draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-10.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-11.txt 
Network Working Group K. Patel Network Working Group K. Patel
Internet-Draft D. Ward Internet-Draft D. Ward
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Updates: 4271 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Expires: January 8, 2016 R. Bush Intended status: Standards Track R. Bush
Internet Initiative Japan Expires: January 25, 2016 Internet Initiative Japan
July 7, 2015 July 24, 2015
Extended Message support for BGP Extended Message support for BGP
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-10 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-11
Abstract Abstract
The BGP specification mandates a maximum BGP message size of 4096 The BGP specification mandates a maximum BGP message size of 4096
octets. As BGP is extended to support newer AFI/SAFIs, there is a octets. As BGP is extended to support newer AFI/SAFIs, there is a
need to extend the maximum message size beyond 4096 octets. This need to extend the maximum message size beyond 4096 octets. This
document updates [RFC4271] by providing an extension to BGP to extend document updates the BGP specification in RFC4271 by providing an
its current message size from 4096 octets to 65535 octets. extension to BGP to extend its current message size from 4096 octets
to 65535 octets.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
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" are to "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to
be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] only when they be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] only when they
appear in all upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed appear in all upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed
case as English words, without normative meaning. case as English words, without normative meaning.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 January 8, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 25, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
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. BGP Extended Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. BGP Extended Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Extended message Capability for BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Extended message Capability for BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The BGP specification [RFC4271] mandates a maximum BGP message size The BGP specification RFC4271 [RFC4271] mandates a maximum BGP
of 4096 octets. As BGP is extended to support newer AFI/SAFIs and message size of 4096 octets. As BGP is extended to support newer
newer capabilities (e.g., [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview]), there is AFI/SAFIs and newer capabilities (e.g.,
a need to extend the maximum message size beyond 4096 octets. This [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview]), there is a need to extend the
draft provides an extension to BGP to extend its current message size maximum message size beyond 4096 octets. This draft provides an
limit from 4096 octets to 65535 octets. extension to BGP to extend its current message size limit from 4096
octets to 65535 octets.
2. BGP Extended Message 2. BGP Extended Message
A BGP message over 4096 octets in length is a BGP Extended Message. A BGP message over 4096 octets in length is a BGP Extended Message.
BGP Extended Messages have maximum message size of 65535 octets. The BGP Extended Messages have maximum message size of 65535 octets. The
smallest message that may be sent consists of a BGP header without a smallest message that may be sent consists of a BGP header without a
data portion (19 octets). data portion (19 octets).
Multi-octet fields MUST be in network byte order. Multi-octet fields MUST be in network byte order.
skipping to change at page 3, line 35 skipping to change at page 3, line 37
if it has received the Extended Message Capability from its peer. if it has received the Extended Message Capability from its peer.
An implementation that supports the BGP Extended Messages MUST be An implementation that supports the BGP Extended Messages MUST be
prepared to receive an OPEN message that is larger than 4096 bytes. prepared to receive an OPEN message that is larger than 4096 bytes.
Applications generating messages which might be encapsulated within Applications generating messages which might be encapsulated within
BGP messages MUST limit the size of their payload to take into BGP messages MUST limit the size of their payload to take into
account the maximum message size and all encapsulation overheads on account the maximum message size and all encapsulation overheads on
the path the encapsulated data are expected to traverse. the path the encapsulated data are expected to traverse.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Error Handling
The authors thank Enke Chen, John Scudder, John Levine, and Job A BGP speaker that has the ability to use extended messages but has
Snijders for their input. not advertised the BGP Extended Messages capability, presumably due
to configuration, SHOULD NOT accept such a message.
6. IANA Considerations However, a BGP speaker that does not advertise the BGP Extended
Messages capability might also genuinely not support extended
messages. Such a speaker would be expected to follow the error
handling procedures of [RFC4221], Section 6.1, and reset the session
with a Bad Message Length NOTIFICATION if it receives an extended
message. A speaker that treats an improper extended message as a
fatal error should do likewise.
The IANA is requested to register a new BGP Capability Code in the 6. Acknowledgements
upper range named BGP Extended Message Capability referring to this
document.
7. Security Considerations The authors thank Enke Chen, Susan Hares, John Scudder, John Levine,
and Job Snijders for their input.
7. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to register a new BGP Capability Code to be
named BGP Extended Message Capability and referring to this document.
Registry: BGP Capability Code
Value Description Document
----- ----------------------------------- -------------
64 Graceful Restart Capability [RFC4724]
....
72 CP-ORF Capability [RFC7543]
...
TBD BGP-Extended Message [this draft]
8. Security Considerations
This extension to BGP does not change BGP's underlying security This extension to BGP does not change BGP's underlying security
issues. issues.
Many have said that BGP does not reveal sensitive data in the 9. References
presence of pervasive monitoring. While the topology information in
inter-provider BGP can be gained through other means, perhaps it does
not need to be made trivially easy. And BGP's use in VPN signaling
would seem to be sensitive. Perhaps this needs more thought.
8. References
8.1. Normative References 9.1. 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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4221] Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A. Farrel, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview", RFC 4221,
November 2005.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009. with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview] [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview]
Lepinski, M. and S. Turner, "An Overview of BGPSEC", Lepinski, M. and S. Turner, "An Overview of BGPSEC",
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-02 (work in progress), May draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-02 (work in progress), May
2012. 2012.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Keyur Patel Keyur Patel
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
38 lines changed or deleted 62 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/