Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|G| Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| SRv6 SID for Remote VPN Route |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: The format of the VPN SRv6 SID TLV
Where:
Information Type: indicates a VPN SRv6 SID TLV, the value is TBD3.
Information Length: indicates the length of the value of the VPN SRv6
SID TLV, it excludes the 2 octets of the index field.
Index: The Index field is 2-byte long of which the top-most bit,
G-bit, is used to flag a Group Index. It is defined in
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv].
SRv6 SID for Remote VPN Route: indicates the SRv6 SID of the remote
VPN route.
3. Operations
As described in section 1, when PE1 reports the Loc-RIB routing
information in VPN11 to the BMP server through an RM message, PE1
reports the remote device address and the RD of the remote VPN
instance through the Remote VRF Information TLV defined in this
draft, as shown in the following:
Prefix: P1
Nexthop: 10.10.10.2
Peer Distinguisher: RD11 --> The RD of VPN11 on PE1
Peer Address: 0.0.0.0
Peer BGP ID: 10.10.10.1 --> The router-id of the VRF instance VPN11
Remote BGP ID: 10.10.10.2 --> The remote peer address or BGP ID or Originater
Remote Route Distinguisher: RD22 --> The RD of the remote VPN instance
Figure 8: The Loc-RIB routing information in VPN11 to the BMP server
Zhuang, et al. Expires 9 May 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft bmp-vrf-loc-rib-enhancement November 2025
After obtaining the above route information via the RM message, the
BMP server can deduce the remote VPN instance information
corresponding to the VPN route information via the reported
information in the Remote VRF Information TLV.
In some usecases, the label/SRv6 ID carried in the remote VPN route
needs to be reported, as described in section 1, when PE1 reports the
Loc-RIB routing information in VPN11 to the BMP server through an RM
message, it can report the label/SRv6 ID carried in the remote VPN
route as following:
Prefix: P1
Nexthop: 10.10.10.2
Peer Distinguisher: RD11 --> The RD of VPN11 on PE1
Peer Address: 0.0.0.0
Peer BGP ID: 10.10.10.1 --> The router-id of the VRF instance VPN11
Remote BGP ID: 10.10.10.2 --> The remote peer address or BGP ID or Originater
Remote Route Distinguisher: RD22 --> The RD of the remote VPN instance
(Optional)Label: L22 or (Optional)SRv6 SID: SID22
Figure 9: The Loc-RIB routing information in VPN11 to the BMP server
4. IANA Considerations
TBD
5. Security Considerations
The same considerations as in Section 11 of [RFC7854] apply to this
document. Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require that
sessions only be established with authorized and trusted monitoring
devices. It is also believed that this document does not introduce
any additional security considerations.
6. Contributors
The following people made significant contributions to this document:
To be added.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the review and inputs from xxx.
Zhuang, et al. Expires 9 May 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft bmp-vrf-loc-rib-enhancement November 2025
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv]
Lucente, P. and Y. Gu, "BMP v4: TLV Support for BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Route Monitoring and Peer Down
Messages", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
grow-bmp-tlv-19, 10 October 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-
bmp-tlv-19>.
[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>.
[RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2918, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2918>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC7313] Patel, K., Chen, E., and B. Venkatachalapathy, "Enhanced
Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 7313,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7313, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7313>.
[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>.
Zhuang, et al. Expires 9 May 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft bmp-vrf-loc-rib-enhancement November 2025
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC5291] Chen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "Outbound Route Filtering
Capability for BGP-4", RFC 5291, DOI 10.17487/RFC5291,
August 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5291>.
Authors' Addresses
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
Nan Geng
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100053
China
Email: gengnan@huawei.com
Haibo Wang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: rainsword.wang@huawei.com
Zhuang, et al. Expires 9 May 2026 [Page 10]