Internet-Draft BMP Peer Up Namespace July 2023
Scudder & Lucente Expires 8 January 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
GROW
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-01
Updates:
7854, 8671, 9069 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
J.S. Scudder
Juniper Networks
P. Lucente
NTT

BMP Peer Up Message Namespace

Abstract

RFC 7854, BMP, uses different message types for different purposes. Most of these are Type, Length, Value (TLV) structured. One message type, the Peer Up message, lacks a set of TLVs defined for its use, instead sharing a namespace with the Initiation message. Subsequent experience has shown that this namespace sharing was a mistake, as it hampers the extension of the protocol.

This document updates RFC 7854 by creating an independent namespace for the Peer Up message. It also updates RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 by moving the defined codepoints in the newly introduced registry. The changes in this document are formal only, compliant implementations of RFC 7854, RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 also comply with this specification.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 January 2024.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

[RFC7854] defines a number of different BMP message types. With the exception of the Route Monitoring message type, these messages are TLV-structured. Most message types have distinct namespaces and IANA registries. However, the namespace of the Peer Up message overlaps that of the Initiation message. As the BMP protocol has been extended, this oversight has become problematic. In this document, we create a distinct namespace for the Peer Up message to eliminate this overlap, and create the corresponding missing registry.

The changes in this document are formal only, compliant implementations of [RFC7854], [RFC8671] and [RFC9069] also comply with this specification.

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. String Definition

A string TLV is a free-form sequence of UTF-8 characters whose length is given by the TLV's Length field. There is no requirement to terminate the string with a null (or any other particular) character -- the Length field gives its termination.

3. Changes to existing RFCs

We update [RFC7854] as follows:

Other than as summarized above, and detailed below, there are no other changes.

3.1. Revision to Information TLV, Renamed as Initiation Information TLV

The Information TLV defined in section 4.4 of [RFC7854] is renamed "Initiation Information TLV". It is used only by the Initiation message, not by the Peer Up message.

The definition of Type = 0 is revised to be:

  • Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string (Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when they are reported.
  • Type = 1: sysDescr. The Information field contains an ASCII string whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the sysDescr MIB-II [RFC1213] object.
  • Type = 2: sysName. The Information field contains an ASCII string whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the sysName MIB-II [RFC1213] object.

3.2. Revision to Peer Up Notification

The final paragraph of section 4.10 of [RFC7854] references the Information TLV (which is revised above (Section 3.1)). That paragraph is replaced by the following:

3.3. Definition of Peer Up Information TLV

The Peer Up Information TLV is used by the Peer Up message.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          Information Type     |       Information Length      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                 Information (variable)                        |
~                                                               ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  • Information Type (2 bytes): Type of information provided. Defined types are:

    • Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string (Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when they are reported.
    • Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table name (e.g., RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.
    • Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-form UTF-8 string whose byte length is given by the Information Length field. The value is administratively assigned. There is no requirement to terminate the string with null or any other character.
  • Information Length (2 bytes): The length of the following Information field, in bytes.
  • Information (variable): Information about the monitored router, according to the type.

4. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to create a registry within the BMP group, named "BMP Peer Up Message TLVs", reference this document.

Registration procedures for this registry are:

Table 1
Range Registration Procedures
0-32767 Standards Action
32768-65530 First Come, First Served
65531-65534 Experimental
65535 Reserved

Initial values for this registry are:

Table 2
Type Description Reference
0 String this document
3 VRF/Table Name this document
4 Admin Label this document
65535 Reserved this document

5. Security Considerations

This rearrangement of deck chairs does not change the underlying security issues inherent in the existing [RFC7854].

6. Acknowledgements

TBD

7. Normative References

[RFC1213]
McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II", STD 17, RFC 1213, DOI 10.17487/RFC1213, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1213>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7854]
Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8671]
Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Lucente, P., Mi, P., and S. Zhuang, "Support for Adj-RIB-Out in the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 8671, DOI 10.17487/RFC8671, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8671>.
[RFC9069]
Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Bhardwaj, M., and P. Lucente, "Support for Local RIB in the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 9069, DOI 10.17487/RFC9069, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9069>.

Authors' Addresses

John Scudder
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Veemweg 23
3771 Barneveld
Netherlands