rfc9736.original   rfc9736.txt 
GROW J.S. Scudder Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Scudder
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Request for Comments: 9736 Juniper Networks
Updates: 7854, 8671, 9069 (if approved) P. Lucente Updates: 7854, 8671, 9069 P. Lucente
Intended status: Standards Track NTT Category: Standards Track NTT
Expires: 5 April 2025 2 October 2024 ISSN: 2070-1721 February 2025
BMP Peer Up Message Namespace The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Peer Up Message Namespace
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-05
Abstract Abstract
RFC 7854, BGP Monitoring Protocol, uses different message types for RFC 7854, the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP), uses different message
different purposes. Most of these are Type, Length, Value (TLV) types for different purposes. Most of these are structured as Type,
structured. One message type, the Peer Up message, lacks a set of Length, Value (TLV). One message type, the Peer Up message, lacks a
TLVs defined for its use, instead sharing a namespace with the set of TLVs defined for its use, instead sharing a namespace with the
Initiation message. Subsequent experience has shown that this Initiation message. Experience has shown that this namespace sharing
namespace sharing was a mistake, as it hampers the extension of the was a mistake, as it hampers the extension of the protocol.
protocol.
This document updates RFC 7854 by creating an independent namespace This document updates RFC 7854 by creating an independent namespace
for the Peer Up message. It also updates RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 by for the Peer Up message. It also updates RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 by
moving the defined codepoints in the newly introduced registry. moving defined codepoints into the newly introduced registry.
Compliant implementations of RFC 7854, RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 also Compliant implementations of RFC 7854, RFC 8671, and RFC 9069 also
comply with this specification. comply with this specification.
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 https://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 5 April 2025. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9736.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2025 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language
2. String Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. String Definition
3. Changes to existing RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Changes to Existing RFCs
3.1. Revision to Information TLV, Renamed as Initiation 3.1. Revision to the Information TLV
Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Revision to the Peer Up Notification
3.2. Revision to Peer Up Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. Definition of Peer Up Information TLV
3.3. Definition of Peer Up Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. IANA Considerations
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Normative References
6. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE Acknowledgements
PUBLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC7854] defines a number of different BMP message types. With the [RFC7854] defines a number of different BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
exception of the Route Monitoring message type, these messages are message types. With the exception of the Route Monitoring message
TLV-structured. Most message types have distinct namespaces and IANA type, these messages are TLV-structured. Most message types have
registries. However, the namespace of the Peer Up message overlaps distinct namespaces and IANA registries. However, the namespace of
that of the Initiation message. As the BGP Monitoring Protocol has the Peer Up message overlaps that of the Initiation message. As BMP
been extended, this oversight has become problematic. In this has been extended, this overlap has become problematic. In this
document, we create a distinct namespace for the Peer Up message to document, we create distinct namespaces for the Peer Up and
eliminate this overlap, and create the corresponding missing Initiation messages to eliminate the overlap.
registry.
Compliant implementations of [RFC7854], [RFC8671] and [RFC9069] also Compliant implementations of [RFC7854], [RFC8671], and [RFC9069] also
comply with this specification. comply with this specification.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. String Definition 2. String Definition
A string TLV is a free-form sequence of UTF-8 characters whose length A string TLV is a free-form sequence of UTF-8 characters whose length
in bytes is given by the TLV's Length field. There is no requirement in bytes is given by the TLV's Length field. There is no requirement
to terminate the string with a null (or any other particular) to terminate the string with a null (or any other particular)
character -- the Length field gives its termination. character -- the Length field gives its termination.
3. Changes to existing RFCs 3. Changes to Existing RFCs
[RFC7854] is updated as detailed in the following sub-sections. [RFC7854] is updated as detailed in the following subsections.
3.1. Revision to Information TLV, Renamed as Initiation Information TLV 3.1. Revision to the Information TLV
The Information TLV defined in section 4.4 of [RFC7854] is renamed The Information TLV defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] is renamed
"Initiation Information TLV". It is used only by the Initiation "Initiation Information TLV". It is used only by the Initiation
message, not by the Peer Up message. message, not by the Peer Up message.
The definition of Type = 0 is revised to be: The definition of Type = 0 is revised as shown below. Type = 1 and
Type = 2 are unchanged; they are provided for for completeness.
* Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string * Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string
(Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If multiple (Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If multiple
string TLVs are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when string TLVs are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when
they are reported. they are reported.
* Type = 1: sysDescr. The Information field contains an ASCII * Type = 1: sysDescr. The Information field contains an ASCII
string whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the string whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the
sysDescr MIB-II [RFC1213] object. sysDescr MIB-II [RFC1213] object.
* Type = 2: sysName. The Information field contains an ASCII string * Type = 2: sysName. The Information field contains an ASCII string
whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the sysName whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the sysName
MIB-II [RFC1213] object. MIB-II [RFC1213] object.
3.2. Revision to Peer Up Notification 3.2. Revision to the Peer Up Notification
The final paragraph of section 4.10 of [RFC7854] references the The final paragraph of Section 4.10 of [RFC7854] references the
Information TLV (which is revised above (Section 3.1)). That Information TLV (which is revised above (Section 3.1)). That
paragraph is replaced by the following: paragraph is replaced by the following:
* Information: Information about the peer, using the Peer Up * Information: Information about the peer, using the Peer Up
Information TLV format defined below (Section 3.3). The String Information TLV format defined in Section 3.3 of RFC 9736. The
type may be repeated. Inclusion of the Information field is String type may be repeated. Inclusion of the Information field
OPTIONAL. Its presence or absence can be inferred by inspection is OPTIONAL. Its presence or absence can be inferred by
of the Message Length in the common header. inspection of the Message Length in the common header.
3.3. Definition of Peer Up Information TLV 3.3. Definition of Peer Up Information TLV
The Peer Up Information TLV is used by the Peer Up message. 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Information Type | Information Length | | Information Type | Information Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Information (variable) | | Information (variable) |
~ ~ ~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
* Information Type (2 bytes): defined types are: * Information Type (2 bytes): types are as defined in the "BMP Peer
Up Message TLVs" registry:
- Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string - Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string
(Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If (Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If
multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved
when they are reported. when they are reported.
- Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a - Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a
UTF-8 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF 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 or table name (e.g., RD instance name) being conveyed. The
string size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. string size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.
- Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free- - Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-
form UTF-8 string whose byte length is given by the Information form UTF-8 string whose byte length is given by the Information
Length field. The value is administratively assigned. There Length field. The value is administratively assigned. There
is no requirement to terminate the string with null or any is no requirement to terminate the string a with null or any
other character. other character.
* Information Length (2 bytes): The length of the following * Information Length (2 bytes): The length of the following
Information field, in bytes. Information field, in bytes.
* Information (variable): Information about the monitored router, * Information (variable): Information about the monitored router,
according to the type. according to the type.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create a registry within the BMP group, named IANA has created the "BMP Peer Up Message TLVs" within the "BGP
"BMP Peer Up Message TLVs", reference this document. Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Parameters" registry group and listed this
document as the reference.
Registration procedures for this registry are: Registration procedures for this registry are:
+=============+==========================+ +=============+=========================+
| Range | Registration Procedures | | Range | Registration Procedures |
+=============+==========================+ +=============+=========================+
| 0, 3-32767 | Standards Action | | 0, 3-32767 | Standards Action |
+-------------+--------------------------+ +-------------+-------------------------+
| 32768-65530 | First Come, First Served | | 32768-65530 | First Come First Served |
+-------------+--------------------------+ +-------------+-------------------------+
| 65531-65534 | Experimental | | 65531-65534 | Experimental |
+-------------+--------------------------+ +-------------+-------------------------+
| 1-2, 65535 | Reserved | | 1-2, 65535 | Reserved |
+-------------+--------------------------+ +-------------+-------------------------+
Table 1 Table 1
Initial values for this registry are: The initial values for this registry are:
+=======+================+===============+ +=======+================+===========+
| Type | Description | Reference | | Type | Description | Reference |
+=======+================+===============+ +=======+================+===========+
| 0 | String | this document | | 0 | String | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------+-----------+
| 1 | Reserved | this document | | 1 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------+-----------+
| 2 | Reserved | this document | | 2 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------+-----------+
| 3 | VRF/Table Name | this document | | 3 | VRF/Table Name | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------+-----------+
| 4 | Admin Label | this document | | 4 | Admin Label | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------+-----------+
| 65535 | Reserved | this document | | 65535 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------+-----------+
Table 2 Table 2
IANA is also requested to rename the existing "BMP Initiation and IANA has also renamed the "BMP Initiation and Peer Up Information
Peer Up Information TLVs" registry to "BMP Initiation Information TLVs" registry to "BMP Initiation Information TLVs" and populated it
TLVs" and seed it with the following values: with the following values:
+=======+=============+===============+ +=======+=============+===========+
| Type | Description | Reference | | Type | Description | Reference |
+=======+=============+===============+ +=======+=============+===========+
| 0 | String | this document | | 0 | String | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------+-----------+
| 1 | sysDescr | this document | | 1 | sysDescr | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------+-----------+
| 2 | sysName | this document | | 2 | sysName | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------+-----------+
| 3 | Reserved | this document | | 3 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------+-----------+
| 4 | Reserved | this document | | 4 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------+-----------+
| 65535 | Reserved | this document | | 65535 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------+-----------+
Table 3 Table 3
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document does not alter the security considerations of [RFC7854] This document does not alter the security considerations of [RFC7854]
which continue to apply. that continue to apply.
6. 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. 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 BMP
Peer Up Namespace:
* FRRouting
* pmacct
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Maxence Younsi for his review.
8. Normative References 6. Normative References
[RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base [RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II", for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II",
STD 17, RFC 1213, DOI 10.17487/RFC1213, March 1991, STD 17, RFC 1213, DOI 10.17487/RFC1213, March 1991,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1213>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1213>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 7, line 36 skipping to change at line 274
[RFC8671] Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Lucente, P., Mi, P., and S. [RFC8671] Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Lucente, P., Mi, P., and S.
Zhuang, "Support for Adj-RIB-Out in the BGP Monitoring Zhuang, "Support for Adj-RIB-Out in the BGP Monitoring
Protocol (BMP)", RFC 8671, DOI 10.17487/RFC8671, November Protocol (BMP)", RFC 8671, DOI 10.17487/RFC8671, November
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8671>. 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8671>.
[RFC9069] Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Bhardwaj, M., and P. Lucente, [RFC9069] Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Bhardwaj, M., and P. Lucente,
"Support for Local RIB in the BGP Monitoring Protocol "Support for Local RIB in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
(BMP)", RFC 9069, DOI 10.17487/RFC9069, February 2022, (BMP)", RFC 9069, DOI 10.17487/RFC9069, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9069>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9069>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Maxence Younsi for his review.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
John Scudder John Scudder
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America United States of America
Email: jgs@juniper.net Email: jgs@juniper.net
Paolo Lucente Paolo Lucente
NTT NTT
Veemweg 23 Veemweg 23
3771 Barneveld 3771 MT Barneveld
Netherlands Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net Email: paolo@ntt.net
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
153 lines changed or deleted 128 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.