draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-10.txt		rfc8203.txt
	IDR J. Snijders		Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Snijders
	Internet-Draft NTT		Request for Comments: 8203 NTT
	Updates: 4486 (if approved) J. Heitz		Updates: 4486 J. Heitz
	Intended status: Standards Track Cisco		Category: Standards Track Cisco
	Expires: December 17, 2017 J. Scudder		ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Scudder
	Juniper		Juniper
	June 15, 2017		July 2017
	BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication		BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication
	draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-10
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message		This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
	"Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for		"Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
	operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP		operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
	session was shutdown or reset. This document updates RFC 4486.		session was shutdown or reset. This document updates RFC 4486.
	Requirements Language
	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 [RFC2119].
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This is an Internet Standards Track document.
	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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		received public review and has been approved for publication by the
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
			Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 2017.		Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
			and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
			http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8203.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 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
			1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Shutdown Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		2. Shutdown Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 5		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 offline methods such as email or telephone calls. This document
	updates [RFC4486] by specifying a mechanism to transmit a short		updates [RFC4486] by specifying a mechanism to transmit a short
	freeform UTF-8 [RFC3629] message as part of a Cease NOTIFICATION		freeform UTF-8 [RFC3629] message as part of a Cease NOTIFICATION
	message [RFC4271] to inform the peer why the BGP session is being		message [RFC4271] to inform the peer why the BGP session is being
	shutdown or reset.		shutdown or reset.
			1.1. Requirements Language
			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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
			capitals, as shown here.
	2. Shutdown Communication		2. Shutdown Communication
	If a BGP speaker decides to terminate its session with a BGP		If a BGP speaker decides to terminate its session with a BGP
	neighbor, and it sends a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code		neighbor, and it sends a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code
	"Cease" and Error Subcode "Administrative Shutdown" or		"Cease" and Error Subcode "Administrative Shutdown" or
	"Administrative Reset" [RFC4486], it MAY include an UTF-8 encoded		"Administrative Reset" [RFC4486], it MAY include an UTF-8 encoded
	string. The contents of the string are at the operator's discretion.		string. The contents of the string are at the operator's discretion.
	The Cease NOTIFICATION message with a Shutdown Communication is		The Cease NOTIFICATION message with a Shutdown Communication is
	encoded as below:		encoded as below:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Error code 6 | Subcode | Length | ... \		| Error Code 6 | Subcode | Length | ... \
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /
	\ \		\ \
	/ ... Shutdown Communication ... /		/ ... Shutdown Communication ... /
	\ \		\ \
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 1		Figure 1
	Subcode: the Error Subcode value MUST be one of the following		Subcode: the Error Subcode value MUST be one of the following
	values: 2 ("Administrative Shutdown") or 4 ("Administrative		values: 2 ("Administrative Shutdown") or 4 ("Administrative
	skipping to change at page 3, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 38 ¶
	Shutdown Communication: to support international characters, the		Shutdown Communication: to support international characters, the
	Shutdown Communication field MUST be encoded using UTF-8. A		Shutdown Communication field MUST be encoded using UTF-8. A
	receiving BGP speaker MUST NOT interpret invalid UTF-8 sequences.		receiving BGP speaker MUST NOT interpret invalid UTF-8 sequences.
	Note that when the Shutdown Communication contains multibyte		Note that when the Shutdown Communication contains multibyte
	characters, the number of characters will be less than the length		characters, the number of characters will be less than the length
	value. This field is not NUL terminated.		value. This field is not NUL terminated.
	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
	Shutdown Communication would be:		Shutdown Communication would be:
	"[TICKET-1-1438367390] software upgrade, back in 2 hours"		"[TICKET-1-1438367390] software upgrade; back in 2 hours"
	"[TICKET-1-1438367390]" is a ticket reference with significance to		"[TICKET-1-1438367390]" is a ticket reference with significance to
	both the sender and receiver, followed by a brief human readable		both the sender and receiver, followed by a brief human-readable
	message regarding the reason for the BGP session shutdown followed by		message regarding the reason for the BGP session shutdown followed by
	an indication about the length of the maintenance. The receiver can		an indication about the length of the maintenance. The receiver can
	now use the string 'TICKET-1-1438367390' to search in their email		now use the string 'TICKET-1-1438367390' to search in their email
	archive to find more details.		archive to find more details.
	4. Error Handling		4. Error Handling
	If a Shutdown Communication with an invalid Length value, or an		If a Shutdown Communication with an invalid Length value, or an
	invalid UTF-8 sequence is received, a message indicating this event		invalid UTF-8 sequence is received, a message indicating this event
	SHOULD be logged for the attention of the operator. An erroneous or		SHOULD be logged for the attention of the operator. An erroneous or
	malformed Shutdown Communication itself MAY be logged in a hexdump		malformed Shutdown Communication itself MAY be logged in a hexdump
	format.		format.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	Per this document, IANA is requested to reference this document at		IANA references this document (in addition to [RFC4486]) for subcodes
	subcode "Administrative Shutdown", and at subcode "Administrative		"Administrative Shutdown" (2) and "Administrative Reset" (4) in the
	Reset" in the "Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry under		"Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry under the "Border
	the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in addition to		Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group.
	[RFC4486].
	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		operators are advised to review Unicode Technical Report #36 [UTR36]
	these issues. UTF-8 "Shortest Form" encoding is REQUIRED to guard		to learn about these issues. UTF-8 "Shortest Form" encoding is
	against the technical issues outlined in UTR36.		REQUIRED to guard against the technical issues outlined in [UTR36].
	As BGP Shutdown Communications are likely to appear in syslog output,		As BGP Shutdown Communications are likely to appear in syslog output,
	there is a risk that carefully constructed Shutdown Communication		there is a risk that carefully constructed Shutdown Communication
	might be formatted by receiving systems in a way to make them appear		might be formatted by receiving systems in a way to make them appear
	as additional syslog messages. To limit the ability to mount such an		as additional syslog messages. To limit the ability to mount such an
	attack, the BGP Shutdown Communication is limited to 128 octets in		attack, the BGP Shutdown Communication is limited to 128 octets in
	length.		length.
	Users of this mechanism should be aware that unless a transport that		Users of this mechanism should be aware that unless a transport that
	provides integrity is used for the BGP session in question, a		provides integrity is used for the BGP session in question, a
	Shutdown Communication message could be forged. Unless a transport		Shutdown Communication message could be forged. Unless a transport
	that provides confidentiality is used, a Shutdown Communication		that provides confidentiality is used, a Shutdown Communication
	message could be snooped by an attacker. These issues are common to		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		any BGP message but may be of greater interest in the context of this
	proposal since the information carried in the message is generally		proposal since the information carried in the message is generally
	expected to be used for human-to-human communication. Refer to the		expected to be used for human-to-human communication. Refer to the
	related considerations in [RFC4271] and [RFC4272].		related considerations in [RFC4271] and [RFC4272].
	Users of this mechanism should consider applying data minimization		Users of this mechanism should consider applying data minimization
	practises as outlined in Section 6.1 [RFC6973] as a received Shutdown		practices as outlined in Section 6.1 of [RFC6973] because a received
	Communication may be used at the receiver's discretion.		Shutdown Communication may be used at the receiver's discretion.
	7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION
	This section records the status of known implementations of the
	protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
	Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC7942. The
	description of implementations in this section is intended to assist
	the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs.
	Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here
	does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has
	been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied
	by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be
	construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
	features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
	exist.
	As of today these vendors have produced an implementation of the
	Shutdown Communication:
	o ExaBGP
	o pmacct
	o OpenBGPD
	o GoBGP
	o FreeRangeRouting (frr)
	o tcpdump (packet analyser)
	o Wireshark (packet analyser)
	8. References		7. References
	8.1. Normative References		7.1. 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>.
	[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO		[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
	10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November		10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
	2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.		2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
	[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>.		<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		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
			2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
			May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
			7.2. Informative References
	[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",		[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
	RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,		RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
	[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>.
	[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,		[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
	Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy		Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
	Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,		Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.
	[UTR36] Davis, M. and M. Suignard, "Unicode Security		[UTR36] Davis, M., Ed. and M. Suignard, Ed., "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/>.
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements		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, John		Freedman, Jared Mauch, Jeff Haas, Peter Hessler, Bruno Decraene, John
	Heasley, Peter van Dijk, Arjen Zonneveld, James Bensley, Susan Hares,		Heasley, Peter van Dijk, Arjen Zonneveld, James Bensley, Susan Hares,
	Saku Ytti, Lou Berger, Alvaro Retana, and Adam Roach.		Saku Ytti, Lou Berger, Alvaro Retana, and Adam Roach.
	The authors would like to thank Enke Chen and Vincent Gillet for		The authors would like to thank Enke Chen and Vincent Gillet for
	their work on [RFC4486] and granting the related BCP 78 rights to the		their work on [RFC4486] and granting the related rights to the IETF
	IETF Trust.		Trust per BCP 78.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Job Snijders		Job Snijders
	NTT Communications		NTT Communications
	Theodorus Majofskistraat 100		Theodorus Majofskistraat 100
	Amsterdam 1065 SZ		Amsterdam 1065 SZ
	The Netherlands		The Netherlands
	Email: job@ntt.net		Email: job@ntt.net
	skipping to change at page 7, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 25 ¶
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Job Snijders		Job Snijders
	NTT Communications		NTT Communications
	Theodorus Majofskistraat 100		Theodorus Majofskistraat 100
	Amsterdam 1065 SZ		Amsterdam 1065 SZ
	The Netherlands		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 95134		San Jose, CA 95134
	USA		United States of America
	Email: jheitz@cisco.com		Email: jheitz@cisco.com
	John Scudder		John Scudder
	Juniper Networks		Juniper Networks
	1194 N. Mathilda Ave		1194 N. Mathilda Ave
	Sunnyvale, CA 94089		Sunnyvale, CA 94089
	USA		United States of America
	Email: jgs@juniper.net		Email: jgs@juniper.net
End of changes. 27 change blocks.
	81 lines changed or deleted		57 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/