| Global Routing Operations | T. Evens |
| Internet-Draft | S. Bayraktar |
| Updates: 7854 (if approved) | M. Bhardwaj |
| Intended status: Standards Track | Cisco Systems |
| Expires: May 7, 2020 | P. Lucente |
| NTT Communications | |
| November 4, 2019 |
Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-06
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to the Adj-RIB-In and locally originated routes (e.g. routes distributed into BGP from protocols such as static) but not access to the BGP instance Loc-RIB. This document updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by adding access to the BGP instance Local-RIB, as defined in RFC 4271 the routes that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision Process. These are the routes over all peers, locally originated, and after best-path selection.
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 May 7, 2020.
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.
This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Local-RIB state for multiple BGP instances without the need for one or more unneeded BGP peering sessions. The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests that locally originated routes are locally sourced routes, such as redistributed or otherwise added routes to the BGP instance by the local router. It does not specify routes that are in the BGP instance Loc-RIB, such as routes after best-path selection.
Figure 1 shows the flow of received routes from one or more BGP peers into the Loc-RIB.
+------------------+ +------------------+
| Peer-A | | Peer-B |
/-- | | ---- | | --\
| | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | |
| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
| | | |
| Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| |
| V V |
| +------------------ +------------------+ |
| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| |
| +------------------ +------------------+ |
| | | |
| Selected -| Selected -| |
| V V |
| +-----------------------------------------+ |
| | Loc-RIB | |
| +-----------------------------------------+ |
| |
| ROUTER/BGP Instance |
\----------------------------------------------------/
Figure 1: BGP peering Adj-RIBs-In into Loc-RIB
As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated section 9.4 of follows a similar flow where the redistributed or otherwise originated routes get installed into the Loc-RIB based on the decision process selection.
/--------------------------------------------------------\ | | | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ | | | IS-IS | | OSPF | | Static | | BGP | | | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | Redistributed or originated into BGP | | | | | | | | | | | | | V V V V | | +----------------------------------------------+ | | | Loc-RIB | | | +----------------------------------------------+ | | | | ROUTER/BGP Instance | \--------------------------------------------------------/
Figure 2: Locally Originated into Loc-RIB
The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB access:
This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and replaces Section 8.2 of Locally Originated Routes.
/------------------------------------------------------\
| ROUTER1 BGP Instance |
| |
| +--------------------------------------------+ |
| | Loc-RIB | |
| +--------------------------------------------+ |
| | | |
| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
| | Peer-ROUTER2 | | Peer-ROUTER3 | |
| | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| |
| +------------------+ +------------------+ |
| Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| |
| V V |
| +-------------------+ +-------------------+ |
| | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| |
| +-------------------+ +-------------------+ |
| | | |
\------------- | ------------------------ | -----------/
BGP | BGP |
Peer | Peer |
+------------------+ +------------------+
| Peer-ROUTER1 | | Peer-ROUTER1 |
/--| |--\ /--| | --\
| | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | |
| +------------------+ | | +------------------+ |
| | | |
| ROUTER2/BGP Instance | | ROUTER3/BGP Instance |
\------------------------/ \-------------------------/
| |
v v
ROUTER2 BMP Feed ROUTER3 BMP Feed
Figure 3: Current method to monitor Loc-RIB
Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a peer. It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router. At scale this becomes overly complex and error prone.
The setup needed to monitor the Loc-RIB of a router requires another router with a peering session to the target router that is to be monitored. As shown in Figure 3, the target router Loc-RIB is advertised via Adj-RIB-Out to the BMP router over a standard BGP peering session. The BMP router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy to the BMP receiver.
The current method introduces the need for additional resources:
Complexities introduced with current method in order to derive (e.g. correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB:
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.
A new peer type is defined for Loc-RIB to distinguish that it represents Loc-RIB with or without RD and local instances. Section 4.2 of defines a Local Instance Peer type, which is for the case of non-RD peers that have an instance identifier.
This document defines the following new peer type:
In section 4.2 of, the "locally sourced routes" comment under the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST be conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type.
The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |F| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Loc-RIB contains all routes selected by the BGP protocol Decision Process section 9.1 of. These routes include those learned from BGP peers via its Adj-RIBs-In post-policy, as well as routes learned by other means section 9.4 of. Examples of these include redistribution of routes from other protocols into BGP or otherwise locally originated (ie. aggregate routes).
As mentioned in Section 4.2 a subset of Loc-RIB routes MAY be sent to a BMP collector by setting the F flag.
All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the following values:
Peer UP notifications follow section 4.10 of with the following clarifications:
The following Peer UP information TLV type is added:
Multiple TLVs of the same type can be repeated as part of the same message, for example to convey a filtered view of a VRF. A BMP receiver should append multiple TLVs of the same type to a set in order to support alternate or additional names for the same peer. If multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when they are reported.
Peer down notification MUST use reason code TBD3. Following the reason is data in TLV format. The following peer Down information TLV type is defined:
Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the Loc-RIB. They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes.
As defined in section 4.3 of, "Following the common BMP header and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU."
Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as indicated in PEER UP sent OPEN message capability.
State compression and throttling SHOULD be used by a BMP sender to reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that are transmitted to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the final resultant updates are sent.
For example, prefix 10.0.0.0/8 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4 changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression interval. If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have been transmitted.
A BMP receiver should expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation.
Route mirroring is not applicable to Loc-RIB and Route Mirroring messages SHOULD be ignored.
Not all Stat Types are relevant to Loc-RIB. The Stat Types that are relevant are listed below:
There are several methods to implement Loc-RIB efficiently. In all methods, the implementation emulates a peer with Peer UP and DOWN messages to convey capabilities as well as Route Monitor messages to convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that conveys the Loc-RIB is a local router emulated peer.
There MUST be multiple emulated peers for each Loc-RIB instance, such as with VRFs. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB by the peer header distinguisher and BGP ID. The BMP receiver uses the VRF/Table Name from the PEER UP information to associate a name to the Loc-RIB.
In some implementations, it might be required to have more than one emulated peer for Loc-RIB to convey different address families for the same Loc-RIB. In this case, the peer distinguisher and BGP ID should be the same since it represents the same Loc-RIB instance. Each emulated peer instance MUST send a PEER UP with the OPEN message indicating the address family capabilities. A BMP receiver MUST process these capabilities to know which peer belongs to which address family.
There maybe be use-cases where BMP receivers should only receive specific routes from Loc-RIB. For example, IPv4 unicast routes may include IBGP, EBGP, and IGP but only routes from EBGP should be sent to the BMP receiver. Alternatively, it may be that only IBGP and EBGP that should be sent and IGP redistributed routes should be excluded. In these cases where the Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP receiver that the Loc-RIB is filtered. If multiple filters are associated to the same Loc-RIB, a Table Name MUST be used in order to allow a BMP receiver to make the right associations.
In case of any change that results in the alteration of behaviour of an existing BMP session, ie. changes to filtering and table names, the session MUST be bounced with a Peer DOWN/Peer UP sequence.
The same considerations as in section 11 of apply to this document. Implementations of this protocol SHOULD require to establish sessions with authorized and trusted monitoring devices. It is also believed that this document does not add any additional security considerations.
This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters to the BMP parameters name space.
This document defines a new peer type (Section 4.1):
This document defines a new flag (Section 4.2) and proposes that peer flags are specific to the peer type:
This document defines the following new BMP PEER UP informational message TLV types (Section 5.2.1):
This document defines the following new BMP Peer Down reason code (Section 5.3):
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
| [RFC4271] | Rekhter, Y., Li, T. and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006. |
| [RFC7854] | Scudder, J., Fernando, R. and S. Stuart, "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016. |
| [RFC8174] | Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017. |
The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Jeff Haas and Mukul Srivastava for their valuable input.