GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8538

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Patel Request for Comments: 8538 Arrcus Updates: 4724 R. Fernando Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Scudder

                                                               J. Haas
                                                      Juniper Networks
                                                            March 2019
       Notification Message Support for BGP Graceful Restart

Abstract

 The BGP Graceful Restart mechanism defined in RFC 4724 limits the
 usage of BGP Graceful Restart to BGP messages other than BGP
 NOTIFICATION messages.  This document updates RFC 4724 by defining an
 extension that permits the Graceful Restart procedures to be
 performed when the BGP speaker receives a BGP NOTIFICATION message or
 the Hold Time expires.  This document also defines a new subcode for
 BGP Cease NOTIFICATION messages; this new subcode requests a full
 session restart instead of a Graceful Restart.

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/rfc8538.

Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 8538 Notification Support for BGP GR March 2019

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2019 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 2.  Modifications to BGP Graceful Restart Capability  . . . . . .   3
 3.  BGP Hard Reset Subcode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.1.  Sending a Hard Reset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.2.  Receiving a Hard Reset  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 4.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.1.  Rules for the Receiving Speaker . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 5.  Use of Hard Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.1.  When to Send a Hard Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.2.  Interaction with Other Specifications . . . . . . . . . .   7
 6.  Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
 7.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
 8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
 9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
 10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 8538 Notification Support for BGP GR March 2019

1. Introduction

 For many classes of errors, BGP must send a NOTIFICATION message and
 reset the peering session to handle the error condition.  The BGP
 Graceful Restart mechanism defined in [RFC4724] requires that normal
 BGP procedures defined in [RFC4271] be followed when a NOTIFICATION
 message is sent or received.  This document defines an extension to
 BGP Graceful Restart that permits the Graceful Restart procedures to
 be performed when the BGP speaker receives a NOTIFICATION message or
 the Hold Time expires.  This permits the BGP speaker to avoid
 flapping reachability and continue forwarding while the BGP speaker
 restarts the session to handle errors detected in BGP.
 At a high level, this document can be summed up as follows.  When a
 BGP session is reset, both speakers operate as "Receiving Speakers"
 according to [RFC4724], meaning they retain each other's routes.
 This is also true for HOLDTIME expiration.  The functionality can be
 defeated by sending a BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message with the Hard
 Reset subcode.  If a Hard Reset is used, a full session reset is
 performed.

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. Modifications to BGP Graceful Restart Capability

 The BGP Graceful Restart Capability is augmented to signal the
 Graceful Restart support for BGP NOTIFICATION messages.  The Restart
 Flags field is augmented as follows (following the diagram in
 Section 3 of [RFC4724]).
 Restart Flags:
       This field contains bit flags relating to restart.
              0 1 2 3
             +-+-+-+-+
             |R|N|   |
             +-+-+-+-+
 The most significant bit is defined in [RFC4724] as the Restart State
 ("R") bit.

Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 8538 Notification Support for BGP GR March 2019

 The second most significant bit is defined in this document as the
 Graceful Notification ("N") bit.  It is used to indicate Graceful
 Restart support for BGP NOTIFICATION messages.  A BGP speaker
 indicates support for the procedures in this document by advertising
 a Graceful Restart Capability with its "N" bit set (value 1).
 If a BGP speaker that previously advertised a given set of Graceful
 Restart parameters opens a new session with a different set of
 parameters, these new parameters apply once the session has
 transitioned into ESTABLISHED state.

3. BGP Hard Reset Subcode

 This document defines a new subcode for BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
 messages, called the Hard Reset subcode.  The value of this subcode
 is discussed in Section 8.  In this document, a BGP Cease
 NOTIFICATION message with the Hard Reset subcode is referred to as a
 "Hard Reset message" or simply as a "Hard Reset".
 When the "N" bit has been exchanged by two peers, NOTIFICATION
 messages other than Hard Reset messages are referred to as
 "Graceful", since such messages invoke Graceful Restart semantics.

3.1. Sending a Hard Reset

 When the "N" bit has been exchanged, a Hard Reset message is used to
 indicate to the peer that the session is to be fully terminated.
 When sending a Hard Reset, the data portion of the NOTIFICATION
 message is encoded as follows:
     +--------+--------+--------
     | ErrCode| Subcode| Data
     +--------+--------+--------
 ErrCode is a BGP Error Code (as documented in the IANA "BGP Error
 (Notification) Codes" registry) that indicates the reason for the
 Hard Reset.  Subcode is a BGP Error Subcode (as documented in the
 IANA "BGP Error Subcodes" registry) as appropriate for the ErrCode.
 Similarly, Data is as appropriate for the ErrCode and Subcode.  In
 short, the Hard Reset encapsulates another NOTIFICATION message in
 its data portion.

3.2. Receiving a Hard Reset

 Whenever a BGP speaker receives a Hard Reset, the speaker MUST
 terminate the BGP session following the standard procedures in
 [RFC4271].

Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 8538 Notification Support for BGP GR March 2019

4. Operation

 A BGP speaker that is willing to receive and send BGP NOTIFICATION
 messages according to the procedures of this document MUST advertise
 the "N" bit using the Graceful Restart Capability as defined in
 [RFC4724].
 When such a BGP speaker has received the "N" bit from its peer, and
 receives from that peer a BGP NOTIFICATION message other than a Hard
 Reset, it MUST follow the rules for the Receiving Speaker mentioned
 in Section 4.1.  The BGP speaker generating the BGP NOTIFICATION
 message MUST also follow the rules for the Receiving Speaker.
 When a BGP speaker resets its session due to a HOLDTIME expiry, it
 should generate the relevant BGP NOTIFICATION message as mentioned in
 [RFC4271] but subsequently MUST follow the rules for the Receiving
 Speaker mentioned in Section 4.1.
 A BGP speaker SHOULD NOT send a Hard Reset to a peer from which it
 has not received the "N" bit.  We note, however, that if it did so,
 the effect would be as desired in any case because, according to
 [RFC4271] and [RFC4724], any NOTIFICATION message, whether recognized
 or not, results in a session reset.  Thus, the only negative effect
 to be expected from sending the Hard Reset to a peer that hasn't
 advertised compliance to this specification would be that the peer
 would be unable to properly log the associated information.
 Once the session is re-established, both BGP speakers SHOULD set
 their Forwarding State bit to 1.  If the Forwarding State bit is not
 set, then, according to the procedures in Section 4.2 of [RFC4724],
 the relevant routes will be flushed, defeating the goals of this
 specification.

Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 8538 Notification Support for BGP GR March 2019

4.1. Rules for the Receiving Speaker

 Section 4.2 of [RFC4724] defines rules for the Receiving Speaker.
 This document modifies those rules as follows:
 The sentence "To deal with possible consecutive restarts, a route
 (from the peer) previously marked as stale MUST be deleted" only
 applies when the "N" bit has not been exchanged with the peer:
 OLD: When the Receiving Speaker detects termination of the TCP
      session for a BGP session with a peer that has advertised the
      Graceful Restart Capability, it MUST retain the routes received
      from the peer for all the address families that were previously
      received in the Graceful Restart Capability and MUST mark them
      as stale routing information.  To deal with possible consecutive
      restarts, a route (from the peer) previously marked as stale
      MUST be deleted.  The router MUST NOT differentiate between
      stale and other routing information during forwarding.
 NEW: When the Receiving Speaker detects termination of the TCP
      session for a BGP session with a peer that has advertised the
      Graceful Restart Capability, it MUST retain the routes received
      from the peer for all the address families that were previously
      received in the Graceful Restart Capability and MUST mark them
      as stale routing information.  The router MUST NOT differentiate
      between stale and other routing information during forwarding.
      If the "N" bit has not been exchanged with the peer, then to
      deal with possible consecutive restarts, a route (from the peer)
      previously marked as stale MUST be deleted.
 The stale timer is given a formal name and made mandatory:
 OLD: To put an upper bound on the amount of time a router retains the
      stale routes, an implementation MAY support a (configurable)
      timer that imposes this upper bound.
 NEW: To put an upper bound on the amount of time a router retains the
      stale routes, an implementation MUST support a (configurable)
      timer, called the "stale timer", that imposes this upper bound.
      A suggested default value for the stale timer is 180 seconds.
      An implementation MAY provide the option to disable the timer
      (i.e., to provide an infinite retention time) but MUST NOT do so
      by default.

Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 8538 Notification Support for BGP GR March 2019

5. Use of Hard Reset

5.1. When to Send a Hard Reset

 Although when to send a Hard Reset is an implementation-specific
 decision, we offer some advice.  Many Cease NOTIFICATION subcodes
 represent permanent or long-term, rather than transient, session
 termination.  Because of this, it's appropriate to use Hard Reset
 with them.  As of publication of this document, subcodes 1-9 have
 been defined for Cease.  The following table lists each of these
 subcodes along with suggested behavior.
 +-------+------------------------------------+----------------------+
 | Value |                Name                |  Suggested Behavior  |
 +-------+------------------------------------+----------------------+
 |   1   | Maximum Number of Prefixes Reached |      Hard Reset      |
 |   2   |      Administrative Shutdown       |      Hard Reset      |
 |   3   |         Peer De-configured         |      Hard Reset      |
 |   4   |        Administrative Reset        | Provide user control |
 |   5   |        Connection Rejected         |    Graceful Cease    |
 |   6   |     Other Configuration Change     |    Graceful Cease    |
 |   7   |  Connection Collision Resolution   |    Graceful Cease    |
 |   8   |          Out of Resources          |    Graceful Cease    |
 |   9   |             Hard Reset             |      Hard Reset      |
 +-------+------------------------------------+----------------------+
 These suggestions are only that -- suggestions, not requirements.
 It's the nature of BGP implementations that the mapping of internal
 states to BGP NOTIFICATION codes and subcodes is not always perfect.
 The guiding principle for the implementor should be that if there is
 no realistic hope that forwarding can continue or that the session
 will be re-established within the deadline, Hard Reset should be
 used.
 For all NOTIFICATION codes other than Cease, use of Hard Reset does
 not appear to be indicated.

5.2. Interaction with Other Specifications

 "BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication" [RFC8203] specifies use
 of the data portion of the Administrative Shutdown or Administrative
 Reset subcodes to convey a short message.  When [RFC8203] is used in
 conjunction with Hard Reset, the subcode of the outermost Cease MUST
 be Hard Reset, with the Administrative Shutdown or Administrative
 Reset subcodes encapsulated within.  The encapsulated message MUST
 subsequently be processed according to [RFC8203].

Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 8538 Notification Support for BGP GR March 2019

6. Management Considerations

 When reporting a Hard Reset to network management, the error code and
 subcode reported MUST be Cease and Hard Reset, respectively.  If the
 network management layer in use permits it, the information carried
 in the Data portion SHOULD be reported as well.

7. Operational Considerations

 Note that long (or infinite) retention time may cause operational
 issues and should be enabled with care.

8. IANA Considerations

 IANA has assigned subcode 9 ("Hard Reset") in the "BGP Cease
 NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry.
 IANA has created a sub-registry called "BGP Graceful Restart Flags"
 under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry.  The
 registration procedure is Standards Action [RFC8126]; this document
 and [RFC4724] are listed as references.  The initial values are as
 follows:
       +--------------+---------------+------------+-----------+
       | Bit Position |      Name     | Short Name | Reference |
       +--------------+---------------+------------+-----------+
       |      0       | Restart State |     R      |  RFC 4724 |
       |      1       |  Notification |     N      |  RFC 8538 |
       |     2-3      |   Unassigned  |            |           |
       +--------------+---------------+------------+-----------+
 IANA has created a sub-registry called "BGP Graceful Restart Flags
 for Address Family" under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
 Parameters" registry.  The registration procedure is Standards
 Action; this document and [RFC4724] are listed as references.  The
 initial values are as follows:
     +--------------+------------------+------------+-----------+
     | Bit Position |       Name       | Short Name | Reference |
     +--------------+------------------+------------+-----------+
     |      0       | Forwarding State |     F      |  RFC 4724 |
     |     1-7      |    Unassigned    |            |           |
     +--------------+------------------+------------+-----------+

Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 8538 Notification Support for BGP GR March 2019

9. Security Considerations

 This specification doesn't change the basic security model inherent
 in [RFC4724], with the exception that the protection against repeated
 resets is relaxed.  To mitigate the consequent risk that an attacker
 could use repeated session resets to prevent stale routes from ever
 being deleted, we make the stale timer mandatory (in practice, it is
 already ubiquitous).  To the extent [RFC4724] might be said to help
 defend against denials of service by making the control plane more
 resilient, this extension may modestly increase that resilience;
 however, there are enough confounding and deployment-specific factors
 that no general claims can be made.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

 [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>.
 [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
            Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
 [RFC4724]  Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
            Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4724, January 2007,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4724>.
 [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>.
 [RFC8203]  Snijders, J., Heitz, J., and J. Scudder, "BGP
            Administrative Shutdown Communication", RFC 8203,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC8203, July 2017,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8203>.

10.2. Informative References

 [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
            Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
            RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 8538 Notification Support for BGP GR March 2019

Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to thank Jim Uttaro for the suggestion.  The
 authors would also like to thank Emmanuel Baccelli, Bruno Decraene,
 Chris Hall, Warren Kumari, Paul Mattes, Robert Raszuk, and Alvaro
 Retana for their reviews and comments.

Authors' Addresses

 Keyur Patel
 Arrcus
 Email: keyur@arrcus.com
 Rex Fernando
 Cisco Systems
 170 W. Tasman Drive
 San Jose, CA  95134
 United States of America
 Email: rex@cisco.com
 John Scudder
 Juniper Networks
 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
 Sunnyvale, CA  94089
 United States of America
 Email: jgs@juniper.net
 Jeff Haas
 Juniper Networks
 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
 Sunnyvale, CA  94089
 United States of America
 Email: jhaas@juniper.net

Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc8538.txt · Last modified: 2019/03/09 01:46 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki