Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Scudder
Request for Comments: 9736 Juniper Networks
Updates: 7854, 8671, 9069 P. Lucente
Category: Standards Track NTT
ISSN: 2070-1721 February 2025
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Peer Up Message Namespace
Abstract
RFC 7854, the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP), uses different message
types for different purposes. Most of these are structured as Type,
Length, Value (TLV). One message type, the Peer Up message, lacks a
set of TLVs defined for its use, instead sharing a namespace with the
Initiation message. 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 defined codepoints into the newly introduced registry.
Compliant implementations of RFC 7854, RFC 8671, and RFC 9069 also
comply with this specification.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9736.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language
2. String Definition
3. Changes to Existing RFCs
3.1. Revision to the Information TLV, Renamed as Initiation
Information TLV
3.2. Revision to the Peer Up Notification
3.3. Definition of Peer Up Information TLV
4. IANA Considerations
5. Security Considerations
6. Normative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
[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 BGP Monitoring Protocol has
been extended, this oversight overlap has become problematic. In this
document, we create a distinct namespace namespaces for the Peer Up message and
Initiation messages to eliminate this overlap, and create the corresponding missing
registry. overlap.
Compliant implementations of [RFC7854], [RFC8671], and [RFC9069] also
comply with this specification.
1.1. Requirements Language
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.
2. String Definition
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.
3. Changes to Existing RFCs
[RFC7854] is updated as detailed in the following subsections.
3.1. Revision to the Information TLV, Renamed as Initiation Information TLV
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: as shown below. Type = 1 and
Type = 2 are unchanged; they are provided for here for completeness.
* Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string
(Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If multiple
string TLVs 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.
3.2. Revision to the Peer Up Notification
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 in Section 3.3 of RFC 9736. 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.
3.3. Definition of Peer Up Information TLV
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): 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 a 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.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA has created the "BMP Peer Up Message TLVs" within the "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Parameters" registry group and listed this
document as the reference.
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 |
+-------------+-------------------------+
Table 1
The initial values for this registry are:
+=======+================+===========+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+=======+================+===========+
| 0 | String | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 1 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 2 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 3 | VRF/Table Name | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 4 | Admin Label | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 65535 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
Table 2
IANA has also renamed the "BMP Initiation and Peer Up Information
TLVs" registry to "BMP Initiation Information TLVs" and populated it
with the following values:
+=======+=============+===========+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+=======+=============+===========+
| 0 | String | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 1 | sysDescr | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 2 | sysName | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 3 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 4 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 65535 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
Table 3
5. Security Considerations
This document does not alter the security considerations of [RFC7854]
that continue to apply.
6. Normative References
[RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II",
STD 17, RFC 1213, DOI 10.17487/RFC1213, March 1991,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1213>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8671] Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Lucente, P., Mi, P., and S.
Zhuang, "Support for Adj-RIB-Out in the BGP Monitoring
Protocol (BMP)", RFC 8671, DOI 10.17487/RFC8671, November
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8671>.
[RFC9069] Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Bhardwaj, M., and P. Lucente,
"Support for Local RIB in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
(BMP)", RFC 9069, DOI 10.17487/RFC9069, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9069>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Maxence Younsi for his review.
Authors' Addresses
John Scudder
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America
Email: jgs@juniper.net
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Veemweg 23
3771 MT Barneveld
Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net