wdiff rfc9072.original rfc9072.txt

IDR

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Chen
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9072 Palo Alto Networks
Updates: 4271 (if approved) J. Scudder
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: October 24, 2021 April 22,
ISSN: 2070-1721 June 2021

Extended Optional Parameters Length for BGP OPEN Message
draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-13

Abstract

The Optional Parameters in the BGP OPEN message as defined in the
base BGP specification are limited to 255 octets due to a one-octet
length field. BGP Capabilities capabilities are carried in this field and may
foreseeably exceed 255 octets in the future, leading to concern concerns
about this limitation.

This document updates RFC 4271 by extending, in a backward-compatible
manner, the length of the Optional Parameters in the a BGP OPEN. OPEN message.
The Parameter Length field of individual Optional Parameters is also
extended.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum 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 six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on October 24, 2021.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9072.

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
1.1. Requirements Language
2. Update to RFC 4271
3. Backward Compatibility
4. IANA Considerations
5. Security Considerations
6. References
6.1. Normative References
6.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

The Optional Parameters Length field in the BGP OPEN message is
defined in the base BGP specification [RFC4271] as one octet, thus
limiting the Optional Parameters field in the OPEN message to 255
octets. Since BGP Capabilities capabilities [RFC5492] are carried in the Optional
Parameters field, and new BGP capabilities continue to be introduced,
the limitation is a concern for BGP development.

This document updates [RFC4271] by extending, in a backward-
compatible manner, extending the length of the
Optional Parameters in BGP OPEN. OPEN in a backward-compatible manner.
This is done by using Optional Parameter Type type code 255 as a
distinguished value, that which indicates an extended Optional Parameters
Length field follows and that the parsing of the BGP OPEN should be
modified according to these procedures. In this case case, the Parameter
Length field of the individual Optional Parameters in the BGP OPEN
message is also extended.

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. Update to RFC 4271

This document reserves Optional Parameter Type type code 255 as the
"Extended Length" type code. Length".

In the event that the length of the Optional Parameters in the BGP
OPEN message does not exceed 255, the encodings of the base BGP
specification [RFC4271] SHOULD be used without alteration.
Configuration MAY override this to force the extended format to be
used in all cases; this might be used, for example example, to test that a
peer supports this specification. (In any case, an implementation
MUST accept an OPEN message that uses the encoding of this
specification even if the length of the Optional Parameters is 255 or
less.)

However, if the length of the Optional Parameters in the BGP OPEN
message does exceed 255, the OPEN message MUST be encoded according
to the procedure 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| My Autonomous System |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hold Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Non-Ext OP Len.|Non-Ext OP Type| Extended Opt. Parm. Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Optional Parameters (variable) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 1: Extended Encoding OPEN Format

The Non-Extended Optional Parameters Length field (Non-Ext OP Len) Len.)
SHOULD be set to 255 on transmission and and, in any event event, MUST NOT be
set to 0, and 0; it MUST be ignored on receipt once the use of the extended
format is determined positively by inspection of the Non-Extended
Optional Parameters Type (Non-Ext OP Type) field.

The subsequent one-octet field (that (which would be the first Optional
Parameter Type field in the non-extended format, format and is called "Non-
Ext OP Type" in the figure above) MUST be set to 255 on transmission.
On receipt, a value of 255 for this field is the indication that the
extended format is in use.

In this extended encoding, the subsequent two-octet field, termed the
Extended
"Extended Optional Parameters Length field, field", is an unsigned integer
indicating the total length of the Optional Parameters field in
octets. If the value of this field is zero, no Optional Parameters
are present.

Likewise, in that situation situation, the Optional Parameters encoding is
modified to be the following:

0 1 2
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Parm. Type | Parameter Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Parameter Value (variable) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 2: Extended Parameters Format

The rules for encoding Optional Parameters are unchanged with respect
to those given in [RFC4271] other than the extension of [RFC4271], except that the Parameter Length field
is extended to be a two-octet unsigned integer.

In parsing an OPEN message, if the one-octet "Optional Optional Parameters
Length"
Length field (labeled "Non-Ext OP Len." in Figure 1) is non-zero, a
BGP speaker MUST use the value of the octet following the one-octet
"Optional
Optional Parameters Length" Length field (labeled "Non-Ext OP Type" in
Figure 1) to determine both the encoding of the Optional Parameters
length and the size of the "Parameter Length" Parameter Length field of individual
Optional Parameters. If the value of the "Non-Ext OP Type" field is
255, then the encoding described above is used for the Optional
Parameters length. Otherwise Otherwise, the encoding defined in [RFC4271] is
used.

3. Backward Compatibility

If a BGP speaker supporting this specification (a "new speaker") is
peering with one which that does not (an "old speaker") speaker"), no
interoperability issues arise unless the new speaker needs to encode
Optional Parameters whose length exceeds 255. In that case, it will
transmit an OPEN message which that the old speaker will interpret as
containing an Optional Parameter with type code 255. Since by
definition the old
speaker will not recognize that type code, code by definition, the old
speaker is expected to close the connection with a NOTIFICATION with
an Error Code error code of OPEN "OPEN Message Error Error" and an Error Subcode error subcode of
Unsupported
"Unsupported Optional Parameters, Parameters", according to Section 6.2 of
[RFC4271].

Although the Optional Parameter Type type code 255 is used in this
specification as the indication that the extended encoding is in use,
it is not a bona fide Optional Parameter Type type code in the usual sense, sense
and MUST NOT be used other than as described above. If encountered in
any position
other than as the first Optional Parameter Non-Ext OP Type, it MUST be treated as an
unrecognized Optional Parameter and handled according to [RFC4271] [RFC4271],
Section 6.2.

It is not considered an error to receive an OPEN message whose
Extended Optional Parameters Length value is less than or equal to
255. It is not considered a fatal error to receive an OPEN message
whose (non-extended) Optional Parameters Length value is not 255, 255 and
whose first Optional Parameter type code is 255 -- in this case case, the
encoding of this specification MUST be used for decoding the message.

4. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to designate has assigned value 255 as the Extended Length type code 255 in the BGP
"BGP OPEN Optional Parameter Types registry as the Extended Length type code. Types" registry.

5. Security Considerations

This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security or
confidentiality issues inherent in the existing BGP [RFC4272].

6. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter and Srihari Sangli for
discussing various options to enlarge the Optional Parameters field.
We would also like to thank Matthew Bocci, Bruno Decraene, John
Heasley, Jakob Heitz, Christer Holmberg, Pradosh Mohapatra, Keyur
Patel and Hannes Gredler for their valuable comments.

7. References

7.1.

6.1. 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>.

[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>.

7.2.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.

[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.

Acknowledgements

Authors' Addresses

Enke Chen
Palo Alto Networks

Email: enchen@paloaltonetworks.com

John Scudder
Juniper Networks

Email: jgs@juniper.net