draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-01.txt   draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-02.txt 
IDR J. Snijders IDR J. Snijders
Internet-Draft NTT Internet-Draft NTT
Updates: 4486 (if approved) J. Heitz Updates: 4486 (if approved) J. Heitz
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: June 3, 2017 J. Scudder Expires: July 18, 2017 J. Scudder
Juniper Juniper
November 30, 2016 January 14, 2017
BGP Administrative Shutdown with Additional Communication BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication
draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-01 draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-02
Abstract Abstract
This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
"Administrative Shutdown" subcode for operators to transmit a short "Administrative Shutdown" subcode for operators to transmit a short
freeform message to describe why a BGP session was shutdown. freeform message to describe why a BGP session was shutdown.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
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 http://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 June 3, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 18, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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 (http://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
2. Shutdown Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Shutdown Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 4 7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 4
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
It can be troublesome for an operator to correlate a BGP-4 [RFC4271] It can be troublesome for an operator to correlate a BGP-4 [RFC4271]
session teardown in the network with a notice that was transmitted session teardown in the network with a notice that was transmitted
via off-line methods such email or telephone calls. This document via off-line methods such email or telephone calls. This document
specifies a mechanism to transmit a short freeform UTF-8 [RFC3629] specifies a mechanism to transmit a short freeform UTF-8 [RFC3629]
message as part of a Cease NOTIFICATION message [RFC4486] to inform message as part of a Cease NOTIFICATION message [RFC4486] to inform
the peer why the BGP session is being shutdown. the peer why the BGP session is being shutdown.
skipping to change at page 3, line 19 skipping to change at page 3, line 19
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... Shutdown Communication ... | | ... Shutdown Communication ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Length value can range from 0 to 128 and indicates how many The Length value can range from 0 to 128 and indicates how many
octets of Shutdown Communication follow. octets of Shutdown Communication follow.
To support international characters, the Shutdown Communication field To support international characters, the Shutdown Communication field
MUST be encoded using UTF-8. MUST be encoded using UTF-8. A receiving BGP speaker MUST NOT
interpret invalid UTF-8 sequences.
The sending BGP speaker SHOULD avoid octet values below 32 (control
characters), however these values are legal. Following UNICODE TR36
[UTR36], Sec 3.1, the sending BGP speaker MUST encode messages in the
"shortest form" and MUST NOT interpret messages in the "non-shortest
form". A receiving BGP speaker MUST NOT interpret invalid UTF-8
sequences.
Mechanisms concerning the reporting of information contained in the Mechanisms concerning the reporting of information contained in the
Shutdown Communication are implementation specific but SHOULD include Shutdown Communication are implementation specific but SHOULD include
methods such as SYSLOG [RFC5424]. methods such as SYSLOG [RFC5424].
3. Operational Considerations 3. Operational Considerations
Operators are encouraged to use the Shutdown Communication to inform Operators are encouraged to use the Shutdown Communication to inform
their peers of the reason for the shutdown of the BGP session and their peers of the reason for the shutdown of the BGP session and
include out-of-band reference materials. An example of a useful include out-of-band reference materials. An example of a useful
skipping to change at page 4, line 20 skipping to change at page 4, line 13
Parameters" group. Parameters" group.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document uses UTF-8 encoding for the Shutdown Communication. This document uses UTF-8 encoding for the Shutdown Communication.
There are a number of security issues with UNICODE. Implementers and There are a number of security issues with UNICODE. Implementers and
operator are advised to review UNICODE TR36 [UTR36] to learn about operator are advised to review UNICODE TR36 [UTR36] to learn about
these issues. This document guards against the technical issues these issues. This document guards against the technical issues
outlined in UTR36 by REQUIRING "shortest form" encoding. However, outlined in UTR36 by REQUIRING "shortest form" encoding. However,
the visual spoofing due to character confusion still persists. This the visual spoofing due to character confusion still persists. This
document tries to minimize the effects of visual spoofing by allowing specification minimizes the effects of visual spoofing by limiting
UNICODE only where local script is expected and needed, and by the length of the Shutdown Communication.
limiting the length of the Shutdown Communication.
Users of this mechanism should be aware that unless a transport that
provides integrity (such as TCP-AO [RFC5925]) is used for the BGP
session in question, a Shutdown Communication message could be
forged. Unless a transport that provides confidentiality (such as
IPSec [RFC4303]) is used, a Shutdown Communication message could be
snooped by an attacker. These issues are common to any BGP message
but may be of greater interest in the context of this proposal since
the information carried in the message is generally expected to be
used for human-to-human communication.
7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION
This section records the status of known implementations of the This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC7942. The
The description of implementations in this section is intended to description of implementations in this section is intended to assist
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs.
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist. exist.
As of today these vendors have produced an implementation of the As of today these vendors have produced an implementation of the
Shutdown Communication: Shutdown Communication:
o ExaBGP o ExaBGP [1]
o pmacct [2]
o OpenBGPD [3]
o Wireshark [4] (packet analyser)
o tcpdump [5], (alt) [6] (packet analyser)
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. 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>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 5, line 20 skipping to change at page 5, line 29
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>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4486] Chen, E. and V. Gillet, "Subcodes for BGP Cease [RFC4486] Chen, E. and V. Gillet, "Subcodes for BGP Cease
Notification Message", RFC 4486, DOI 10.17487/RFC4486, Notification Message", RFC 4486, DOI 10.17487/RFC4486,
April 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4486>. April 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4486>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, [RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5424, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5424, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5424>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5424>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[UTR36] Davis, M. and M. Suignard, "Unicode Security [UTR36] Davis, M. and M. Suignard, "Unicode Security
Considerations", Unicode Technical Report #36, August Considerations", Unicode Technical Report #36, August
2010, <http://unicode.org/reports/tr36/>. 2010, <http://unicode.org/reports/tr36/>.
8.3. URIs
[1] https://github.com/Exa-Networks/exabgp/blob/d8b7cd24e835b9dabfddc
87d74e0161921165a50/lib/exabgp/bgp/message/
notification.py#L112-L144
[2] https://github.com/pmacct/pmacct/compare/ed8df5820c9f0b8847a7b087
3ade3af8ab262113...9fd97a77d144b15bf42d4e55a4d861c499bb0cfc
[3] https://github.com/openbsd/src/
commit/0561b344da393d4a962339c507c2e78057100ae1
[4] https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-commits/201612/
msg00238.html
[5] https://github.com/the-tcpdump-group/tcpdump/pull/578
[6] http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=148379081203084&w=2
Appendix A. Acknowledgements Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Tom Scholl, David The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Tom Scholl, David
Freedman, Jared Mauch, Jeff Haas, Peter Hessler, Bruno Decraene, and Freedman, Jared Mauch, Jeff Haas, Peter Hessler, Bruno Decraene, John
John Heasley. Heasley, Peter van Dijk, and Arjen Zonneveld.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Job Snijders Job Snijders
NTT Communications NTT Communications
Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 Theodorus Majofskistraat 100
Amsterdam 1065 SZ Amsterdam 1065 SZ
NL The Netherlands
Email: job@ntt.net Email: job@ntt.net
Jakob Heitz Jakob Heitz
Cisco Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive 170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95054 San Jose, CA 95054
USA USA
Email: jheitz@cisco.com Email: jheitz@cisco.com
John Scudder John Scudder
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
38 lines changed or deleted 69 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/