Global Routing Operations T. Evens
Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar
Updates: 7854 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track P. Lucente
Expires: September 3, 2018 NTT Communications
P. Mi
Tencent
S. Zhuang
Huawei
March 2, 2018
Support for Adj-RIB-Out in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-01
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). 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 September 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Evens, et al. Expires September 3, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 2018
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Adj-RIB-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Post-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Pre-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. BMP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Route Monitoring and Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.3. Peer Down and Up Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.3.1. Peer Up Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Peer and Update Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. BMP Statistics Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.3. Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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.
Evens, et al. Expires September 3, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 2018
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.
2. 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].
3. 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.
Evens, et al. Expires September 3, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 2018
4. 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 existing flags are defined in section 4.2 [RFC7854] and the
remaining bits are reserved for future use. They SHOULD be
transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.
5. Adj-RIB-Out
5.1. 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). Some
attributes are set when the BGP message is transmitted, such as next-
hop. Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy MUST convey what is actually
transmitted to the peer, next-hop and any attribute set during
transmission should also be set and transmitted to the BMP receiver.
The L flag MUST be set to 1 to indicate post-policy.
5.2. 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.
Depending on BGP peering session type (IBGP, IBGP route reflector
client, EBGP) the candidate routes that make up the Pre-Policy Adj-
RIB-Out do not contain all local-rib routes. Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out
conveys only routes that are available based on the peering type.
Post-Policy represents the filtered/changed routes from the available
routes.
Some attributes are set only during transmission of the BGP message,
e.g. Post-Policy. It is common that next-hop may be null, loopback,
Evens, et al. Expires September 3, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 2018
or similar during this phase. All mandatory attributes, such as
next-hop, MUST be either ZERO or have an empty length if they are
unknown at the Pre-Policy phase. The BMP receiver will treat zero or
empty mandatory attributes as self originated.
The L flag MUST be set to 0 to indicate pre-policy.
6. 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.
6.1. 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.
6.2. 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 = TBD: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
Pre-Policy.
o Stat Type = TBD: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
Post-Policy.
o Stat Type = TBD: 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 = TBD: 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.
6.3. 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,
Evens, et al. Expires September 3, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 2018
Adj-RIB-Out, or both. BMP receiver implementations SHOULD ignore the
O flag in PEER UP and DOWN notifications. BMP receiver
implementations MUST use the per-peer header O flag in route
monitoring and mirroring messages in order to identify if the message
is for Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out.
6.3.1. Peer Up Information
The following peer UP information TLV types are added:
o Type = TBD: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-
form UTF-8 string whose length is given by the Information Length
field. The value is administratively assigned. There is no
requirement to terminate the string with null or any other
character.
Multiple admin labels can be included in the Peer UP. When
multiple admin labels are included the BMP receiver MUST preserve
the order.
The TLV is optional.
7. Other Considerations
7.1. Peer and Update Groups
Peer and update groups are used to group updates shared by many
peers. This is a level of efficiency in the implementation, not a
true representation of what is conveyed to a peer in either Pre-
Policy or Post-Policy.
One of the use-cases to monitor Adj-RIB-Out Post-Policy is to
validate and continually ensure the egress updates match what is
expected. For example, wholesale peers should never have routes with
community X:Y sent to them. In this use-case, there maybe hundreds
of wholesale peers but a single peer could have represented the
group.
A single peer could be used to represent a group. From a BMP
perspective, this should be simple to include a group name in the
PEER UP, but it is more complex than that. BGP implementations have
evolved to provide comprehensive and structured policy grouping, such
as session, afi/safi, and template based group policy inheritances.
This level of structure and inheritance of polices does not provide a
simple peer group name or ID, such as wholesale peer.
Evens, et al. Expires September 3, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 2018
Instead of requiring a group name to be used, a new administrative
label informational TLV (Section 6.3.1) is added to the Peer UP
message. These labels have administrative scope relevance. For
example, labels "type=wholesale" and "region=west" could be used to
monitor expected policies.
Configuration and assignment of labels to peers is BGP implementation
specific.
8. Security Considerations
It is not believed that this document adds any additional security
considerations.
9. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters
to the BMP parameters name space [1].
9.1. BMP Peer Flags
This document defines the following new per-peer header flags
(Section 4):
o Flag 3 as O flag: The O flag indicates Adj-RIB-In if set to 0 and
Adj-RIB-Out if set to 1.
9.2. BMP Statistics Types
This document defines four new statistic types for statistics
reporting (Section 6.2):
o Stat Type = TBD: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
Pre-Policy.
o Stat Type = TBD: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Adj-RIBs-Out
Post-Policy.
o Stat Type = TBD: 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 = TBD: 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.
Evens, et al. Expires September 3, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 2018
9.3. Peer UP Information TLV
This document defines the following new BMP PEER UP informational
message TLV types (Section 6.3.1):
o Type = TBD: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-
form UTF-8 string whose length is given by the Information Length
field. The value is administratively given by the Information
Length field. The value is administratively assigned. There is
no requirement to terminate the string with null or any other
character.
10. References
10.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[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>.
10.2. URIs
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
parameters.xhtml
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Scudder for his valuable input.
Contributors
Manish Bhardwaj
Cisco Systems
3700 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Evens, et al. Expires September 3, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 2018
Email: manbhard@cisco.com
Xianyuzheng
Tencent
Tencent Building, Kejizhongyi Avenue,
Hi-techPark, Nanshan District,Shenzhen 518057, P.R.China
Weiguo
Tencent
Tencent Building, Kejizhongyi Avenue,
Hi-techPark, Nanshan District,Shenzhen 518057, P.R.China
Shugang cheng
H3C
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
Paolo Lucente
NTT Communications
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp, WT 2132
NL
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Evens, et al. Expires September 3, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BMP Adj-RIB-Out March 2018
Penghui Mi
Tencent
Tengyun Building,Tower A ,No. 397 Tianlin Road
Shanghai 200233
China
Email: kevinmi@tencent.com
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
Evens, et al. Expires September 3, 2018 [Page 10]