wdiff rfc8538v1.txt rfc8538.txt

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
February 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 protocol 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
NOTIFICATION Cease Error NOTIFICATION messages; this new subcode whose effect is to request 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.

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

1. Introduction

For many classes of errors, the BGP protocol 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 the
BGP protocol. 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 using by sending a "Hard Reset" subcode for the BGP NOTIFICATION Cease
Error code. 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.

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" Hard Reset Subcode

This document defines a new subcode for BGP NOTIFICATION Cease message subcode NOTIFICATION
messages, called the "Hard Reset" Hard Reset subcode. The value of this subcode
is discussed in Section 8. In this document, a BGP NOTIFICATION Cease
NOTIFICATION message with the "Hard Reset" 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, to distinguish them
from Hard Reset, we refer to any 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 a peer, with which the
"N" bit has been exchanged, 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].

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.

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.

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 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, Cease subcodes 1-9 have
been defined. defined for Cease. The following table lists each of these
subcodes along with suggested behavior.

Suggestions for Cease Subcode Behavior

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 Cease 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 Cease subcodes encapsulated within. The encapsulated
administrative shutdown message MUST
subsequently be processed according to [RFC8203].

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 | | |
+--------------+------------------+------------+-----------+

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>.

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