RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 7854, "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", June 2016

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8671, RFC 9069, RFC 9515

Source of RFC: grow (ops)

Errata ID: 7133
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: John Scudder
Date Reported: 2022-09-14

Section 5 says:

   In BMP's normal operating mode, after the BMP session is up, Route
   Monitoring messages are used to provide a snapshot of the Adj-RIB-In
   of each monitored peer.  This is done by sending all routes stored in
   the Adj-RIB-In of those peers using standard BGP Update messages,
   encapsulated in Route Monitoring messages.  There is no requirement
   on the ordering of messages in the peer dumps.  When the initial dump
   is completed for a given peer, this MUST be indicated by sending an
   End-of-RIB marker for that peer (as specified in Section 2 of
   [RFC4724], plus the BMP encapsulation header).  See also Section 9.

It should say:

Regrettably, there is no straightforward correction. Please see the notes for details.


BMP is specified in the indicated text as sending "an End-of-RIB marker for that peer". The problem is that End-of-RIB (EoR) markers aren't specified in RFC 4724 as being per-peer, but per address family (AF), thus it doesn't make sense to talk about sending a single EoR to indicate BMP completion, except in the special case where BMP is only transporting routes for a single address family.

This problem also occurs in Section 3.3:

encapsulated in Route Monitoring messages. Once it has sent all the
routes for a given peer, it MUST send an End-of-RIB message for that
peer; when End-of-RIB has been sent for each monitored peer, the
initial table dump has completed. (A monitoring station that only
wants to gather a table dump could close the connection once it has
gathered an End-of-RIB or Peer Down message corresponding to each
Peer Up message.)

but the underlying fault is in Section 5, so that's what I've referenced above.

There are various fixes that could be applied. Some of them include:

1. Remove all references to EoR. Don't require that an EoR be sent in §5, don't talk about what to do with it in §3.3. I'm not very fond of this option, its only merit is that it's simple to specify the textual changes.

2. Update §5 to note that an EoR has to be sent per AF, and update §3.3 similarly, including in the parenthetical comment noting that the station would have to gather an EoR per AF that's supported on the session.

3. Introduce a new BMP message "end of initial BMP convergence" to provide the functionality. Probably this would be in addition to the fixes in #2, since it's still useful to know that a given AF dump has completed. But introduction of the new message would provide a simpler and probably more reliable way for the monitoring station to know that BMP-level synchronization had completed.

It seems to me that the best way to address this will be with either a new spec that updates RFC 7854, or an rfc7854bis. For this reason, I suggest this erratum should be verified as "hold for document update", since the solution requires more WG discussion and consensus than an erratum can provide.

This issue was first reported by Vincent Bernat in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FOEcdxtI03CdgDrn497NBFSpz-s/, and see also https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/o16w8s5Ba9J4MdIipbxIqDiZrCI/

Report New Errata

Advanced Search