]> NTT

Siriusdreef 70-72 Hoofddorp 2132 WT NL paolo@ntt.net

Huawei

Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China guyunan@huawei.com

Independent

NL hhw.smit@xs4all.nl

General Global Routing Operations BGP BMP tlv Most of the message types defined by the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) do provision for optional trailing data. However, Route Monitoring messages (to provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing Information Base) and Peer Down messages (to indicate that a peering session was terminated) do not. Supporting optional data in TLV format across all BMP message types allows for an homogeneous and extensible surface that would be useful for the most different use-cases that need to convey additional data to a BMP station. While it is not intended for this document to cover any specific utilization scenario, it defines a simple way to support optional TLV data in all message types.

The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) is defined in RFC 7854. The Route Monitoring message consists of: Common Header Per-Peer Header BGP Update PDU The Peer Down Notification message consists of: Common Header Per-Peer Header Reason Data (only if Reason code is 1, 2 or 3) This means that both Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages have a non-extensible format. In the Route Monitoring case, this is limiting if wanting to transmit characteristics of transported NLRIs (ie. to help stateless parsing) or to add vendor-specific data. In the Peer Down case, this is limiting if matching TLVs sent with the Peer Up is desired. The proposal of this document is to bump the BMP version, for backward compatibility, and allow all message types to provision for trailing TLV data.

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 RFC 8174 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

The TLV data type is already defined in Section 4.4 of for the Initiation and Peer Up message types. A TLV consists of: 2 octets of TLV Type, 2 octets of TLV Length, 0 or more octets of TLV Value.

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. In Route Monitoring messages there may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs contained in the BGP Update message, for example, to express additional characteristics of a specific NLRI. For this purpose specifically TLVs in Route Monitoring messages can be optionally indexed, with the index starting at zero to refer to the first NLRI, and encoded as in the following figure:

Section 4.1 of defines the Common Header. While the structure remains unaltered, the following two definitions are changed: Version: Indicates the BMP version. This is set to '4' for all messages. Message Length: Total length of the message in bytes (including headers, encapsulated BGP message and optional data)

The Route Monitoring message type is defined in Section 4.6 of. The BGP Update PDU Section 4.3 of MAY be followed by TLV data. This document defines the following new code points to help stateless parsing of BGP Update PDUs: Type = &IANA_RM_CODE_4B_ASN;: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with support for the 4-octet AS number capability RFC 6793, value MUST be boolean. Type = &IANA_RM_CODE_PATH_ID;: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the ADD-PATH capability RFC 7911, value MUST be boolean. Type = &IANA_RM_CODE_MULTI_LABELS;: the BGP Update PDU is encoded with the Multiple Labels capability RFC 8277, value MUST be boolean.

The Peer Down Notification message type is defined in Section 4.9 of. For Reason codes 1 or 3, a BGP Notification PDU follows; the PDU MAY be followed by TLV data. For Reason code 2, a 2-byte field to give additional FSM info follows; this field MAY be followed by TLV data. For all other Reason codes, TLV data MAY follow the Reason field.

All other message types defined in RFC7854 do already provision for TLV data. It is RECOMMENDED that all future BMP message types will provision for trailing TLV data.

It is not believed that this document adds any additional security considerations.

In Route Monitoring messages, the number of TLVs can be bound to the amount of NLRIs carried in the BGP Update message. This may degrade the packing of information in such messages and have specific impacts on the memory and CPU used in a BMP implementation. As a result of that it should always be possible to disable such features to mitigate their impact.

This document defines the following new TLV types for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages (): Type = &IANA_RM_CODE_4B_ASN;: Support for the 4-octet AS number capability. The value field contains a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability. Type = &IANA_RM_CODE_PATH_ID;: ADD-PATH capability. The value field contains a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability. Type = &IANA_RM_CODE_MULTI_LABELS;: Multiple Labels capability. The value field contains a boolean value of 1 if the BGP Update PDU enclosed in the Route Monitoring message was encoded according to the capability.

&RFC2119; &RFC8174;

The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas and Camilo Cardona for their valuable input. The authors would also like to thank Greg Skinner for his review.