Global Routing Operations                                     P. Lucente
Internet-Draft                                                       NTT
Updates: 7854 (if approved)                                        Y. Gu
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: April 28, 2022                                 October 25, 2021


      TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages
                       draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-06

Abstract

   Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol
   (BMP) do provision for optional trailing data.  However, Route
   Monitoring messages (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing
   Information Base) and Peer Down messages (to indicate that a peering
   session was terminated) do not.  Supporting optional data in TLV
   format across all BMP message types allows for an homogeneous and
   extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use-
   cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station.  While it
   is not intended for this document to cover any specific utilization
   scenario, it defines a simple way to support optional TLV data in all
   message types.

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 April 28, 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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



Lucente & Gu             Expires April 28, 2022                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   BMP TLV                    October 2021


   (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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  TLV encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  BMP Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  TLV data in Route Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.3.  TLV data in Peer Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.4.  TLV data in other BMP messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) is defined in RFC 7854 [RFC7854].

   The Route Monitoring message consists of:

   o  Common Header

   o  Per-Peer Header

   o  BGP Update PDU

   The Peer Down Notification message consists of:

   o  Common Header

   o  Per-Peer Header

   o  Reason

   o  Data (only if Reason code is 1, 2 or 3)





Lucente & Gu             Expires April 28, 2022                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   BMP TLV                    October 2021


   This means that both Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages have a
   non-extensible format.  In the Route Monitoring case, this is
   limiting if wanting to transmit characteristics of transported NLRIs
   (ie. to help stateless parsing) or to add vendor-specific data.  In
   the Peer Down case, this is limiting if matching TLVs sent with the
   Peer Up is desired.  The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP
   version, for backward compatibility, and allow all message types to
   provision for trailing TLV data.

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.

3.  TLV encoding

   The TLV data type is already defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] for
   the Initiation and Peer Up message types.  A TLV consists of:

   o  2 octets of TLV Type,

   o  2 octets of TLV Length,

   o  0 or more octets of TLV Value.


      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Type (2 octets)        |     Length (2 octets)         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                      Value (variable)                         ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                                 Figure 1

   TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their code point.  Multiple TLVs of the same
   type can be repeated as part of the same message, and it is left to
   the specific use-cases whether all, any, the first or the last TLV
   should be considered.

   Route Monitoring messages may require per-NLRI TLVs, that is, there
   may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs contained in the BGP Update
   message, for example, to express additional characteristics of a
   specific NLRI.  For this purpose specifically, TLVs in Route



Lucente & Gu             Expires April 28, 2022                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   BMP TLV                    October 2021


   Monitoring messages MUST be indexed, with the index starting at one
   (1) to refer to the first NLRI.  Index zero (0) specifies that a TLV
   does apply to all NLRIs contained in the BGP Update message.  Indexed
   TLVs are encoded as in the following figure:


      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Type (2 octets)        |     Length (2 octets)         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Index (2 octets)       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                      Value (variable)                         ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                                 Figure 2

   Of the BMP message types defined so far, indexed TLVs do apply only
   to Route Monitoring messages and, for example, they do not apply to
   Route Mirroring ones because the sender may not be aware of the
   payload of the transported BGP Update message.

4.  BMP Message Format

4.1.  Common Header

   Section 4.1 of [RFC7854] defines the Common Header.  While the
   structure remains unaltered, the following two definitions are
   changed:

   o  Version: Indicates the BMP version.  This is set to '4' for all
      messages.

   o  Message Length: Total length of the message in bytes (including
      headers, encapsulated BGP message and optional data)

4.2.  TLV data in Route Monitoring

   The Route Monitoring message type is defined in Section 4.6 of
   [RFC7854].  The BGP Update PDU Section 4.3 of [RFC4271] MAY be
   followed by TLV data.  This document defines the following new code
   points to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs:

   o  Type = TBD1: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with support for the
      4-octet AS number capability RFC 6793 [RFC6793], value MUST be
      boolean.




Lucente & Gu             Expires April 28, 2022                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   BMP TLV                    October 2021


   o  Type = TBD2: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the ADD-PATH
      capability RFC 7911 [RFC7911], value MUST be boolean.

   o  Type = TBD3: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the Multiple
      Labels capability RFC 8277 [RFC8277], value MUST be boolean.

4.3.  TLV data in Peer Down

   The Peer Down Notification message type is defined in Section 4.9 of
   [RFC7854].  For Reason codes 1 or 3, a BGP Notification PDU follows;
   the PDU MAY be followed by TLV data.  For Reason code 2, a 2-byte
   field to give additional FSM info follows; this field MAY be followed
   by TLV data.  For all other Reason codes, TLV data MAY follow the
   Reason field.

4.4.  TLV data in other BMP messages

   All other message types defined in RFC7854 [RFC7854] do already
   provision for TLV data.  It is RECOMMENDED that all future BMP
   message types will provision for trailing TLV data.

5.  Security Considerations

   It is not believed that this document adds any additional security
   considerations.

6.  Operational Considerations

   In Route Monitoring messages, the number of TLVs can be bound to the
   amount of NLRIs carried in the BGP Update message.  This may degrade
   the packing of information in such messages and have specific impacts
   on the memory and CPU used in a BMP implementation.  As a result of
   that it should always be possible to disable such features to
   mitigate their impact.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines the following new TLV types for BMP Route
   Monitoring and Peer Down messages (Section 4.2):

   o  Type = TBD1: Support for the 4-octet AS number capability.  The
      value field contains a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU
      enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to
      the capability.

   o  Type = TBD2: ADD-PATH capability.  The value field contains a
      boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route
      Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability.



Lucente & Gu             Expires April 28, 2022                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   BMP TLV                    October 2021


   o  Type = TBD3: Multiple Labels capability.  The value field contains
      a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route
      Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability.

8.  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>.

   [RFC6793]  Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
              Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7911]  Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
              "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8277]  Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
              Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas, Camilo Cardona, Thomas
   Graf and Pierre Francois for their valuable input.  The authors would
   also like to thank Greg Skinner for his review.







Lucente & Gu             Expires April 28, 2022                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   BMP TLV                    October 2021


Authors' Addresses

   Paolo Lucente
   NTT
   Siriusdreef 70-72
   Hoofddorp, WT  2132
   NL

   Email: paolo@ntt.net


   Yunan Gu
   Huawei
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: guyunan@huawei.com

































Lucente & Gu             Expires April 28, 2022                 [Page 7]