draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-00.txt		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-01.txt
	Global Routing Operations T. Evens		Global Routing Operations T. Evens
	Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar		Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar
	Updates: 7854 (if approved) M. Bhardwaj		Updates: 7854 (if approved) M. Bhardwaj
	Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems		Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
	Expires: December 11, 2017 P. Lucente		Expires: August 27, 2018 P. Lucente
	NTT Communications		NTT Communications
	June 9, 2017		February 23, 2018
	Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)		Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
	draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-00		draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to the Adj-RIB-In		The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to the Adj-RIB-In
	and locally originated routes (e.g. routes distributed into BGP from		and locally originated routes (e.g. routes distributed into BGP from
	protocols such as static) but not access to the BGP instance Loc-RIB.		protocols such as static) but not access to the BGP instance Loc-RIB.
	This document updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by		This document updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by
	adding access to the BGP instance Local-RIB, as defined in RFC 4271		adding access to the BGP instance Local-RIB, as defined in RFC 4271
	the routes that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's		the routes that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's
	Decision Process. These are the routes over all peers, locally		Decision Process. These are the routes over all peers, locally
	originated, and after best-path selection.		originated, and after best-path selection.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on December 11, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶
	3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5.2. Peer UP Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.2. Peer UP Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5.2.1. Peer UP Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.2.1. Peer UP Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 12		6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 12
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.2. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8.2. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.3. Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8.3. Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests that locally originated		The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests that locally originated
	routes are locally sourced routes, such as redistributed or otherwise		routes are locally sourced routes, such as redistributed or otherwise
	added routes to the BGP instance by the local router. It does not		added routes to the BGP instance by the local router. It does not
	specify routes that are in the BGP instance Loc-RIB, such as routes		specify routes that are in the BGP instance Loc-RIB, such as routes
	after best-path selection.		after best-path selection.
	Figure 1 shows the flow of received routes from one or more BGP peers		Figure 1 shows the flow of received routes from one or more BGP peers
	skipping to change at page 5, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 27 ¶
	paths is not enabled or if maximum number of equal paths are		paths is not enabled or if maximum number of equal paths are
	different from Loc-RIB to routes advertised.		different from Loc-RIB to routes advertised.
	This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and		This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and
	replaces Section 8.2 [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes.		replaces Section 8.2 [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes.
	1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB		1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB
	Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a		Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a
	peer. It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by		peer. It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by
	monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router. While it		monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router. At scale
	is possible to derive the Loc-RIB, it is also error prone and		this becomes overly complex and error prone.
	complex.
	/------------------------------------------------------\		/------------------------------------------------------\
	| ROUTER1 BGP Instance |		| ROUTER1 BGP Instance |
	| |		| |
	| +--------------------------------------------+ |		| +--------------------------------------------+ |
	| | Loc-RIB | |		| | Loc-RIB | |
	| +--------------------------------------------+ |		| +--------------------------------------------+ |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| +------------------+ +------------------+ |		| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
	| | Peer-ROUTER2 | | Peer-ROUTER3 | |		| | Peer-ROUTER2 | | Peer-ROUTER3 | |
	skipping to change at page 7, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 19 ¶
	link-state address family enabled.		link-state address family enabled.
	Complexities introduced with current method in order to derive (e.g.		Complexities introduced with current method in order to derive (e.g.
	correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB:		correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB:
	o Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a		o Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a
	policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more		policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more
	specifics, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not only		specifics, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not only
	does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity when		does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity when
	multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same router.		multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same router.
	The BMP receiver user is left with the erroneous task of		The BMP receiver user is left with the error prone task of
	identifying which peering session is the best representative of		identifying which peering session is the best representative of
	the Loc-RIB.		the Loc-RIB.
	o BGP peering is designed to work between administrative domains and		o BGP peering is designed to work between administrative domains and
	therefore does not need to include internal system level		therefore does not need to include internal system level
	information of each peering router (e.g. the system name or		information of each peering router (e.g. the system name or
	version information). In order to derive a Loc-RIB to a router,		version information). In order to derive a Loc-RIB to a router,
	the router name or other system information is needed. The BMP		the router name or other system information is needed. The BMP
	receiver and user are forced to do some type of correlation using		receiver and user are forced to do some type of correlation using
	what information is available in the peering session (e.g. peering		what information is available in the peering session (e.g. peering
	skipping to change at page 8, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 26 ¶
	of the Loc-RIB but may contain additional routes based on BGP		of the Loc-RIB but may contain additional routes based on BGP
	peering configuration.		peering configuration.
	o Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to		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.		an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer.
	4. Per-Peer Header		4. Per-Peer Header
	4.1. Peer Type		4.1. Peer Type
			A new peer type is defined for Loc-RIB to distinguish that it
			represents Loc-RIB with or without RD and local instances.
			Section 4.2 [RFC7854] defines a Local Instance Peer type, which is
			for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance identifier.
	This document defines the following new peer type:		This document defines the following new peer type:
	o Peer Type = TBD: Loc-RIB Instance Peer		o Peer Type = TBD: Loc-RIB Instance Peer
	4.2. Peer Flags		4.2. Peer Flags
	In section 4.2 [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment under		In section 4.2 [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment under
	the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST be		the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST be
	conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type.		conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type.
	skipping to change at page 9, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 16 ¶
	transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.		transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.
	5. Loc-RIB Monitoring		5. Loc-RIB Monitoring
	Loc-RIB contains all routes from BGP peers as well as any and all		Loc-RIB contains all routes from BGP peers as well as any and all
	routes redistributed or otherwise locally originated. In this		routes redistributed or otherwise locally originated. In this
	context, only the BGP instance Loc-RIB is included. Routes from		context, only the BGP instance Loc-RIB is included. Routes from
	other routing protocols that have not been redistributed, originated		other routing protocols that have not been redistributed, originated
	by or into BGP, or received via Adj-RIB-In are not considered.		by or into BGP, or received via Adj-RIB-In are not considered.
			Loc-RIB in this context does not attempt to maintain a pre-policy and
			post-policy representation. Loc-RIB is the selected and used routes,
			which is equivalent to post-policy.
			For example, VRF "Blue" imports several targets but filters out
			specific routes. The end result of VRF "Blue" Loc-RIB is conveyed.
			Even though the import is filtered, the result is complete for VRF
			"Blue" Loc-RIB. The F flag is not set in this case since the Loc-RIB
			is complete and not filtered to the BMP receiver.
	5.1. Per-Peer Header		5.1. Per-Peer Header
	All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the		All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the
	following values:		following values:
	o Peer Type: Set to TBD to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer.		o Peer Type: Set to TBD to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer.
	o Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the		o Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the
	global instance. Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or		global instance. Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or
	unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc-		unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc-
	skipping to change at page 10, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 35 ¶
	The following peer UP information TLV types are added:		The following peer UP information TLV types are added:
	o Type = TBD: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an		o Type = TBD: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an
	ASCII string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or		ASCII string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or
	table name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string		table name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string
	size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.		size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.
	The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included. For consistency,		The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included. For consistency,
	it is RECOMMENDED that the VRF/Table Name always be included. The		it is RECOMMENDED that the VRF/Table Name always be included. The
	default value of "global" SHOULD be used for the default Loc-RIB		default value of "global" SHOULD be used for the default Loc-RIB
	instance with a zero-filled distinguisher.		instance with a zero-filled distinguisher. If the TLV is
			included, then it SHOULD also be included in the Peer Down
			notification.
	5.3. Peer Down Notification		5.3. Peer Down Notification
	Peer down notification SHOULD follow the section 4.9 [RFC7854] reason		Peer down notification SHOULD follow the section 4.9 [RFC7854] reason
	2.		2.
			The VRF/Table Name informational TLV SHOULD be included if it was in
			the Peer UP.
	5.4. Route Monitoring		5.4. Route Monitoring
	Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the		Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the
	Loc-RIB. They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes.		Loc-RIB. They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes.
	As defined in section 4.3 [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP header		As defined in section 4.3 [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP header
	and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU."		and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU."
	5.4.1. ASN Encoding		5.4.1. ASN Encoding
	Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as		Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as
	indicated in PEER UP sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability.		indicated in PEER UP sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability.
	5.4.2. Granularity		5.4.2. Granularity
	State compression and throttling maybe used by a BMP sender		State compression and throttling SHOULD be used by a BMP sender to
	implementation to reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that		reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that are transmitted
	are transmitted to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the		to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the final resultant
	final resultant updates are sent.		updates are sent.
	For example, prefix 10.0.0.0/8 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times		For example, prefix 10.0.0.0/8 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times
	within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages		within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages
	results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4		results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4
	changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression		changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression
	interval. If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have		interval. If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have
	been transmitted.		been transmitted.
	A BMP receiver SHOULD expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring		A BMP receiver SHOULD expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring
	granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation.		granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation.
	skipping to change at page 13, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 30 ¶
	table name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string		table name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string
	size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.		size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A		[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
	Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,		Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
	[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP		[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
	Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,		Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
	9.2. URIs		9.2. URIs
	[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-		[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
	parameters.xhtml		parameters.xhtml
	Acknowledgements		Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank John Scudder for his valuable input.		The authors would like to thank John Scudder for his valuable input.
End of changes. 21 change blocks.
	25 lines changed or deleted		44 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/