Global Routing Operations T. Evens
Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar
Intended Status: Standards Track M. Bhardwaj
Expires: September 11, 2017 Cisco Systems
March 10, 2017 P. Lucente
NTT Communications
Support for Adj-RIB-Out in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
draft-evens-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-00
Abstract
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to only the Adj-RIB-
In Routing Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates the BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by adding access to the Adj-RIB-
Out RIBs. It adds a new flag to the peer header to distinguish Adj-
RIB-In and Adj-RIB-Out.
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2017.
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Evens, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 10, 2017
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Adj-RIB-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1 Post-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2 Pre-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. BMP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2 Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.3 Peer Down and Up Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. BMP Statistics Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Evens, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 10, 2017
1. Introduction
BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines monitoring of the received
(e.g. Adj-RIB-In) Routing Information Bases (RIBs) per peer. The
Adj-RIB-In pre-policy conveys to a BMP receiver all RIB data before
any policy has been applied. The Adj-RIB-In post-policy conveys to a
BMP receiver all RIB data after policy filters and/or modifications
have been applied. An example of pre-policy verses post-policy is
when an inbound policy applies attribute modification or filters.
Pre-policy would contain information prior to the inbound policy
changes or filters of data. Post policy would convey the changed data
or would not contain the filtered data.
Monitoring the received updates that the router received before any
policy has been applied is the primary level of monitoring for most
use-cases. Inbound policy validation and auditing is the primary
use-case for enabling post-policy monitoring.
In order for a BMP receiver to receive any BGP data, the BMP sender
(e.g. router) needs to have an established BGP peering session and
actively be receiving updates for an Adj-RIB-In.
Being able to only monitor the Adj-RIB-In puts a restriction on what
data is available to BMP receivers via BMP senders (e.g. routers).
This is an issue when the receiving end of the BGP peer is not
enabled for BMP or when it is not accessible for administrative
reasons. For example, a service provider advertises prefixes to a
customer, but the service provider cannot see what it advertises via
BMP. Asking the customer to enable BMP and monitoring of the Adj-RIB-
In is not feasible.
This document updates BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854
[RFC7854] peer header by adding a new flag to distinguish Adj-RIB-In
verses Adj-RIB-Out.
Adding Adj-RIB-Out enables the ability for a BMP sender to send to a
BMP receiver what it advertises to BGP peers, which can be used for
outbound policy validation and to monitor RIBs that were advertised.
1.1. Terminology
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].
Evens, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 10, 2017
2. Definitions
o Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains
the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the
local speaker's UPDATE messages."
o Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound
policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally would match what is in the
local RIB.
o Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to
an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer.
3. Per-Peer Header
The per-peer header has the same structure and flags as defined in
section 4.2 [RFC7854] with the following O flag addition:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V|L|A|O| Resv |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o The O flag indicates Adj-RIB-In if set to 0 and Adj-RIB-Out if
set to 1.
The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be
transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.
4. Adj-RIB-Out
4.1 Post-Policy
The primary use-case in monitoring Adj-RIB-Out is to monitor the
updates transmitted to the BGP peer after outbound policy has been
applied. These updates reflect the result after modifications and
filters have been applied (e.g. Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy). The L flag
MUST be set to 1 in this case to indicate post-policy.
4.2 Pre-Policy
As with Adj-RIB-In policy validation, there are use-cases that pre-
policy Adj-RIB-Out is used to validate and audit outbound policies.
For example, a comparison between pre-policy and post-policy can be
used to validate the outbound policy. The L flag MUST be set to 0 in
Evens, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 10, 2017
this case to indicate pre-policy.
5. BMP Messages
Many BMP messages have a per-peer header but some are not applicable
to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out monitoring. Unless otherwise defined,
the O flag should be set to 0 in the per-peer header in BMP
messages.
5.1. Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring
The O flag MUST be set accordingly to indicate if the route monitor
or route mirroring message conveys Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out.
5.2 Statistics Report
Statistics report message has Stat Type field to indicate the
statistic carried in the Stat Data field. Statistics report messages
are not specific to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out and MUST have the O
flag set to zero. The O flag SHOULD be ignored by the BMP receiver.
The following new statistic types are added:
o Stat Type = 14: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
Pre-Policy.
o Stat Type = 15: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
Post-Policy.
o Stat Type = 16: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Pre-
Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family
Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
o Stat Type = 17: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Post-
Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family
Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
5.3 Peer Down and Up Notifications
PEER UP and DOWN notifications convey BGP peering session state to
BMP receivers. The state is independent of whether or not route
monitoring or route mirroring messages will be sent for Adj-RIB-In,
Adj-RIB-Out, or both. BMP receiver implementations SHOULD ignore the
O flag in PEER UP and DOWN notifications.
Evens, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 10, 2017
6. Security Considerations
It is not believed that this document adds any additional security
considerations.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA assign the following BMP new types
to the BMP parameters name space [1].
7.1. BMP Statistics Types
This document defines two new statistic types for statistics
reporting (Section 4.2):
o Stat Type = 14: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
Pre-Policy.
o Stat Type = 15: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
Post-Policy.
o Stat Type = 16: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Pre-
Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family
Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
o Stat Type = 17: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Adj-RIB-Out Post-
Policy. The value is structured as: 2-byte Address Family
Identifier (AFI), 1-byte Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI), followed by a 64-bit Gauge.
8. References
8.1. URIs
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
parameters.xhtml
8.2. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI
10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Evens, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 10, 2017
[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, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, DOI
10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
Evens, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 10, 2017
Acknowledgments
TBD.
Authors' Addresses
Tim Evens
Cisco Systems
2901 Third Avenue, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98121
USA
Email: tievens@cisco.com
Serpil Bayraktar
Cisco Systems
3700 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: serpil@cisco.com
Manish Bhardwaj
Cisco Systems
3700 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: manbhard@cisco.com
Paolo Lucente
NTT Communications
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp 2132 WT
NL
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Evens, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 8]