--- 1/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-04.txt 2019-06-07 10:13:16.830766530 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05.txt 2019-06-07 10:13:16.854767138 -0700 @@ -1,24 +1,24 @@ Global Routing Operations T. Evens Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar Updates: 7854 (if approved) Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track P. Lucente -Expires: September 25, 2019 NTT Communications +Expires: December 9, 2019 NTT Communications P. Mi Tencent S. Zhuang Huawei - March 24, 2019 + June 7, 2019 Support for Adj-RIB-Out in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) - draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-04 + draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05 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 @@ -29,21 +29,21 @@ 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 25, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on December 9, 2019. 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 @@ -105,25 +105,25 @@ 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 + This document updates the 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 + Adding Adj-RIB-Out provides 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 @@ -176,34 +176,34 @@ 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. + Similarly to Adj-RIB-In policy validation, pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out can + be 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, BGP confederations, Route Server Client) 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, + ie. Post-Policy. It is common that next-hop may be null, loopback, 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 @@ -276,25 +276,25 @@ 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. + 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. 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.