1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Patel
Request for Comments: 7313 E. Chen
Updates: 2918 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track B. Venkatachalapathy
ISSN: 2070-1721 July 2014
Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4
Abstract
In this document, we enhance the existing BGP route refresh
mechanisms to provide for the demarcation of the beginning and the
ending of a route refresh. The enhancement can be used to facilitate
correction of BGP Routing Information Base (RIB) inconsistencies in a
non-disruptive manner. This document updates RFC 2918.
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 5741.
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/rfc7313.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7313 Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 July 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.1. Enhanced Route Refresh Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Subtypes for ROUTE-REFRESH Message . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
It is sometimes necessary to perform routing consistency validations
such as checking for possible missing route withdrawals between BGP
speakers [RFC4271]. Currently, such validations typically involve
offline, manual operations that can be tedious and time-consuming.
In this document, we enhance the existing BGP route refresh
mechanisms [RFC2918] to provide for the demarcation of the beginning
and the ending of a route refresh (which refers to the complete
re-advertisement of the Adj-RIB-Out to a peer, subject to routing
policies). The enhancement can be used to facilitate online, non-
disruptive consistency validation of BGP routing updates.
This document updates [RFC2918] by redefining a field in the ROUTE-
REFRESH message that was previously designated as Reserved.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] only when
they appear in all upper case. They may also appear in lower or
mixed case as English words, without any normative meaning.
3. Protocol Extensions
The BGP protocol extensions introduced in this document include the
definition of a new BGP capability, named "Enhanced Route Refresh
Capability", and the specification of the message subtypes for the
ROUTE-REFRESH message.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7313 Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 July 2014
3.1. Enhanced Route Refresh Capability
The "Enhanced Route Refresh Capability" is a new BGP capability
[RFC5492]. IANA has assigned a Capability Code of 70 for this
capability. The Capability Length field of this capability is zero.
By advertising this capability to a peer, a BGP speaker conveys to
the peer that the speaker supports the message subtypes for the
ROUTE-REFRESH message and the related procedures described in this
document.
3.2. Subtypes for ROUTE-REFRESH Message
The "Reserved" field of the ROUTE-REFRESH message specified in
[RFC2918] is redefined as the "Message Subtype" with the following
values:
0 - Normal route refresh request [RFC2918]
with/without Outbound Route Filtering (ORF) [RFC5291]
1 - Demarcation of the beginning of a route refresh
(BoRR) operation
2 - Demarcation of the ending of a route refresh
(EoRR) operation
255 - Reserved
The remaining values of the message subtypes are reserved for future
use; see Section 6 ("IANA Considerations"). The use of the new
message subtypes is described in Section 4 ("Operation").
4. Operation
A BGP speaker that supports the message subtypes for the ROUTE-
REFRESH message and the related procedures SHOULD advertise the
"Enhanced Route Refresh Capability".
The following procedures are applicable only if a BGP speaker has
received the "Enhanced Route Refresh Capability" from a peer.
Before the speaker starts a route refresh that is either initiated
locally, or in response to a "normal route refresh request" from the
peer, the speaker MUST send a BoRR message. After the speaker
completes the re-advertisement of the entire Adj-RIB-Out to the peer,
it MUST send an EoRR message.
Conceptually, the "entire Adj-RIB-Out" for a peer in this section
refers to all the route entries in the "Adj-RIB-Out" for the peer at
the start of the route refresh operation. These route entries
comprise both the reachability as well as unreachability information.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7313 Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 July 2014
When a route entry in the "Adj-RIB-Out" changes, only the modified
route entry needs to be advertised.
In processing a ROUTE-REFRESH message from a peer, the BGP speaker
MUST examine the "message subtype" field of the message and take the
appropriate actions. The message processing rules for ROUTE-REFRESH
message with subtype of 0 are described in [RFC2918] and [RFC5291].
A BGP speaker can receive a BoRR message from a peer at any time,
either as a result of a peer responding to a ROUTE-REFRESH message,
or as a result of a peer unilaterally initiating a route refresh.
When a BGP speaker receives a BoRR message from a peer, it MUST mark
all the routes with the given Address Family Identifier and
Subsequent Address Family Identifier, <AFI, SAFI> [RFC2918], from
that peer as stale. As it receives routes from its peer's subsequent
Adj-RIB-Out re-advertisement, these replace any corresponding stale
routes. When a BGP speaker receives an EoRR message from a peer, it
MUST immediately remove any routes from the peer that are still
marked as stale for that <AFI, SAFI>. Such purged routes MAY be
logged for future analysis. A BGP speaker MAY ignore any EoRR
message received without a prior receipt of an associated BoRR
message. Such messages MAY be logged for future analysis.
An implementation MAY impose a locally configurable upper bound on
how long it would retain any stale routes. Once the upper bound is
reached, the implementation MAY remove any routes from the peer that
are still marked as stale for that <AFI, SAFI> without waiting for an
EoRR message.
The following procedures are specified in order to simplify the
interaction with the BGP Graceful Restart [RFC4724]. In particular,
these procedures ensure that End-of-RIB (EoR) defined in Graceful
Restart and EoRR as defined in this specification are kept separate,
thereby avoiding any premature cleanup of stale routes. For a BGP
speaker that supports the BGP Graceful Restart, it MUST NOT send a
BoRR for an <AFI, SAFI> to a neighbor before it sends the EoR for the
<AFI, SAFI> to the neighbor. A BGP speaker that has received the
Graceful Restart Capability from its neighbor MUST ignore any BoRRs
for an <AFI, SAFI> from the neighbor before the speaker receives the
EoR for the given <AFI, SAFI> from the neighbor. The BGP speaker
SHOULD log an error of the condition for further analysis.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7313 Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 July 2014
5. Error Handling
This document defines a new NOTIFICATION error code:
Error Code Name
7 ROUTE-REFRESH Message Error
The following error subcode is defined as well:
Subcode Name
1 Invalid Message Length
The error handling specified in this section is applicable only when
a BGP speaker has received the "Enhanced Route Refresh Capability"
from a peer.
If the length, excluding the fixed-size message header, of the
received ROUTE-REFRESH message with Message Subtype 1 and 2 is not 4,
then the BGP speaker MUST send a NOTIFICATION message with the Error
Code of "ROUTE-REFRESH Message Error" and the subcode of "Invalid
Message Length". The Data field of the NOTIFICATION message MUST
contain the complete ROUTE-REFRESH message.
When the BGP speaker receives a ROUTE-REFRESH message with a "Message
Subtype" field other than 0, 1, or 2, it MUST ignore the received
ROUTE-REFRESH message. It SHOULD log an error for further analysis.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7313 Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 July 2014
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines the Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP.
In the "Capability Codes" registry, IANA has assigned it value 70,
referencing this document.
This document also defines two new subcodes for the Route Refresh
message. They have been registered with the IANA in a new registry
as follows:
Under "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters":
Registry: "BGP Route Refresh Subcodes"
Reference: [RFC7313]
Registration Procedure(s): Values 0-127 Standards Action,
values 128-254 First Come First Served
Value Code Reference
0 Route-Refresh [RFC2918], [RFC5291]
1 BoRR [RFC7313]
2 EoRR [RFC7313]
3-254 Unassigned
255 Reserved [RFC7313]
In addition, this document defines a NOTIFICATION error code and an
error subcode related to the ROUTE-REFRESH message. IANA has changed
the name of the "BGP Error Codes" to "BGP Error (Notification) Codes"
and added this document as a reference. IANA has allocated a new
error code from that registry with the name "ROUTE-REFRESH Message
Error", referencing this document.
IANA has created a new registry for the error subcodes as follows:
Under "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters",
under "BGP Error Subcodes":
Registry: "BGP ROUTE-REFRESH Message Error subcodes"
Reference: [RFC7313]
Registration Procedure(s): Values 0-127 Standards Action,
values 128-255 First Come First Served
Value Name Reference
0 Reserved [RFC7313]
1 Invalid Message Length [RFC7313]
2-255 Unassigned
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7313 Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 July 2014
7. Security Considerations
Security considerations are given in [RFC4272] , but they do not
cover Route-Refresh and many other BGP extensions. This document
does not significantly change the underlying security issues
regarding Route-Refresh, although improved error handling may aid
operational security.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Pedro Marques, Pradosh Mohapatra,
Robert Raszuk, Pranav Mehta, Shyam Sethuram, Bruno Decraene, Martin
Djernaes, Jeff Haas, Ilya Varlashkin, Rob Shakir, Paul Jakma, Jie
Dong, Qing Zeng, Albert Tian, Jakob Heitz, and Chris Hall for their
review and comments. The authors would like to thank John Scudder
for the review and contribution to this document.
9. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918,
September 2000.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC
4272, January 2006.
[RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
January 2007.
[RFC5291] Chen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "Outbound Route Filtering
Capability for BGP-4", RFC 5291, August 2008.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009.
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7313 Enhanced Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 July 2014
Authors' Addresses
Keyur Patel
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: keyupate@cisco.com
Enke Chen
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: enkechen@cisco.com
Balaji Venkatachalapathy
EMail: balaji_pv@hotmail.com
Patel, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
^L
|
