Internet-Draft local-path-id July 2024
Younsi, et al. Expires 4 January 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
M. Younsi
INSA-Lyon
P. Francois
INSA-Lyon
P. Lucente
NTT

BMP Local Path-ID

Abstract

Intelligence is required to track BGP paths throughout the various RIBs and VRFs of a routing platform, due to potential attribute modifications and the use of BGP multipath. This document introduces the option to identify a path within a router in order to ease correlation in monitoring. A BMPv4 TLV is defined in order to communicate this locally significant identifier in monitoring messages.

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.

Status of This Memo

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 4 January 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

When using VRFs and/or BGP Multipath, multiple paths to the same destination may be shared among various routing information bases. From a collection perspective, tracking the identity of a path thus requires some form of modeling, which is subject to inaccuracy. This aspect is exacerbated as path attributes may be modified in the process. This is especially problematic when a PE using BGP multipath in VPN instances exports multiple paths for the same destination into the default VRF, which were learned from different peers.

While BGP ADD-PATH [RFC7911] provides a way to identify paths in BGP multi-path scenarios, the scope of the ADD-PATH path-id is local to a single BGP peering session, and thus cannot be used to distinguish paths received over multiple sessions.

This document introduces a way to identify paths globally within a router, allowing operators to not resort to modeling when monitoring BGP paths on a router. In Section 2, we introduce the concept of Local Path ID, which is an identifier of a path for a given NLRI, preserved through the import/export operations performed onto them. In Section 3, we introduce a BMPv4 TLV allowing to communicate the value of a Local Path ID on a BMP session.

2. Local Path ID

In this section, we define an identifier called Local Path ID, which allows to uniquely identify a path for a given NLRI on a router.

According to this specification, a path to be advertised by BMP is provided with an associated Local Path ID. The Local Path ID is an opaque numerical value with a few properties guaranteeing its utility. The exact approach to generate a Local Path ID is however left for the implementation.

2.1. Local Path ID Properties

The Local Path ID of each path MUST be unique for a given NLRI. We scope the identifier space to each NLRI to keep it a small value. Indeed, most Internet routers have at most a few tens of paths for a given NLRI. While we put a minimum scope (the NLRI) for the identifier space, an implementor may decide to use a broader space for this unicity, as long as Local Path IDs are still unique for a given NLRI. For example, Local Path IDs can be unique accross VRFs, even though they will have to be larger, as this does not violate the rule.

The Local Path ID only has a meaning local to the router generating it.

Once generated, the Local Path ID MUST be preserved between VRFs, and Routing Information Bases. It is however not intended to be exchanged or synchronized between routers.

To ensure traceability in monitoring, the Local Path ID SHOULD be transmitted when paths are redistributed between processes. If the Local Path ID is not transmitted then the process receiving the path SHOULD allocate one.

The value of 0 for a Local Path ID is reserved.

2.2. Design Recommendation

In this section, we give general recommendations for the Local Path ID generation. These recommendations may or may not be applicable depending on the platform, the implementation of BGP, etc. The actual generation process of the Local Path ID does not matter as long as the the properties defined in Section 2.1 are respected.

We recommend having the Local Path ID made of three concatenated parts: < process_id | vrf_id | path_discriminator >.

The path_discriminator allows for differentiation between paths for a given NLRI, coming from the same table and process (with the same vrf_id and process_id). The process originating the path is in charge of guaranteeing the uniqueness of the path_discriminator it produces for each path of its NLRIs.

The vrf_id represents a unique identifier for the VRF in which the path to the NLRI is contained. It allows leveraging the already existing routing table structures of most BGP implementations by having to guarantee the uniqueness of the path_discriminator only within the table.

The process_id is the identifier of the process which produced, originated, or received a path. The process_id allows differentiation between path IDs generated in BGP from path IDs generated in other processes like an IGP. Redistributed IGP paths will then have a different Local Path ID no matter if BGP or another IGP has chosen the same path_discriminator value. Using the process_id avoids requiring interprocess synchronization of path_discriminators or the use of a Local Path ID management process.

3. Advertising the Local Path ID in BMP

The Local Path ID is to be included in BMPv4 Route Monitoring messages [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv] as a BMPv4 TLV, called "Local Path ID TLV". This TLV can carry multiple types of data which are discriminated by the "TLV Sub-Type" field. The "TLV Sub-Type" field can take the values given in Table 1. When a Local Path ID is allocated for a path, the router includes it using the "TLV Sub-Type" value 0x00 (Local Path ID Value). When a Local Path ID is not allocated, the router includes a "TLV Sub-Type" value 0x01 (Unavailability Reason Code) that describes why the Local Path ID is not available for the path. In practice, this means that a Local Path ID enabled router SHOULD always associate a Path ID TLV with a path advertised in BMP.

On the collector side, a path should be identified using the Local Path ID Value when provided, and only resort to network modeling when the Local Path ID is not available.

3.1. Local Path ID TLV

The encoding of the "Local Path ID TLV" is illustrated in Figure 1.


0                   1                   2                   3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|        Type (2 octets)        |       Length (2 octets)       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|        Index (2 octets)       |   Sub-Type    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~                        Value (variable)                       ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 1
Type:
set to TBD1
Length:
the length of the "TLV Sub-Type" field + the length of the "Value" field, in bytes
Index:
index of the NLRI in the BGP Update PDU as described by [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv]. The Index MUST refer to a single NLRI (no Group TLV).
Sub-Type:
a one byte TLV Sub-Type, as listed in Table 1
Value:
the value corresponding to the TLV Sub-Type as described in Section 3.2

3.2. Local Path ID TLV Sub-Types

The Table 1 defines the list of TLV Sub-Types and references the section defining their associated values.

Table 1: Local Path ID TLV Sub-Types
Code Name Length Section
0x00 Local Path ID Value Variable Section 3.2.1
0x01 Unavailability Reason Code 2 bytes Section 3.2.2

3.2.1. Local Path ID Value

When the Local Path ID is available for a path, the router exports the Local Path ID using a "Local Path ID TLV" with "TLV Sub-Type" = 0x00.

The Local Path ID Value contains the raw bytes of the generated Local Path ID (Section 2). The Length field is thus set to the length, in bytes, of the Local Path ID, plus one (for the TLV Sub-Type field).

3.2.2. Unavailability Reason Codes

An implementation enabled for Local Path ID usage MUST notify if a Local Path ID is unavailable (for any reason) by using the "TLV Sub-Type" = 0x01.

When "TLV Sub-Type" is 0x01, the TLV Value is a 2-byte error code from Table 2. The Length field of the "Local Path ID TLV" is thus set to 3 in this case.

Table 2: Local Path ID Unavailability Reason Codes
Code Reason Description
0x00 Unknown Reason A unknown error occurred during the allocation of the Local Path ID
0x01 Origin process did not provide a Local Path ID. A path is imported from another process, the latter does not provide a Local Path ID for the imported path and the receiving process did not allocate one either
0x02 All Local Path ID have been allocated. A Local Path ID could not be allocated for a path because the entire range of Local Path IDs is in use

4. IANA Considerations

This document requests that IANA assigns the following new parameters to the "BMP Route Monitoring TLVs" [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv] registry

This document also requests the definition of a "Local Path ID Reason Codes" registry in the "BMP Parameters" namespace, seeded as follows:

5. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7911]
Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911, DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-tlv]
Lucente, P. and Y. Gu, "BMP v4: TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-13, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-13>.

Authors' Addresses

Maxence Younsi
INSA-Lyon
Villeurbanne
France
Pierre Francois
INSA-Lyon
Villeurbanne
France
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp, WT 2132
Netherlands