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/