draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-08.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-09.txt 
IDR K. Patel IDR K. Patel
Internet-Draft E. Chen Internet-Draft E. Chen
Updates: 2918 (if approved) Cisco Systems Updates: 2918 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track B. Venkatachalapathy Intended status: Standards Track B. Venkatachalapathy
Expires: December 8, 2014 Expires: December 11, 2014
June 6, 2014 June 9, 2014
Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-08.txt draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-09.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. This document
updates RFC 2918.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 December 8, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 11, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
[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
ending of a route refresh (which refers to the complete re- ending of a route refresh (which refers to the complete re-
advertisement of the Adj-RIB-Out to a peer, subject to routing advertisement of the Adj-RIB-Out to a peer, subject to routing
policies). The enhancement can be used to facilitate on-line, non- policies). The enhancement can be used to facilitate on-line, non-
disruptive consistency validation of BGP routing updates. disruptive consistency validation of BGP routing updates.
This document updates [RFC2918] by redefining a field in the ROUTE-
REFRESH message that was previously designated as Reserved.
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] only when they appear in all document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] only when
upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English they appear in all upper case. They may also appear in lower or
words, without any normative meaning. mixed case as English words, without any normative meaning.
3. Protocol Extensions 3. Protocol Extensions
The BGP protocol extensions introduced in this document include the The BGP protocol extensions introduced in this document include the
definition of a new BGP capability, named "Enhanced Route Refresh definition of a new BGP capability, named "Enhanced Route Refresh
Capability", and the specification of the message subtypes for the Capability", and the specification of the message subtypes for the
ROUTE-REFRESH message. ROUTE-REFRESH message.
3.1. Enhanced Route Refresh Capability 3.1. Enhanced Route Refresh Capability
skipping to change at page 3, line 22 skipping to change at page 3, line 24
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
Also known as a "BoRR message" or just a "BoRR". (BoRR) operation.
2 - Demarcation of the ending of a route refresh operation. 2 - Demarcation of the ending of a route refresh
Also known as a "EoRR message" or just a "EoRR". (EoRR) operation.
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 16 skipping to change at page 4, line 17
route entry needs to be advertised. route entry needs to be advertised.
In processing a ROUTE-REFRESH message from a peer, the BGP speaker In processing a ROUTE-REFRESH message from a peer, the BGP speaker
MUST examine the "message subtype" field of the message and take the MUST examine the "message subtype" field of the message and take the
appropriate actions. The message processing rules for ROUTE-REFRESH appropriate actions. The message processing rules for ROUTE-REFRESH
message with subtype of 0 are described in [RFC2918] and [RFC5291]. message with subtype of 0 are described in [RFC2918] and [RFC5291].
A BGP speaker can receive a BoRR message from a peer at any time, A BGP speaker can receive a BoRR message from a peer at any time,
either as a result of a peer responding to a ROUTE-REFESH message, or either as a result of a peer responding to a ROUTE-REFESH message, or
as a result of a peer unilaterally initiating a route refresh. When as a result of a peer unilaterally initiating a route refresh. When
a BGP speaker receives a BoRR message from a peer, it MUST mark all a BGP speaker receives a BoRR message from a peer, it MUST mark all
the routes with the given <AFI, SAFI> from that peer as stale. As it the routes with the given Address Family Identifer and Subsequent
receives routes from its peer's subsequent Adj-RIB-Out re- Address Family Identifier, <AFI, SAFI> [RFC2918] from that peer as
advertisement, these replace any corresponding stale routes. When a stale. As it receives routes from its peer's subsequent Adj-RIB-Out
BGP speaker receives an EoRR message from a peer, it MUST immediately re-advertisement, these replace any corresponding stale routes. When
remove any routes from the peer that are still marked as stale for a BGP speaker receives an EoRR message from a peer, it MUST
that <AFI, SAFI>. Such purged routes MAY be logged for future immediately remove any routes from the peer that are still marked as
analysis. A BGP speaker MAY ignore any EoRR message received without stale for that <AFI, SAFI>. Such purged routes MAY be logged for
a prior receipt of an associated BoRR message. Such messages MAY be future analysis. A BGP speaker MAY ignore any EoRR message received
logged for future analysis. without a prior receipt of an associated BoRR message. Such messages
MAY be logged for future 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 The following procedures are specified in order to simplify the
interaction with the BGP Graceful Restart [RFC4724]. In particular, interaction with the BGP Graceful Restart [RFC4724]. In particular,
these procedures ensure that End-of-RIB (EoR) defined in Graceful these procedures ensure that End-of-RIB (EoR) defined in Graceful
Restart and EoRR as defined in this specification are kept separate, Restart and EoRR as defined in this specification are kept separate,
thereby avoiding any premature cleanup of stale routes. For a BGP thereby avoiding any premature cleanup of stale routes. For a BGP
speaker that supports the BGP Graceful Restart, it MUST NOT send a 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 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 <AFI, SAFI> to the neighbor. A BGP speaker that has received the
Graceful Restart Capability from its neighbor, MUST ignore any BoRRs Graceful Restart Capability from its neighbor, MUST ignore any BoRRs
for an AFI/SAFI from the neighbor before the speaker receives the EoR for an <AFI, SAFI> from the neighbor before the speaker receives the
for the given AFI/SAFI from the neighbor. The BGP speaker SHOULD log EoR for the given <AFI, SAFI> from the neighbor. The BGP speaker
an error of the condition for further analysis. 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:
skipping to change at page 5, line 29 skipping to change at page 5, line 33
Message Length". The Data field of the NOTIFICATION message MUST Message Length". The Data field of the NOTIFICATION message MUST
contain the complete ROUTE-REFRESH message. contain the complete ROUTE-REFRESH message.
When the BGP speaker receives a ROUTE-REFRESH message with a "Message When the BGP speaker receives a ROUTE-REFRESH message with a "Message
Subtype" field other than 0, 1 or 2, it MUST ignore the received Subtype" field other than 0, 1 or 2, it MUST ignore the received
ROUTE-REFRESH message. It SHOULD log an error for further analysis. 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 from the "BGP
also defines two new subcodes for the Route Refresh message. They Capability Codes" registry. IANA should update that registry entry
need to be registered with the IANA. We request IANA to create a new to reference this document when it is published as an RFC. This
registry for the Route Refresh message subcodes as follows: document 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 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-06.txt] Reference: [This Document]
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-06.txt] 1 BoRR [This Document]
2 EoRR [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-refresh-06.txt] 2 EoRR [This Document]
3-255 Reserved 3-127 Unassigned
128-254 Unassigned
255 Reserved [This Document]
In addition, this document defines an NOTIFICATION error code and In addition, this document defines a NOTIFICATION error code and an
several error subcodes for the ROUTE-REFRESH message. The error subcode related to the ROUTE-REFRESH message. We request IANA
NOTIFICATION error code needs to be registered with the IANA. We to allocate a new error code from the "BGP Error Codes" registry with
request IANA to create a new registry for the error subcodes as the symbolic name "ROUTE-REFRESH Message Error", referencing this
follows: document. We request IANA to create a new registry for the error
subcodes as 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-06.txt] Reference: [This Document]
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-06.txt] 1 Invalid Message Length [This Document]
2-127 Unassigned
128-255 Unassigned
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, Shyam Sethuram, Bruno Decraene, Martin Robert Raszuk, Pranav Mehta, Shyam Sethuram, Bruno Decraene, Martin
Djernaes, Jeff Haas, Ilya Varlashkin, Rob Shakir, Paul Jakma, Jie Djernaes, Jeff Haas, Ilya Varlashkin, Rob Shakir, Paul Jakma, Jie
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
56 lines changed or deleted 68 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/