Global Routing Operations P. Lucente
Internet-Draft NTT
Updates: 7854 (if approved) Y. Gu
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: November 6, 2020 May 5, 2020
Support for Enterprise-specific TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
draft-lucente-grow-bmp-tlv-ebit-01
Abstract
Message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) do
provision for optional trailing data in TLV - Type, Length, Value -
format; however the space for Type value is unique and governed by
IANA. To allow the usage of vendor-specific TLVs, a mechanism to
define per-vendor Type values is required. With this document we
want to introduce an Enterprise Bit, or E-bit, for such purpose.
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 November 6, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Lucente & Gu Expires November 6, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV EBIT May 2020
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. IANA-registered TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Enterprise-specific TLV encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. TLV encoding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) is defined in RFC 7854 [RFC7854].
Support for trailing TLV data is extended by TLV support for BMP
Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv].
Vendors need the ability to define proprietary Information Elements,
because, for example, they are delivering a pre-standards product, or
the Information Element is in some way commercially sensitive.
This document re-defines the format of IANA-registered TLVs in a
backward compatible manner with respect to previous documents and
existing IANA allocations; it also defines the format for newly
introduced enterprise-specific TLVs.
The concept of an E-bit, or Enterprise bit, is not new. For example
such mechanism is defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC7011] for a very
similar purpose.
2. Terminology
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Lucente & Gu Expires November 6, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV EBIT May 2020
3. TLV encoding
3.1. IANA-registered TLV encoding
Existing TLV encoding defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] is reviewed
as follows:
o 1 bit to flag an enterprise-specific TLV set to zero. The TLV
Type value must have been defined in IANA-BMP [IANA-BMP]
o 15 bits of TLV Type,
o 2 octets of TLV Length,
o 0 or more octets of TLV Value.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| Type | Length (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
3.2. Enterprise-specific TLV encoding
Enterprise-specific TLV encoding is defined as follows:
o 1 bit to flag an enterprise-specific TLV set to one
o 15 bits of TLV Type,
o 2 octets of TLV Length,
o 4 octets of IANA enterprise number IANA-PEN [IANA-PEN]
o 0 or more octets of TLV Value.
Lucente & Gu Expires November 6, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV EBIT May 2020
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| Type | Length (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Enterprise number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2
3.3. TLV encoding remarks
The encoding specified in this document applies to all existing BMP
Message Types and their namespaces defined in RFC 7854 [RFC7854], TLV
support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv] and BMP Peer Up Message Namespace
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up]. While the proposed encoding is not per-
se backward compatible, there is no existing IANA-allocated Type
value that makes use of the most significant bit (which is being used
in this document to define the E-bit).
Future BMP Message Types MUST make use of the TLV encoding defined in
this document.
TLVs SHOULD be sorted by their code point. Multiple TLVs of the same
type can be repeated as part of the same message and it is left to
the specific use-cases whether all, any, the first or the last TLV
should be considered.
4. Security Considerations
It is not believed that this document adds any additional security
considerations.
5. IANA Considerations
The TLV Type values used by BMP are managed by IANA as are the
Private Enterprise Numbers used by enterprise-specific Type values
IANA-PEN [IANA-PEN]. This document makes no changes to these
registries.
6. References
Lucente & Gu Expires November 6, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV EBIT May 2020
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up]
Scudder, J., "BMP Peer Up Message Namespace", draft-ietf-
grow-bmp-peer-up-00 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv]
Lucente, P., Gu, Y., and H. Smit, "TLV support for BMP
Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages", draft-ietf-grow-
bmp-tlv-02 (work in progress), March 2020.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<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, June 2016,
<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,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
6.2. Informative References
[IANA-BMP]
IANA, "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Parameters", 2016,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
parameters.xhtml>.
[IANA-PEN]
IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers", 1982,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
Acknowledgements
TBD
Lucente & Gu Expires November 6, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV EBIT May 2020
Authors' Addresses
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp, WT 2132
NL
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Yunan Gu
Huawei
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: guyunan@huawei.com
Lucente & Gu Expires November 6, 2020 [Page 6]