Internet DRAFT - draft-xu-rtgwg-monitoring-neighbor-state
draft-xu-rtgwg-monitoring-neighbor-state
Network Working Group F. Xu
Internet-Draft Tencent
Intended status: Standards Track S. Zhuang
Expires: April 25, 2019 Y. Gu
Huawei
October 22, 2018
Real-Time Monitoring Link/Protocol Neighbor State
draft-xu-rtgwg-monitoring-neighbor-state-00
Abstract
Various protocols are deployed in today's networks, such as BGP /
ISIS / OSPF etc. Link neighbor state changes and protocol neighbor
state changes are the most important network events that need to be
processed with the highest priority. In particular, the SDN
controller needs to quickly sense the link neighbor & protocol
neighbor state change information in the network. Thus, the various
policies applied by the SDN controller to the network can quickly
match the current state of the network. This document discusses some
possible scenarios and the relevant requirements.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 April 25, 2019.
Xu, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Monitoring Neighbor State October 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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. Requirements and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Neighbor State Information Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
Various protocols are deployed in today's networks, such as BGP /
ISIS / OSPF / LDP / BFD etc. When managing a network, one of the
most important things to monitor is changes to the various protocols'
neighbor states. Many times a protocol neighbor state change is
indicative of a problem on the network, and it is an important basis
for the SND controller to deploy the traffic steering policies.
There are several ways to monitor these state changes, e.g. we can
use command-line interface (CLI) to get them from the devices, but
typically it's done with either SNMP based polling and/or SNMP traps.
For BGP, we can use BMP (BGP Monitoring Protocol) [RFC7854] to
collect BGP neighbor state change information.
Link neighbor state changes and protocol neighbor state changes are
the most important network events that need to be processed with the
highest priority. In particular, the SDN controller needs to quickly
sense the link neighbor & protocol neighbor state change information
in the network. Thus, the various policies applied by the SDN
controller to the network can quickly match the current state of the
network.
Xu, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Monitoring Neighbor State October 2018
The problem of the current real-time data collection method:
Collecting protocol neighbor state will also collect many other large
amounts of information data associated with it and have a significant
impact on the reception/processing of high priority protocol neighbor
state data. E.g., the processing of the BMP Peer Up/Down message is
not real-time, and is affected by the receiving and processing of
other BMP messages, especially a large number of route monitoring
messages.
At present, the SDN controller uses a single channel to receive real-
time data from the network, and then classifies the data and
processes it in order, which causes the delay of the neighbor state
information processing to grow; and the neighbor information data
structure of different protocols are different; these cases will
increase the delay in which the SDN controller processes neighbor
state data.
2. Requirements and Options
Summary of requirements are as follows:
Requirement 1: Network event prioritization, Set Link neighbor state
changes and protocol neighbor state changes as the most important
network events.
Requirement 2: The structure of the link neighbor & protocol neighbor
state change information needs to use a normalized format, such as a
unified TLV.
Requirement 3: Link Neighbor & Protocol Neighbor State Change
Information requires a separate transport channel to be separated
from other low priority data.
Requirement 4: SDN controller implements the convergence mechanism of
the existing network protocol in milliseconds/second.
Some options to be discussed:
1) A new Neighbor State Monitoring Protocol.
2) Consider processing all neighbor states into LS information,
flooding them through IGP, and collecting them on the controller
through BGP-LS.
3) Consider processing all neighbor states into LS information,
imorting them to the BGP-LS Local-RIB, and collecting them on the
controller through BMP.
Xu, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Monitoring Neighbor State October 2018
4) gRPC + YANG Model.
5) To be added...
3. Neighbor State Information Format
At present, the neighbor information data structure of different
protocols are different. In order to speed up processing in
controller or collector, this document proposes to use a normalized
format as following:
+---------------------------------------+
| Protocol Type |
+---------------------------------------+
| Node-IP Address |
+---------------------------------------+
| Local-IP Address |
+---------------------------------------+
| Peer-IP Address |
+---------------------------------------+
| Neighbor State |
+---------------------------------------+
| Timestamp |
+---------------------------------------+
Figure 1 Link Neighbor/Protocol Neighbor State Information Format
Where:
Protocol Type: 1: ISIS / 2: OSPF / 3: BGP / 4: LDP / 5: BFD etc.
Node-IP Address: The IP Address of the monitored node, usually the
router ID.
Local-IP Address: Local-IP Address of the Neighbor
Peer-IP Address: Peer-IP Address of the Neighbor
Neighbor State: The state of the Neighbor
Timestamp: The timestamp of the moment of the event
4. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Haibo Wang, Zhongjia Wang for their
contributions to this work.
Xu, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Monitoring Neighbor State October 2018
5. Contributors
Mach Chen
mach.chen@huawei.com
6. IANA Considerations
TBD.
7. Security Considerations
TBD.
8. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Feng Xu
Tencent
Guangzhou
China
Email: oliverxu@tencent.com
Xu, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Monitoring Neighbor State October 2018
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
Yunan Gu
Huawei
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: guyunan@huawei.com
Xu, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 6]
