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/