Internet DRAFT - draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv

draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv







Network Working Group                                         C. Cardona
Internet-Draft                                                P. Lucente
Intended status: Standards Track                                     NTT
Expires: May 3, 2020                                         P. Francois
                                                                    INSA
                                                                   Y. Gu
                                                                  Huawei
                                                                 T. Graf
                                                                Swisscom
                                                        October 31, 2019


                   BMP Extension for Path Marking TLV
                draft-cppy-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-01

Abstract

   The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) provides an interface for obtaining
   BGP Path information.  BGP Path Information is conveyed within BMP
   Route Monitoring (RM) messages.  This document proposes an extension
   to BMP to convey the status of a BGP path after being processed by
   the BGP best-path selection algorithm.  This extension makes use of
   the TLV mechanims described in draft-lucente-bmp-tlv
   [I-D.lucente-bmp-tlv].

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
   appear in all capitals, as shown here.

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."




Cardona, et al.            Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            BMP path marking tlv              October 2019


   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Path Marking TLV for the RM Message . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Path Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Reason String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Path Marking TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Path Marking TLV Reason String  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   For a given prefix, multiple paths with different path status, e.g.,
   the "best-path", "back-up path" and so on, may co-exist in the BGP
   RIB after being processed by the local policy and the BGP decision
   process.  The path status information is currently not carried in the
   BGP Update Message RFC4271 [RFC4271] or in the BMP Update Message
   RFC7854 [RFC7854].

   External systems can use the path status for various applications.
   The path status is commonly checked by operators when performing
   troubleshooting.  Having such status stored in a centralized system
   can enable the development of tools facilitating this process.
   Optimisation systems can include the path status in their process,
   and also use the status as a validation source (since it can compare
   the calculated state to the actual outcome of the network, such as
   primary and backup path).  As a final example, path status



Cardona, et al.            Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            BMP path marking tlv              October 2019


   information can complement other centralized sources of data, for
   example, flow collectors.

   This document defines a so-called Path Marking TLV to convey the BGP
   path status information to the BMP server.  The BMP Path Marking is
   defined to be prepended in the BMP Route Monitoring (RM) Message.

2.  Path Marking TLV for the RM Message

   As per RFC4271 [RFC4271], the BMP RM Message consists of the Common
   Header, Per-Peer Header, and the BGP Update PDU.  According to draft-
   lucente-bmp-tlv [I-D.lucente-bmp-tlv] , optional trailing data in TLV
   format is allowed in the BMP RM Message to convey characteristics of
   transported NLRIs (i.e. to help stateless parsing) or vendor-specific
   data.  Such TLV types are to be defined for each application.

   To include the path status along with each BGP path, we define the
   Path Marking TLV, shown as follows.

      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
     +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
     |        Type (2 octets)        |     Length (2 octets)         |
     +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
     |                       Path Type(4 octets)                     |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                     Reason String(Variable)                   |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+

                       Figure 1: Path Marking TLV

   o  Type = TBD1 (2 Octets): Path Marking.

   o  Length (2 Octets): indicates the length of the value field of the
      Path Marking TLV.  The value field further consists of the Path-
      Status field and Reason String field.

   o  Path-Status (4 Octets): indicates the path status of the BGP
      Update PDU encapsulated in the RM Message.  Currently 8 types of
      path status are defined, as shown in Table 1.

   o  Reason String (Variable): indicates the reasons/explanations of
      the path status indicated in the Path Type field.  The detailed
      Reason String format is defined in Figure 2.








Cardona, et al.            Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            BMP path marking tlv              October 2019


2.1.  Path Type

                     +--------+----------------------+
                     | Value  | Path type            |
                     +-------------------------------+
                     | 0x0000 | Unknown              |
                     | 0x0001 | Best path            |
                     | 0x0002 | Best external path   |
                     | 0x0004 | Primary path         |
                     | 0x0008 | Backup path          |
                     | 0x0010 | Non-installed path   |
                     | 0x0020 | Unreachable next-hop |
                     +--------+----------------------+

                          Table 1: Path Type

   The Path type field contains a bitfield where each bit encodes a
   specific role of the path.  Multiple bits may be set when a path is
   used in multiple roles.

   The best-path is defined in RFC4271 [RFC4271] and the best-external
   path is defined in draft-ietf-idr-best-external
   [I-D.ietf-idr-best-external].

   A primary path is a recursive or non-recursive path that can be used
   all the time as long as a walk starting from this path can end to an
   adjacency draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic].  A
   prefix can have more than one primary path if multipath is configured
   draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations
   [I-D.lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations].  A best-path is also
   considered as a primary path.

   A backup path is also installed in the RIB, but it is not used until
   some or all primary paths become unreachable.  Backup paths are used
   for fast convergence in the event of failures.

   All other reachable paths are marked as 'Non-installed'.

   Lastly, all paths that are considered unreachable are marked as
   'Unreachable next-hop'.  Unreachable paths may be sent only in some
   specific cases.

2.2.  Reason String








Cardona, et al.            Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            BMP path marking tlv              October 2019


      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
     +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
     |        Sub Type 1 (2 octets)  |     Length (2 octets)         |
     +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
     |                    Non-Best Reason String(Variable)           |
     +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
     |        Sub Type 2 (2 octets)  |     Length (2 octets)         |
     +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
     |                 Uninstalled Reason String(Variable)           |
     +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
     |        Sub Type 3 (2 octets)  |     Length (2 octets)         |
     +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
     |                  Unreachable Reason String(Variable)          |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+

                        Figure 2: Reason String field

   The reason string fields include multiple TLVs containing freeform
   ASCII encoded messsages containing the reason of a specific path
   status.

   o  Sub Type 1 (2 Octets) = TBD2: Non-Best Reason String.

   o  Length (2 Octets): indicates the length of the value field of the
      Non-Best Reason String.

   o  Non-Best Reason String (Variable): includes the reason why the
      path has a non-best status.

   o  Sub Type 2 (2 Octets) = TBD3: Uninstalled Reason String.

   o  Length (2 Octets): indicates the length of the value field of the
      Uninstalled Reason String.

   o  Uninstalled Reason String (Variable): includes the reason why the
      path has an uninstalled status.

   o  Sub Type 3 (2 Octets) = TBD4: Unreachable Reason String.

   o  Length (2 Octets): indicates the length of the value field of the
      Unreachable Reason String.

   o  Unreachable Reason String (Variable): includes the reason why the
      path has an unreachable status.







Cardona, et al.            Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            BMP path marking tlv              October 2019


3.  Acknowledgements

   TBD.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters
   to the BMP parameters name space.

4.1.  Path Marking TLV

   This document defines the Path Marking TLV with Type = TBD1: Path
   Marking (Section 2).

4.2.  Path Marking TLV Reason String

   This document defines three new sub types of the Reason String in the
   Path Marking TLV (Section 2.2).

   Sub Type 1 = TBD2: Non-Best Reason String.

   Sub Type 2 = TBD3: Uninstalled Reason String.

   Sub Type 3 = TBD4: Unreachable Reason String.

5.  Security Considerations

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

6.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-best-external]
              Marques, P., Fernando, R., Chen, E., Mohapatra, P., and H.
              Gredler, "Advertisement of the best external route in
              BGP", draft-ietf-idr-best-external-05 (work in progress),
              January 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic]
              Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., and P. Mohapatra, "BGP Prefix
              Independent Convergence", draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-10
              (work in progress), October 2019.

   [I-D.lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-considerations]
              Lapukhov, P. and J. Tantsura, "Equal-Cost Multipath
              Considerations for BGP", draft-lapukhov-bgp-ecmp-
              considerations-02 (work in progress), July 2019.




Cardona, et al.            Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            BMP path marking tlv              October 2019


   [I-D.lucente-bmp-tlv]
              Lucente, P., Gu, Y., and H. Smit, "TLV support for BMP
              Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages", draft-lucente-
              bmp-tlv-00 (work in progress), July 2019.

   [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>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Camilo Cardona
   NTT
   164-168, Carrer de Numancia
   Barcelona  08029
   Spain

   Email: camilo@ntt.net


   Paolo Lucente
   NTT
   Siriusdreef 70-72
   Hoofddorp, WT  2132
   Netherlands

   Email: paolo@ntt.net









Cardona, et al.            Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            BMP path marking tlv              October 2019


   Pierre Francois
   INSA
   Lyon
   France

   Email: Pierre.Francois@insa-lyon.fr


   Yunan Gu
   Huawei
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: guyunan@huawei.com


   Thomas Graf
   Swisscom
   Binzring 17
   Zurich  8045
   Switzerland

   Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com



























Cardona, et al.            Expires May 3, 2020                  [Page 8]