draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-13.txt 
Network Working Group R. Bush Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft Internet Initiative Japan Internet-Draft Internet Initiative Japan
Updates: 4271 (if approved) K. Patel Updates: 4271 (if approved) K. Patel
Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward
Expires: November 22, 2016 Cisco Systems Expires: December 24, 2016 Cisco Systems
May 21, 2016 June 22, 2016
Extended Message support for BGP Extended Message support for BGP
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-13
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 the BGP specification in RFC4271 by providing an document updates the BGP specification by providing an extension to
extension to BGP to extend its current message size from 4096 octets BGP to extend its current message size from 4096 octets to 65535
to 65535 octets. 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 45 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 November 22, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 24, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 3, line 48 skipping to change at page 3, line 48
A BGP speaker that has the ability to use extended messages but has A BGP speaker that has the ability to use extended messages but has
not advertised the BGP Extended Messages capability, presumably due not advertised the BGP Extended Messages capability, presumably due
to configuration, SHOULD NOT accept an extended message. A speaker to configuration, SHOULD NOT accept an extended message. A speaker
MAY implement a more liberal policy and accept extended messages even MAY implement a more liberal policy and accept extended messages even
from a peer that has not advertised the capability. from a peer that has not advertised the capability.
However, a BGP speaker that does not advertise the BGP Extended However, a BGP speaker that does not advertise the BGP Extended
Messages capability might also genuinely not support extended Messages capability might also genuinely not support extended
messages. Such a speaker would be expected to follow the error messages. Such a speaker would be expected to follow the error
handling procedures of [RFC4221], Section 6.1, and reset the session handling procedures of [RFC4271], Section 6.1, and reset the session
with a Bad Message Length NOTIFICATION if it receives an extended with a Bad Message Length NOTIFICATION if it receives an extended
message. A speaker that treats an improper extended message as a message. A speaker that treats an improper extended message as a
fatal error, as described in the preceding paragraph, MUST do fatal error, as described in the preceding paragraph, MUST do
likewise. likewise.
The inconsistency between the local and remote BGP speakers MUST be
reported via syslog and/or SNMP.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Enke Chen, Susan Hares, John Scudder, John Levine, The authors thank Enke Chen, Susan Hares, John Scudder, John Levine,
and Job Snijders for their input. and Job Snijders for their input.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to register a new BGP Capability Code to be The IANA is requested to register a new BGP Capability Code to be
named BGP Extended Message Capability and referring to this document. named BGP Extended Message Capability and referring to this document.
skipping to change at page 4, line 28 skipping to change at page 4, line 31
----- ----------------------------------- ------------- ----- ----------------------------------- -------------
64 Graceful Restart Capability [RFC4724] 64 Graceful Restart Capability [RFC4724]
.... ....
72 CP-ORF Capability [RFC7543] 72 CP-ORF Capability [RFC7543]
... ...
TBD BGP-Extended Message [this draft] TBD BGP-Extended Message [this draft]
8. Security Considerations 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. It does enable large BGPsec BGPSEC_PATHs, see
[I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]
9. References 9. References
9.1. 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.
9.2. 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.
[I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]
Lepinski, M., "BGPSEC Protocol Specification", draft-ietf-
sidr-bgpsec-protocol-07 (work in progress), February 2013.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Randy Bush Randy Bush
Internet Initiative Japan Internet Initiative Japan
5147 Crystal Springs 5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
US US
Email: randy@psg.com Email: randy@psg.com
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 17 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/