| Internet-Draft | BMP Peer Up Namespace | June 2024 |
| Scudder & Lucente | Expires 13 December 2024 | [Page] |
RFC 7854, BMP, uses different message types for different purposes. Most of these are Type, Length, Value (TLV) structured. One message type, the Peer Up message, lacks a set of TLVs defined for its use, instead sharing a namespace with the Initiation message. Subsequent experience has shown that this namespace sharing was a mistake, as it hampers the extension of the protocol.¶
This document updates RFC 7854 by creating an independent namespace for the Peer Up message. It also updates RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 by moving the defined codepoints in the newly introduced registry. The changes in this document are formal only, compliant implementations of RFC 7854, RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 also comply with this specification.¶
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 13 December 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
[RFC7854] defines a number of different BMP message types. With the exception of the Route Monitoring message type, these messages are TLV-structured. Most message types have distinct namespaces and IANA registries. However, the namespace of the Peer Up message overlaps that of the Initiation message. As the BMP protocol has been extended, this oversight has become problematic. In this document, we create a distinct namespace for the Peer Up message to eliminate this overlap, and create the corresponding missing registry.¶
The changes in this document are formal only, compliant implementations of [RFC7854], [RFC8671] and [RFC9069] also comply with this specification.¶
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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
A string TLV is a free-form sequence of UTF-8 characters whose length in bytes is given by the TLV's Length field. There is no requirement to terminate the string with a null (or any other particular) character -- the Length field gives its termination.¶
We update [RFC7854] as follows:¶
The "Information TLV" of section 4.4, that was shared between the Initiation and Peer Up message types, is renamed as the "Initiation Information TLV", and is only relevant to the Initiation message type.¶
A "Peer Up Information TLV" is defined, and is relevant to the Peer Up message type.¶
A "BMP Peer Up Information TLVs" registry is is created, seeded with the Peer Up Information TLV.¶
Other than as summarized above, and detailed below, there are no other changes.¶
The Information TLV defined in section 4.4 of [RFC7854] is renamed "Initiation Information TLV". It is used only by the Initiation message, not by the Peer Up message.¶
The definition of Type = 0 is revised to be:¶
Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string (Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when they are reported.¶
Type = 1: sysDescr. The Information field contains an ASCII string whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the sysDescr MIB-II [RFC1213] object.¶
Type = 2: sysName. The Information field contains an ASCII string whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the sysName MIB-II [RFC1213] object.¶
The final paragraph of section 4.10 of [RFC7854] references the Information TLV (which is revised above (Section 3.1)). That paragraph is replaced by the following:¶
Information: Information about the peer, using the Peer Up Information TLV format defined below (Section 3.3). The String type may be repeated. Inclusion of the Information field is OPTIONAL. Its presence or absence can be inferred by inspection of the Message Length in the common header.¶
The Peer Up Information TLV is used by the Peer Up message.¶
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Information Type | Information Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Information (variable) | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Information Type (2 bytes): Type of information provided. Defined types are:¶
Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string (Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when they are reported.¶
Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a UTF-8 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or table name (e.g., RD instance name) being conveyed. The string size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.¶
Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-form UTF-8 string whose byte length is given by the Information Length field. The value is administratively assigned. There is no requirement to terminate the string with null or any other character.¶
Information Length (2 bytes): The length of the following Information field, in bytes.¶
Information (variable): Information about the monitored router, according to the type.¶
IANA is requested to create a registry within the BMP group, named "BMP Peer Up Message TLVs", reference this document.¶
Registration procedures for this registry are:¶
| Range | Registration Procedures |
|---|---|
| 0, 3-32767 | Standards Action |
| 32768-65530 | First Come, First Served |
| 65531-65534 | Experimental |
| 1-2, 65535 | Reserved |
Initial values for this registry are:¶
| Type | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | String | this document |
| 1 | Reserved | this document |
| 2 | Reserved | this document |
| 3 | VRF/Table Name | this document |
| 4 | Admin Label | this document |
| 65535 | Reserved | this document |
IANA is also requested to rename the existing "BMP Initiation and Peer Up Information TLVs" registry to "BMP Initiation Information TLVs" and seed it with the following values:¶
| Type | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | String | this document |
| 1 | sysDescr | this document |
| 2 | sysName | this document |
| 3 | Reserved | this document |
| 4 | Reserved | this document |
| 65535 | Reserved | this document |
This rearrangement of deck chairs does not change the underlying security issues inherent in the existing [RFC7854].¶
This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft. 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 BMP Peer Up Namespace:¶
The authors would like to thank Maxence Younsi for his review.¶