draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-05.txt   draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-06.txt 
IDR J. Snijders IDR J. Snijders
Internet-Draft NTT Internet-Draft NTT
Obsoletes: 8203 (if approved) J. Heitz Obsoletes: 8203 (if approved) J. Heitz
Updates: 4486 (if approved) Cisco Updates: 4486 (if approved) Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track J. Scudder Intended status: Standards Track J. Scudder
Expires: April 18, 2020 Juniper Expires: October 17, 2020 Juniper
A. Azimov A. Azimov
Yandex Yandex
October 16, 2019 April 15, 2020
Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication
draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-05 draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-06
Abstract Abstract
This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
"Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
session was shutdown or reset. This document updates RFC 4486 and session was shutdown or reset. This document updates RFC 4486 and
obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative
Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte Shutdown Communication to improve communication using multibyte
character sets. character sets.
skipping to change at page 1, line 49 skipping to change at page 1, line 49
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 April 18, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 17, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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. Shutdown Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Shutdown Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix B. Changes to RFC 8203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix B. Changes to RFC 8203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
It can be troublesome for an operator to correlate a BGP-4 [RFC4271] It can be troublesome for an operator to correlate a BGP-4 [RFC4271]
session teardown in the network with a notice that was transmitted session teardown in the network with a notice that was transmitted
via offline methods such email or telephone calls. This document via offline methods such email or telephone calls. This document
updates [RFC4486] by specifying a mechanism to transmit a short updates [RFC4486] by specifying a mechanism to transmit a short
freeform UTF-8 [RFC3629] message as part of a Cease NOTIFICATION freeform UTF-8 [RFC3629] message as part of a Cease NOTIFICATION
message [RFC4271] to inform the peer why the BGP session is being message [RFC4271] to inform the peer why the BGP session is being
skipping to change at page 4, line 32 skipping to change at page 4, line 30
If a Shutdown Communication with an invalid UTF-8 sequence is If a Shutdown Communication with an invalid UTF-8 sequence is
received, a message indicating this event SHOULD be logged for the received, a message indicating this event SHOULD be logged for the
attention of the operator. An erroneous or malformed Shutdown attention of the operator. An erroneous or malformed Shutdown
Communication itself MAY be logged in a hexdump format. Communication itself MAY be logged in a hexdump format.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
Per this document, IANA is requested to reference this document at Per this document, IANA is requested to reference this document at
subcode "Administrative Shutdown", and at subcode "Administrative subcode "Administrative Shutdown", and at subcode "Administrative
Reset" in the "Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry under Reset" in the "BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry
the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in addition to under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in
[RFC4486] and [RFC8203]. addition to [RFC4486] and [RFC8203].
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document uses UTF-8 encoding for the Shutdown Communication. This document uses UTF-8 encoding for the Shutdown Communication.
There are a number of security issues with Unicode. Implementers and There are a number of security issues with Unicode. Implementers and
operators are advised to review Unicode Technical Report #36 [UTR36] operators are advised to review Unicode Technical Report #36 [UTR36]
to learn about these issues. UTF-8 "Shortest Form" encoding is to learn about these issues. UTF-8 "Shortest Form" encoding is
REQUIRED to guard against the technical issues outlined in [UTR36]. REQUIRED to guard against the technical issues outlined in [UTR36].
As BGP Shutdown Communications are likely to appear in syslog output, As BGP Shutdown Communications are likely to appear in syslog output,
skipping to change at page 5, line 19 skipping to change at page 5, line 15
message could be snooped by an attacker. These issues are common to message could be snooped by an attacker. These issues are common to
any BGP message but may be of greater interest in the context of this any BGP message but may be of greater interest in the context of this
proposal since the information carried in the message is generally proposal since the information carried in the message is generally
expected to be used for human-to-human communication. Refer to the expected to be used for human-to-human communication. Refer to the
related considerations in [RFC4271] and [RFC4272]. related considerations in [RFC4271] and [RFC4272].
Users of this mechanism should consider applying data minimization Users of this mechanism should consider applying data minimization
practices as outlined in Section 6.1 of [RFC6973] because a received practices as outlined in Section 6.1 of [RFC6973] because a received
Shutdown Communication may be used at the receiver's discretion. Shutdown Communication may be used at the receiver's discretion.
7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 7. References
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC7942. The
description of implementations in this section is intended to assist
the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs.
Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here
does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has
been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied
by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be
construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
As of today these vendors have produced an implementation of the
Shutdown Communication:
o Juniper Junos
o OpenBSD OpenBGPD
o NIC.CZ BIRD
o ...
8. References
8.1. Normative References 7.1. 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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>. 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
skipping to change at page 6, line 27 skipping to change at page 5, line 46
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8203] Snijders, J., Heitz, J., and J. Scudder, "BGP [RFC8203] Snijders, J., Heitz, J., and J. Scudder, "BGP
Administrative Shutdown Communication", RFC 8203, Administrative Shutdown Communication", RFC 8203,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8203, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8203, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8203>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8203>.
8.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, [RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5424, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5424, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5424>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5424>.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
39 lines changed or deleted 15 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/