Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication

Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication NTT Ltd.

Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 1065 SZ Amsterdam Netherlands job@ntt.net

Cisco

170 West Tasman Drive San Jose CA 95134 United States of America jheitz@cisco.com

Juniper Networks

1133 Innovation Way Sunnyvale CA 94089 United States of America jgs@juniper.net

Yandex

Ulitsa Lva Tolstogo 16 Moscow 119021 Russian Federation a.e.azimov@gmail.com

Routing IDR BGP cease shutdown This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for operators to transmit a short free-form message to describe why a BGP session was shut down or reset. This document updates RFC 4486 and obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication of up to 255 octets to improve communication using multibyte character sets.

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 .

Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 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 () 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

. Introduction
- . Requirements Language
. Shutdown Communication
. Operational Considerations
. Error Handling
. IANA Considerations
. Security Considerations
. References
- . Normative References
- . Informative References
. Changes to RFC 8203
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses

Introduction It can be troublesome for an operator to correlate a BGP-4 session teardown in the network with a notice that was transmitted via offline methods, such as email or telephone calls. This document updates by specifying a mechanism to transmit a short free-form UTF-8 message as part of a Cease NOTIFICATION message to inform the peer why the BGP session is being shut down or reset. This document obsoletes ; the specific differences and rationale are discussed in detail in .

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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

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" , it MAY include a UTF-8-encoded string. The contents of the string are at the operator's discretion. 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 ... / \ \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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. 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. UTF-8 "Shortest Form" encoding is REQUIRED to guard against the technical issues outlined in .

Mechanisms concerning the reporting of information contained in the Shutdown Communication are implementation specific but SHOULD include methods such as syslog.

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 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. If a Shutdown Communication longer than 128 octets is sent to a BGP speaker that implements [RFC8203], then that speaker will treat it as an error, the consequence of which should be a log message. If a Shutdown Communication of any length is sent to a BGP speaker that implements neither [RFC8203] nor this specification, then that speaker will treat it as an error, the consequence of which should be a log message. In any case, a receiver of a NOTIFICATION message is unable to acknowledge the receipt and correct understanding of any Shutdown Communication. Operators should not rely on Shutdown Communications as their sole form of communication with their peers for important events. If it is known that the peer BGP speaker supports this specification, then a Shutdown Communication that is not longer than 255 octets MAY be sent. Otherwise, a Shutdown Communication MAY be sent, but it SHOULD NOT be longer than 128 octets.

Error Handling If a Shutdown Communication with 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.

IANA Considerations IANA has referenced this document at subcodes "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" in the "BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in addition to .

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 to learn about these issues. UTF-8 "Shortest Form" encoding is REQUIRED to guard against the technical issues outlined in . 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. The 255-octet length limit on the BGP Shutdown Communication may help limit the ability to mount such an attack. 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 they 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 and . Users of this mechanism should consider applying data minimization practices as outlined in because a received Shutdown Communication may be used at the receiver's discretion.

References Normative References Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646 ISO/IEC 10646-1 defines a large character set called the Universal Character Set (UCS) which encompasses most of the world's writing systems. The originally proposed encodings of the UCS, however, were not compatible with many current applications and protocols, and this has led to the development of UTF-8, the object of this memo. UTF-8 has the characteristic of preserving the full US-ASCII range, providing compatibility with file systems, parsers and other software that rely on US-ASCII values but are transparent to other values. This memo obsoletes and replaces RFC 2279. A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) This document discusses the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol. The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This network reachability information includes information on the list of Autonomous Systems (ASes) that reachability information traverses. This information is sufficient for constructing a graph of AS connectivity for this reachability from which routing loops may be pruned, and, at the AS level, some policy decisions may be enforced. BGP-4 provides a set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). These mechanisms include support for advertising a set of destinations as an IP prefix, and eliminating the concept of network "class" within BGP. BGP-4 also introduces mechanisms that allow aggregation of routes, including aggregation of AS paths. This document obsoletes RFC 1771. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message This document defines several subcodes for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message that would provide more information to aid network operators in correlating network events and diagnosing BGP peering issues. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Informative References BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), along with a host of other infrastructure protocols designed before the Internet environment became perilous, was originally designed with little consideration for protection of the information it carries. There are no mechanisms internal to BGP that protect against attacks that modify, delete, forge, or replay data, any of which has the potential to disrupt overall network routing behavior. This document discusses some of the security issues with BGP routing data dissemination. This document does not discuss security issues with forwarding of packets. This memo provides information for the Internet community. The Syslog Protocol This document describes the syslog protocol, which is used to convey event notification messages. This protocol utilizes a layered architecture, which allows the use of any number of transport protocols for transmission of syslog messages. It also provides a message format that allows vendor-specific extensions to be provided in a structured way. This document has been written with the original design goals for traditional syslog in mind. The need for a new layered specification has arisen because standardization efforts for reliable and secure syslog extensions suffer from the lack of a Standards-Track and transport-independent RFC. Without this document, each other standard needs to define its own syslog packet format and transport mechanism, which over time will introduce subtle compatibility issues. This document tries to provide a foundation that syslog extensions can build on. This layered architecture approach also provides a solid basis that allows code to be written once for each syslog feature rather than once for each transport. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols This document offers guidance for developing privacy considerations for inclusion in protocol specifications. It aims to make designers, implementers, and users of Internet protocols aware of privacy-related design choices. It suggests that whether any individual RFC warrants a specific privacy considerations section will depend on the document's content. BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication 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. Unicode Security Considerations

Changes to RFC 8203 The maximum permitted length was changed from 128 to 255. Feedback from operators based in regions that predominantly use multibyte character sets showed that messages similar in meaning to what can be sent in other languages using single-byte encoding failed to fit within the length constraints as specified by . For example, the phrase "Planned work to add switch to stack. Completion time - 30 minutes" has a length of 65 bytes. Its translation in Russian has a length of 139 bytes. If a Shutdown Communication message longer than 128 octets is sent to a BGP speaker that implements , then that speaker will bring it to the attention of an operator but will otherwise process the NOTIFICATION message as normal.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . The authors would like to thank and for their work on and granting the related BCP 78 rights to the IETF Trust. The authors would like to acknowledge (MSK-IX) for raising awareness that the length specification of was insufficient in context of multibyte character sets.