BMP Peer Up Namespace: The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Peer Up Message Namespace
BMP gives the Peer Up message its own list of TLV types instead of sharing one with the Initiation message.
Scudder, J. and P. Lucente, "The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Peer Up Message Namespace", RFC 9736, DOI 10.17487/RFC9736, March 2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9736>.
@misc{rfc9736,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 9736,
howpublished = {RFC 9736},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC9736},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9736},
author = {J. Scudder and P. Lucente},
title = {{The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Peer Up Message Namespace}},
pagetotal = 6,
year = 2025,
month = mar,
} RFC text
Contents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Scudder
Request for Comments: 9736 Juniper Networks
Updates: 7854, 8671, 9069 P. Lucente
Category: Standards Track NTT
ISSN: 2070-1721 March 2025
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Peer Up Message Namespace
Abstract
RFC 7854, the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP), uses different message
types for different purposes. Most of these are structured as Type,
Length, Value (TLV). One message type, the Peer Up message, lacks a
set of TLVs defined for its use, instead sharing a namespace with the
Initiation message. Experience has shown that this namespace sharing
was a mistake, as it hampers the extension of the protocol.
This document updates RFC 7854 by creating an independent namespace
for the Peer Up message. It also updates RFCs 8671 and 9069 by
moving defined codepoints into the newly introduced registry.
Compliant implementations of RFCs 7854, 8671, and 9069 also comply
with this specification.
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/rfc9736.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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
(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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language
2. String Definition
3. Changes to Existing RFCs
3.1. Revision to the Information TLV
3.2. Revision to the Peer Up Notification
3.3. Definition of Peer Up Information TLV
4. IANA Considerations
5. Security Considerations
6. Normative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
[RFC7854] defines a number of different BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
message types. With the exception of the Route Monitoring message
type, these messages are TLV-structured. Most message types have
distinct namespaces and IANA registries. However, the namespace of
the Peer Up message overlaps that of the Initiation message. As BMP
has been extended, this overlap has become problematic. In this
document, we create distinct namespaces for the Peer Up and
Initiation messages to eliminate the overlap.
Compliant implementations of [RFC7854], [RFC8671], and [RFC9069] also
comply with this specification.
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. String Definition
A string TLV is a free-form sequence of UTF-8 characters whose length
in bytes is given by the TLV's Length field. There is no requirement
to terminate the string with a null (or any other particular)
character -- the Length field gives its termination.
3. Changes to Existing RFCs
[RFC7854] is updated as detailed in the following subsections.
3.1. Revision to the Information TLV
The Information TLV defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854] is renamed
"Initiation Information TLV". It is used only by the Initiation
message, not by the Peer Up message.
The definition of Type = 0 is revised as shown below. Type = 1 and
Type = 2 are unchanged; they are provided for completeness.
* Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string
(Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If multiple
string TLVs are included, their ordering MUST be preserved when
they are reported.
* Type = 1: sysDescr. The Information field contains an ASCII
string whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the
sysDescr MIB-II [RFC1213] object.
* Type = 2: sysName. The Information field contains an ASCII string
whose value MUST be set to be equal to the value of the sysName
MIB-II [RFC1213] object.
3.2. Revision to the Peer Up Notification
The final paragraph of Section 4.10 of [RFC7854] references the
Information TLV (which is revised above (Section 3.1)). That
paragraph is replaced by the following:
* Information: Information about the peer, using the Peer Up
Information TLV format defined in Section 3.3 of RFC 9736. The
String type may be repeated. Inclusion of the Information field
is OPTIONAL. Its presence or absence can be inferred by
inspection of the Message Length in the common header.
3.3. Definition of Peer Up Information TLV
The Peer Up Information TLV is used by the Peer Up message.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Information Type | Information Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Information (variable) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
* Information Type (2 bytes): types are as defined in the "BMP Peer
Up Message TLVs" registry:
- Type = 0: String. The Information field contains a string
(Section 2). The value is administratively assigned. If
multiple strings are included, their ordering MUST be preserved
when they are reported.
- Type = 3: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains a
UTF-8 string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF
or table name (e.g., RD instance name) being conveyed. The
string size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes.
- Type = 4: Admin Label. The Information field contains a free-
form UTF-8 string whose byte length is given by the Information
Length field. The value is administratively assigned. There
is no requirement to terminate the string a with null or any
other character.
* Information Length (2 bytes): The length of the following
Information field, in bytes.
* Information (variable): Information about the monitored router,
according to the type.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA has created the "BMP Peer Up Message TLVs" within the "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Parameters" registry group and listed this
document as the reference.
Registration procedures for this registry are:
+=============+=========================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=============+=========================+
| 0, 3-32767 | Standards Action |
+-------------+-------------------------+
| 32768-65530 | First Come First Served |
+-------------+-------------------------+
| 65531-65534 | Experimental |
+-------------+-------------------------+
| 1-2, 65535 | Reserved |
+-------------+-------------------------+
Table 1
The initial values for this registry are:
+=======+================+===========+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+=======+================+===========+
| 0 | String | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 1 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 2 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 3 | VRF/Table Name | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 4 | Admin Label | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
| 65535 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+----------------+-----------+
Table 2
IANA has also renamed the "BMP Initiation and Peer Up Information
TLVs" registry to "BMP Initiation Information TLVs" and populated it
with the following values:
+=======+=============+===========+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+=======+=============+===========+
| 0 | String | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 1 | sysDescr | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 2 | sysName | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 3 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 4 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
| 65535 | Reserved | RFC 9736 |
+-------+-------------+-----------+
Table 3
5. Security Considerations
This document does not alter the security considerations of [RFC7854]
that continue to apply.
6. Normative References
[RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II",
STD 17, RFC 1213, DOI 10.17487/RFC1213, March 1991,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1213>.
[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>.
[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
[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>.
[RFC8671] Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Lucente, P., Mi, P., and S.
Zhuang, "Support for Adj-RIB-Out in the BGP Monitoring
Protocol (BMP)", RFC 8671, DOI 10.17487/RFC8671, November
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8671>.
[RFC9069] Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Bhardwaj, M., and P. Lucente,
"Support for Local RIB in the BGP Monitoring Protocol
(BMP)", RFC 9069, DOI 10.17487/RFC9069, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9069>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Maxence Younsi for his review.
Authors' Addresses
John Scudder
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America
Email: jgs@juniper.net
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Veemweg 23
3771 MT Barneveld
Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net
AI ELI5
On this page
§1Why the Namespaces Needed Splitting
RFC 7854 defines the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) and its message types. Apart from Route Monitoring, these messages are structured as Type, Length, Value (TLV). Most message types have their own namespace and IANA registry.
The Peer Up message was the exception: its namespace overlapped that of the Initiation message. As BMP was extended, the overlap became problematic. This RFC creates distinct namespaces for the two messages to remove it.
The RFC also states that compliant implementations of RFC 7854, RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 also comply with this specification.
Imagine two clubs using one list of badge colors. Whenever one club wanted a new color, the other club was affected too. Now each club gets its own list.
§2The String TLV
The RFC adds one small definition used by both messages. A string TLV is a free-form sequence of UTF-8 characters whose length in bytes is given by the TLV's Length field.
There is no requirement to end the string with a null or any other particular character, because the Length field gives its end.
A string TLV is just a piece of text with a number in front saying how long it is, so you know where it stops.
§3.1Changes to the Initiation and Peer Up Messages
The Information TLV from RFC 7854 is renamed the Initiation Information TLV. It is used only by the Initiation message, not by the Peer Up message. Type 0 is redefined as a String whose value is administratively assigned. If several string TLVs are included, their order MUST be preserved when they are reported. Type 1 (sysDescr) and Type 2 (sysName) are unchanged and must equal the matching MIB-II objects.
The last paragraph of the Peer Up Notification section in RFC 7854 is replaced. The Information field now uses the new Peer Up Information TLV format. The String type may be repeated, including the field is OPTIONAL, and its presence can be inferred from the Message Length in the common header.
The old shared label list is renamed so it belongs only to the Initiation message. The Peer Up message is told to use its new list, and it may leave the notes out entirely.
§3.3The Peer Up Information TLV
The new TLV has a 2-byte Information Type, a 2-byte Information Length (the length of the Information field in bytes) and a variable Information field. Types come from the new "BMP Peer Up Message TLVs" registry.
- Type 0, String: an administratively assigned string. If several are included, their order
MUSTbe preserved when reported. - Type 3, VRF/Table Name: a UTF-8 string that
MUSTequal the VRF or table name being conveyed (for example an RD instance name). Its sizeMUSTbe 1 to 255 bytes. - Type 4, Admin Label: a free-form, administratively assigned UTF-8 string whose byte length is given by the Information Length field.
Each note on a Peer Up message says what kind of note it is, how long it is, and then gives the note. The kinds are a plain note, the name of a routing table, and a label chosen by the network operator.
- 0String — Administratively assigned string; order preserved.
- 1Reserved — Reserved in the Peer Up registry.
- 2Reserved — Reserved in the Peer Up registry.
- 3VRF/Table Name — UTF-8 name of the VRF or table, 1 to 255 bytes.
- 4Admin Label — Free-form, administratively assigned UTF-8 string.
- 65535Reserved — Reserved.
§4The New and Renamed Registries
IANA created the "BMP Peer Up Message TLVs" registry and renamed the old "BMP Initiation and Peer Up Information TLVs" registry to "BMP Initiation Information TLVs". The new registry has these ranges: 0 and 3 to 32767 by Standards Action, 32768 to 65530 First Come First Served, 65531 to 65534 Experimental, and 1 to 2 plus 65535 Reserved.
In the Peer Up registry, types 1 and 2 are reserved because they mean sysDescr and sysName only in the Initiation message. In the renamed Initiation registry, types 3 and 4 are reserved so the two lists do not clash.
The official list keeper made a new list for Peer Up and renamed the old list. Numbers that mean different things in each list are blocked off so nobody mixes them up.
§5Security Considerations
The RFC does not alter the security considerations of RFC 7854, which continue to apply. It adds no new security mechanism.
Nothing about safety changes. The same rules as before still apply.