diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8203.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc8203.txt | 339 |
1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8203.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8203.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7dcaf4a --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8203.txt @@ -0,0 +1,339 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Snijders +Request for Comments: 8203 NTT +Updates: 4486 J. Heitz +Category: Standards Track Cisco +ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Scudder + Juniper + July 2017 + + + BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication + +Abstract + + This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message + "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for + operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP + session was shutdown or reset. This document updates RFC 4486. + +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 + http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8203. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2017 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 + (http://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. + + + + + +Snijders, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 8203 BGP Shutdown July 2017 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 2. Shutdown Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 4. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + +1. Introduction + + It can be troublesome for an operator to correlate a BGP-4 [RFC4271] + session teardown in the network with a notice that was transmitted + via offline methods such as email or telephone calls. This document + updates [RFC4486] by specifying a mechanism to transmit a short + freeform UTF-8 [RFC3629] message as part of a Cease NOTIFICATION + message [RFC4271] to inform the peer why the BGP session is being + shutdown or reset. + +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. Shutdown Communication + + If a BGP speaker decides to terminate its session with a BGP + neighbor, and it sends a NOTIFICATION message with the Error Code + "Cease" and Error Subcode "Administrative Shutdown" or + "Administrative Reset" [RFC4486], it MAY include an UTF-8 encoded + string. The contents of the string are at the operator's discretion. + + + + + + + + + + + +Snijders, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 8203 BGP Shutdown July 2017 + + + The Cease NOTIFICATION message with a Shutdown Communication is + encoded as below: + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Error Code 6 | Subcode | Length | ... \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / + \ \ + / ... Shutdown Communication ... / + \ \ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 1 + + Subcode: the Error Subcode value MUST be one of the following + values: 2 ("Administrative Shutdown") or 4 ("Administrative + Reset"). + + Length: this 8-bit field represents the length of the Shutdown + Communication field in octets. The length value MUST range from 0 + to 128 inclusive. When the length value is zero, no Shutdown + Communication field follows. + + Shutdown Communication: to support international characters, the + Shutdown Communication field MUST be encoded using UTF-8. A + receiving BGP speaker MUST NOT interpret invalid UTF-8 sequences. + Note that when the Shutdown Communication contains multibyte + characters, the number of characters will be less than the length + value. This field is not NUL terminated. + + Mechanisms concerning the reporting of information contained in the + Shutdown Communication are implementation specific but SHOULD include + methods such as Syslog [RFC5424]. + +3. Operational Considerations + + Operators are encouraged to use the Shutdown Communication to inform + their peers of the reason for the shutdown of the BGP session and + include out-of-band reference materials. An example of a useful + Shutdown Communication would be: + + "[TICKET-1-1438367390] software upgrade; back in 2 hours" + + "[TICKET-1-1438367390]" is a ticket reference with significance to + both the sender and receiver, followed by a brief human-readable + message regarding the reason for the BGP session shutdown followed by + + + + +Snijders, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 8203 BGP Shutdown July 2017 + + + an indication about the length of the maintenance. The receiver can + now use the string 'TICKET-1-1438367390' to search in their email + archive to find more details. + +4. Error Handling + + If a Shutdown Communication with an invalid Length value, or an + invalid UTF-8 sequence is received, a message indicating this event + SHOULD be logged for the attention of the operator. An erroneous or + malformed Shutdown Communication itself MAY be logged in a hexdump + format. + +5. IANA Considerations + + IANA references this document (in addition to [RFC4486]) for subcodes + "Administrative Shutdown" (2) and "Administrative Reset" (4) in the + "Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry under the "Border + Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group. + +6. Security Considerations + + This document uses UTF-8 encoding for the Shutdown Communication. + There are a number of security issues with Unicode. Implementers and + operators are advised to review Unicode Technical Report #36 [UTR36] + to learn about these issues. UTF-8 "Shortest Form" encoding is + REQUIRED to guard against the technical issues outlined in [UTR36]. + + As BGP Shutdown Communications are likely to appear in syslog output, + there is a risk that carefully constructed Shutdown Communication + might be formatted by receiving systems in a way to make them appear + as additional syslog messages. To limit the ability to mount such an + attack, the BGP Shutdown Communication is limited to 128 octets in + length. + + Users of this mechanism should be aware that unless a transport that + provides integrity is used for the BGP session in question, a + Shutdown Communication message could be forged. Unless a transport + that provides confidentiality is used, a Shutdown Communication + message could be snooped by an attacker. These issues are common to + any BGP message but may be of greater interest in the context of this + proposal since the information carried in the message is generally + expected to be used for human-to-human communication. Refer to the + related considerations in [RFC4271] and [RFC4272]. + + Users of this mechanism should consider applying data minimization + practices as outlined in Section 6.1 of [RFC6973] because a received + Shutdown Communication may be used at the receiver's discretion. + + + + +Snijders, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 8203 BGP Shutdown July 2017 + + +7. References + +7.1. 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, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. + + [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO + 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November + 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>. + + [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, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. + + [RFC4486] Chen, E. and V. Gillet, "Subcodes for BGP Cease + Notification Message", RFC 4486, DOI 10.17487/RFC4486, + April 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4486>. + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC + 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, + May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. + +7.2. Informative References + + [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", + RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>. + + [RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5424, March 2009, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5424>. + + [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., + Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy + Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>. + + [UTR36] Davis, M., Ed. and M. Suignard, Ed., "Unicode Security + Considerations", Unicode Technical Report #36, August + 2010, <http://unicode.org/reports/tr36/>. + + + + + + +Snijders, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 8203 BGP Shutdown July 2017 + + +Acknowledgements + + The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Tom Scholl, David + Freedman, Jared Mauch, Jeff Haas, Peter Hessler, Bruno Decraene, John + Heasley, Peter van Dijk, Arjen Zonneveld, James Bensley, Susan Hares, + Saku Ytti, Lou Berger, Alvaro Retana, and Adam Roach. + + The authors would like to thank Enke Chen and Vincent Gillet for + their work on [RFC4486] and granting the related rights to the IETF + Trust per BCP 78. + +Authors' Addresses + + Job Snijders + NTT Communications + Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 + Amsterdam 1065 SZ + The Netherlands + + Email: job@ntt.net + + + Jakob Heitz + Cisco + 170 West Tasman Drive + San Jose, CA 95134 + United States of America + + Email: jheitz@cisco.com + + + John Scudder + Juniper Networks + 1194 N. Mathilda Ave + Sunnyvale, CA 94089 + United States of America + + Email: jgs@juniper.net + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Snijders, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] + |