draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-05.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06.txt 
IDR K. Patel IDR K. Patel
Internet-Draft E. Chen Internet-Draft E. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track B. Venkatachalapathy Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: June 12, 2014 Cisco Systems Expires: August 10, 2014 B. Venkatachalapathy
December 9, 2013
February 6, 2014
Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-05.txt draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06.txt
Abstract Abstract
In this document we enhance the existing BGP route refresh mechanisms In this document we enhance the existing BGP route refresh mechanisms
to provide for the demarcation of the beginning and the ending of a to provide for the demarcation of the beginning and the ending of a
route refresh. The enhancement can be used to facilitate correction route refresh. The enhancement can be used to facilitate correction
of BGP RIB inconsistencies in a non-disruptive manner. of BGP RIB inconsistencies in a non-disruptive manner.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.1. Enhanced Route Refresh Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.1. Enhanced Route Refresh Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Subtypes for ROUTE-REFRESH Message . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Subtypes for ROUTE-REFRESH Message . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
It is sometimes necessary to perform routing consistency validations It is sometimes necessary to perform routing consistency validations
such as checking for possible missing withdraws between BGP speakers such as checking for possible missing withdraws between BGP speakers
[RFC4271]. Currently such validations typically involve off-line, [RFC4271]. Currently such validations typically involve off-line,
manual operations which can be tedious and time consuming. manual operations which can be tedious and time consuming.
In this document we enhance the existing BGP route refresh mechanisms In this document we enhance the existing BGP route refresh mechanisms
[RFC2918] to provide for the demarcation of the beginning and the [RFC2918] to provide for the demarcation of the beginning and the
skipping to change at page 3, line 19 skipping to change at page 3, line 22
the peer that the speaker supports the message subtypes for the the peer that the speaker supports the message subtypes for the
ROUTE-REFRESH message and the related procedures described in this ROUTE-REFRESH message and the related procedures described in this
document. document.
3.2. Subtypes for ROUTE-REFRESH Message 3.2. Subtypes for ROUTE-REFRESH Message
The "Reserved" field of the ROUTE-REFRESH message specified in The "Reserved" field of the ROUTE-REFRESH message specified in
[RFC2918] is re-defined as the "Message Subtype" with the following [RFC2918] is re-defined as the "Message Subtype" with the following
values: values:
0 - Normal route refresh request [RFC2918] 0 - Normal route refresh request [RFC2918]
with/without ORF [RFC5291] with/without ORF [RFC5291]
1 - Demarcation of the beginning of a route refresh operation. 1 - Demarcation of the beginning of a route refresh operation.
Also known as a "BoRR message" or just a "BoRR". Also known as a "BoRR message" or just a "BoRR".
2 - Demarcation of the ending of a route refresh operation. 2 - Demarcation of the ending of a route refresh operation.
Also known as a "EoRR message" or just a "EoRR". Also known as a "EoRR message" or just a "EoRR".
The remaining values of the message subtypes are reserved for future The remaining values of the message subtypes are reserved for future
use. The use of the new message subtypes is described in the use. The use of the new message subtypes is described in the
Operations section. Operations section.
4. Operation 4. Operation
A BGP speaker that supports the message subtypes for the ROUTE- A BGP speaker that supports the message subtypes for the ROUTE-
REFRESH message and the related procedures SHOULD advertise the REFRESH message and the related procedures SHOULD advertise the
"Enhanced Route Refresh Capability". "Enhanced Route Refresh Capability".
skipping to change at page 4, line 27 skipping to change at page 4, line 29
remove any routes from the peer that are still marked as stale for remove any routes from the peer that are still marked as stale for
that <AFI, SAFI>. Such purged routes MAY be logged for future that <AFI, SAFI>. Such purged routes MAY be logged for future
analysis. analysis.
An implementation MAY impose a locally configurable upper bound on An implementation MAY impose a locally configurable upper bound on
how long it would retain any stale routes. Once the upper bound is how long it would retain any stale routes. Once the upper bound is
reached, the implementation MAY remove any routes from the peer that reached, the implementation MAY remove any routes from the peer that
are still marked as stale for that <AFI, SAFI> without waiting for an are still marked as stale for that <AFI, SAFI> without waiting for an
EoRR message. EoRR message.
The following procedures are specified in order to simplify the
interaction with the BGP Graceful Restart [RFC4724]. For a BGP
speaker that supports the BGP Graceful Restart, it MUST NOT send a
BoRR for an AFI/SAFI to a neighbor before it sends the EOR for the
AFI/SAFI to the neighbor. A BGP speaker that has received the
Graceful Restart Capability from its neighbor, MUST ignore any BoRRs
for an AFI/SAFI from the neighbor before the speaker receives the EoR
for the given AFI/SAFI from the neighbor. The BGP speaker SHOULD log
an error of the condition for further analysis.
5. Error Handling 5. Error Handling
This document defines a new NOTIFICATION error code: This document defines a new NOTIFICATION error code:
Error Code Symbolic Name Error Code Symbolic Name
TBD ROUTE-REFRESH Message Error TBD ROUTE-REFRESH Message Error
The following error subcodes are defined as well: The following error subcodes are defined as well:
Subcode Symbolic Name Subcode Symbolic Name
1 Invalid Message Length 1 Invalid Message Length
The error handling specified in this section is applicable only when The error handling specified in this section is applicable only when
a BGP speaker has received the "Enhanced Route Refresh Capability" a BGP speaker has received the "Enhanced Route Refresh Capability"
from a peer. from a peer.
When the BGP speaker detects an error while processing a ROUTE- If the length, excluding the fixed-size message header, of the
REFRESH message with a non-zero "Message Subtype" field, it MUST send received ROUTE-REFRESH message with Message Subtype 1 and 2 is not 4,
a NOTIFICATION message with Error Code "ROUTE-REFRESH Message Error". then the BGP speaker MUST send a NOTIFICATION message with the Error
The Data field of the NOTIFICATION message MUST contain the complete Code of "ROUTE-REFRESH Message Error" and the subcode of "Invalid
ROUTE-REFRESH message. Message Length". The Data field of the NOTIFICATION message MUST
contain the complete ROUTE-REFRESH message.
If the length, excluding the fixed-size message header, of the ROUTE-
REFRESH message with Message Subtype 1 and 2 is not 4, then the error
subcode is set to "Invalid Message Length".
When the BGP speaker receives a ROUTE-REFRESH message with an invalid When the BGP speaker receives a ROUTE-REFRESH message with a "Message
Subtype, it SHOULD log an error and ignore the received ROUTE-REFRESH Subtype" field other than 0, 1 or 2, it MUST ignore the received
message. ROUTE-REFRESH message. It SHOULD log an error for further analysis.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document defines the Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP. This document defines the Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP.
The Capability Code 70 has been assigned by the IANA. This document The Capability Code 70 has been assigned by the IANA. This document
also defines two new subcodes for the Route Refresh message. They also defines two new subcodes for the Route Refresh message. They
need to be registered with the IANA. We request IANA to create a new need to be registered with the IANA. We request IANA to create a new
registry for the Route Refresh message subcodes as follows: registry for the Route Refresh message subcodes as follows:
Under "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters": Under "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters":
Registry: "BGP Route Refresh Subcodes" Registry: "BGP Route Refresh Subcodes"
Reference: [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-refresh-05.txt] Reference: [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-refresh-06.txt]
Registration Procedure(s): Values 0-127 Standards Action, values Registration Procedure(s): Values 0-127 Standards Action, values
128-254 First Come, First Served, Value 255 reserved 128-254 First Come, First Served, Value 255 reserved
Value Code Reference Value Code Reference
0 Route-Refresh [RFC2918], [RFC5291] 0 Route-Refresh [RFC2918], [RFC5291]
1 BoRR [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-refresh-05.txt] 1 BoRR [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-refresh-06.txt]
2 EoRR [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-refresh-05.txt] 2 EoRR [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-refresh-06.txt]
255 Reserved 255 Reserved
In addition, this document defines an NOTIFICATION error code and In addition, this document defines an NOTIFICATION error code and
several error subcodes for the ROUTE-REFRESH message. The several error subcodes for the ROUTE-REFRESH message. The
NOTIFICATION error code need to be registered with the IANA. We NOTIFICATION error code need to be registered with the IANA. We
request IANA to create a new registry for the error subcodes as request IANA to create a new registry for the error subcodes as
follows: follows:
Under "BGP Error Subcodes": Under "BGP Error Subcodes":
Registry: "BGP ROUTE-REFRESH Message Error subcodes" Registry: "BGP ROUTE-REFRESH Message Error subcodes"
Reference: [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-refresh-05.txt] Reference: [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-refresh-06.txt]
Registration Procedure(s): Values 0-127 Standards Action, values Registration Procedure(s): Values 0-127 Standards Action, values
128-255 First Come, First Served 128-255 First Come, First Served
Value Code Reference Value Code Reference
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
1 Invalid Message Length [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-refresh-05.txt] 1 Invalid Message Length [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-refresh-06.txt]
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues. This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Pedro Marques, Pradosh Mohapatra, The authors would like to thank Pedro Marques, Pradosh Mohapatra,
Robert Raszuk, Pranav Mehta, and Shyam Sethuram, Bruno Decraene, Robert Raszuk, Pranav Mehta, Shyam Sethuram, Bruno Decraene, Martin
Martin Djernaes, Jeff haas, Ilya Varlashkin, Rob Shakir, Paul Jakma, Djernaes, Jeff Haas, Ilya Varlashkin, Rob Shakir, Paul Jakma, Jie
Jie Dong, Qing Zeng, Albert Tian, and Jakob Heitz for their review Dong, Qing Zeng, Albert Tian, Jakob Heitz and Chris Hall for their
and comments. The authors would like to thank John Scudder for the review and comments. The authors would like to thank John Scudder
review and contribution to this document. for the review and contribution to this document.
9. Normative References 9. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918, [RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918,
September 2000. September 2000.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
January 2007.
[RFC5291] Chen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "Outbound Route Filtering [RFC5291] Chen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "Outbound Route Filtering
Capability for BGP-4", RFC 5291, August 2008. Capability for BGP-4", RFC 5291, August 2008.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009. with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Keyur Patel Keyur Patel
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 22
Email: keyupate@cisco.com Email: keyupate@cisco.com
Enke Chen Enke Chen
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive 170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95124 95134 San Jose, CA 95124 95134
USA USA
Email: enkechen@cisco.com Email: enkechen@cisco.com
Balaji Venkatachalapathy Balaji Venkatachalapathy
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95124 95134
USA
Email: bvenkata@cisco.com Email: balaji_pv@hotmail.com
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
54 lines changed or deleted 63 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/