draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-05.txt   draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-06.txt 
Network Working Group Enke Chen Network Working Group Enke Chen
Internet Draft Redback Networks Internet Draft Cisco Systems
Expiration Date: October 2004 Vincent Gillet Expiration Date: December 2005 Vincent Gillet
France Telecom France Telecom
Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message
draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-05.txt draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-06.txt
1. Status of this Memo 1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
2. Abstract 2. Abstract
This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
message that would provide more information to aid network operators message that would provide more information to aid network operators
in co-relating network events and diagnosing BGP peering issues. in correlating network events and diagnosing BGP peering issues.
3. Specification of Requirements 3. Specification of Requirements
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" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-2119].
4. Introduction 4. Introduction
This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
message that would provide more information to aid network operators message that would provide more information to aid network operators
in co-relating network events and diagnosing BGP peering issues. in correlating network events and diagnosing BGP peering issues.
5. Subcode Definition 5. Subcode Definition
The following subcodes are defined for the Cease NOTIFICATION The following subcodes are defined for the Cease NOTIFICATION
message: message:
Subcode Symbolic Name Subcode Symbolic Name
1 Maximum Number of Prefixes Reached 1 Maximum Number of Prefixes Reached
2 Administrative Shutdown 2 Administrative Shutdown
3 Peer Unconfigured 3 Peer De-configured
4 Administrative Reset 4 Administrative Reset
5 Connection Rejected 5 Connection Rejected
6 Other Configuration Change 6 Other Configuration Change
7 Connection Collision Resolution 7 Connection Collision Resolution
8 Out of Resource 8 Out of Resources
6. Subcode Usage 6. Subcode Usage
If a BGP speaker decides to terminate its peering with a neighbor If a BGP speaker decides to terminate its peering with a neighbor
because the number of address prefixes received from the neighbor because the number of address prefixes received from the neighbor
exceeds a locally configured upper bound (as described in [BGP-4]), exceeds a locally configured upper bound (as described in [BGP-4]),
then the speaker MUST send to the neighbor a NOTIFICATION message then the speaker MUST send to the neighbor a NOTIFICATION message
with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Maximum Number of with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Maximum Number of
Prefixes Reached". The message MAY optionally include the Address Prefixes Reached". The message MAY optionally include the Address
Family information [BGP-MP] and the upper bound in the "Data" field Family information [BGP-MP] and the upper bound in the "Data" field
with the following format: as shown in Figure 1 where the meaning and use of the <AFI, SAFI>
tuple is the same as defined in [BGP-MP, sect. 7].
+-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+
| AFI (2 octets) | | AFI (2 octets) |
+-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+
| SAFI (1 octet) | | SAFI (1 octet) |
+-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+
| Prefix upper bound (4 octets) | | Prefix upper bound (4 octets) |
+-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+
where the meaning and use of the <AFI, SAFI> tuple is the same as Figure 1 Optional Data Field
defined in [BGP-MP, sect. 7].
If a BGP speaker decides to administratively shut down its peering If a BGP speaker decides to administratively shut down its peering
with a neighbor, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with a neighbor, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message
with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Administrative with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Administrative
Shutdown". Shutdown".
If a BGP speaker decides to unconfigure a peer, then the speaker If a BGP speaker decides to de-configure a peer, then the speaker
SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code Cease, and the SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code Cease, and the
Error Subcode "Peer Unconfigured". Error Subcode "Peer De-configured".
If a BGP speaker decides to administratively reset the peering with a If a BGP speaker decides to administratively reset the peering with a
neighbor, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with neighbor, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with
the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Administrative Reset". the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Administrative Reset".
If a BGP speaker decides to dis-allow a BGP connection (e.g., the If a BGP speaker decides to dis-allow a BGP connection (e.g., the
peer is not configured locally) after the speaker accepts a transport peer is not configured locally) after the speaker accepts a transport
protocol connection, then the BGP speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION protocol connection, then the BGP speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION
message with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Connection message with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Connection
Rejected". Rejected".
skipping to change at page 3, line 38 skipping to change at page 3, line 44
If a BGP speaker decides to administratively reset the peering with a If a BGP speaker decides to administratively reset the peering with a
neighbor due to a configuration change other than the ones described neighbor due to a configuration change other than the ones described
above, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with the above, then the speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message with the
Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Other Configuration Change". Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Other Configuration Change".
If a BGP speaker decides to send a NOTIFICATION message with the If a BGP speaker decides to send a NOTIFICATION message with the
Error Code Cease as a result of the collision resolution procedure Error Code Cease as a result of the collision resolution procedure
(as described in [BGP-4]), then the subcode SHOULD be set to (as described in [BGP-4]), then the subcode SHOULD be set to
"Connection Collision Resolution". "Connection Collision Resolution".
If a BGP speaker runs out of resource (e.g., memory) and decides to If a BGP speaker runs out of resources (e.g., memory) and decides to
reset a session, then the speaker MAY send a NOTIFICATION message reset a session, then the speaker MAY send a NOTIFICATION message
with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Out of Resource". with the Error Code Cease, and the Error Subcode "Out of Resources".
It is RECOMMENDED that a BGP speaker implement a backoff mechanism in It is RECOMMENDED that a BGP speaker implement a backoff mechanism in
re-trying a BGP connection after the speaker receives a Cease re-trying a BGP connection after the speaker receives a Cease
NOTIFICATION message with subcode of "Administrative Shutdown", or NOTIFICATION message with subcode of "Administrative Shutdown", or
"Peer Unconfigured", or "Connection Rejected", or "Out of Resource". "Peer De-configured", or "Connection Rejected", or "Out of
An implementation MAY impose an upper bound on the number of Resources". An implementation SHOULD impose an upper bound on the
consecutive automatic retries. Once this bound is reached, the number of consecutive automatic retries. Once this bound is reached,
implementation would stop re-trying any BGP connections until some the implementation would stop re-trying any BGP connections until
administrative intervention. some administrative intervention.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION This document defines the subcodes 1 - 8 for the BGP Cease
messsage. New subcodes MUST only be introduced using the Standards NOTIFICATION message. Future assignments are to be made using either
Action process defined in [RFC-2434]. the Standards Action process defined in [RFC-2434], or the Early IANA
Allocation process defined in [kompella-zinin], or the "First Come
First Served" policy defined in [RFC-2434].
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
inherent in the existing BGP. inherent in the existing BGP.
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter, Pedro Marques, Andrew The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter, Pedro Marques, Andrew
Lange and Don Goodspeed for their review and suggestions. Lange and Don Goodspeed for their review and suggestions.
10. References 10. Normative References
[BGP-4] Y. Rekhter, T. Li and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 [BGP-4] Y. Rekhter, T. Li and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
(BGP-4)", <draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-23.txt>, November 2003. (BGP-4)", <draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-26.txt>, October 2004.
[BGP-MP] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter, [BGP-MP] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D. and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000. "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000.
[RFC-2434] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC-2434] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998. IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998.
[RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC-2119] 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.
11. Author Information 11. Non-normative References
[kompella-zinin] Kompella, K., Zinin, A., "Early IANA Allocation of
Standards Track Codepoints", Work in progress
12. Author Information
Enke Chen Enke Chen
Redback Networks, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Holger Way 170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
Email: enke@redback.com Email: enkechen@cisco.com
Vincent Gillet Vincent Gillet
France Telecom Longues Distances France Telecom Longues Distances
246 rue de Bercy 61, rue des Archives
75594 Paris Cedex 12 FRANCE 75003 Paris FRANCE
Email: vgi@opentransit.net Email: vgi@opentransit.net
13. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
14. Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.24, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/