Global Routing Operations P. Lucente
Internet-Draft NTT
Updates: 7854 (if approved) Y. Gu
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: 28 August 2025 24 February 2025
BMP v4: TLV Support for BGP Monitoring Prtoocol (BMP) Route Monitoring
and Peer Down Messages
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-16
Abstract
Most of the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) message types make
provision for data in Type, Length, Value (TLV) format. However,
Route Monitoring messages (which provide a snapshot of the monitored
Routing Information Base) and Peer Down messages (which indicate that
a peering session was terminated) do not. Supporting (optional) data
in TLV format across all BMP message types provides consistent and
extensible structures that would be useful among the various use-
cases where conveying additional data to a monitoring station is
required. This document updates RFC 7854 [RFC7854] to support TLV
data in all message types.
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 of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 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 28 August 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Message version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. TLV Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. BMP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. TLV Data in Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2.1. Group TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2.2. VRF/Table Name TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2.3. Stateless Parsing TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. TLV Data in Peer Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. TLV Data in Other BMP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Wire-format Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) version 3 is defined in RFC 7854
[RFC7854].
The Route Monitoring message consists of:
* Common Header
* Per-Peer Header
* BGP Update PDU
The Peer Down Notification message consists of:
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
* Common Header
* Per-Peer Header
* Reason
* Data (only if Reason code is 1, 2 or 3)
* TLV (only if Reason code is 6)
This means that both Route Monitoring and Peer Down messages have a
non-extensible format (except for the specific case of Peer Down
Reason Code 6 as specified in Section 5.3 of [RFC9069]). In the
Route Monitoring case, this prevents the transmission of parsing
characteristics of transported NLRIs (e.g. ADD-PATH, Multi Labels,
etc.), RIB status of a path (e.g. primary, backup, unused, etc.) or
of vendor-specific data. In the Peer Down case, this prevents
matching with TLVs previously sent with the Peer Up message. This
document:
* Bumps the BMP version for all message types defined in RFC 7854
[RFC7854] for backward compatibility
* Changes the structure of Route Monitoring message type so that the
BGP Update PDU is enclosed in a TLV. The BGP Message PDU TLV is
mandatory to be included
* Allows all defined BMP message types to make provision for
optional TLV data.
2. Terminology
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
The document uses the terms defined in RFC 7854 [RFC7854].
3. Message version
For an exporter to flag a receiver that it does comply with this
specification, the Version field of the BMP Common header, documented
in Section 4.4 of [RFC7854], MUST be set to 4. This applies to every
BMP message type.
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
If a BMP station does not support the version indicated in the
message, it SHOULD close the session and take the procedures
described in Error Handling (Section 6)
4. TLV Encoding
The TLV data type (Information TLV) is defined in Section 4.4 of
[RFC7854] for the Initiation and Peer Up message types. A TLV object
consists of:
* 2 octets of TLV Type,
* 2 octets of TLV Length, and
* 0 or more octets of TLV Value.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value (variable) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
TLVs SHOULD be sorted by the sender by their type. Multiple TLVs of
the same type can be repeated as part of the same message; it is left
to the specific use-cases whether all, any, the first or the last TLV
should be considered as well as whether ordering matters and
repeating is allowed.
Route Monitoring messages may require per-NLRI TLVs. That is, there
may be a need to map TLVs to NLRIs contained in the BGP Update
message, for example, to express additional characteristics of a
specific NLRI. For this purpose, TLVs enclosed in a Route Monitoring
message MUST be indexed, with the index starting at one (1) to refer
to the first NLRI. Index zero (0) specifies that a TLV does apply to
all NLRIs contained in the BGP Update message. The Index field is
2-byte long of which the top-most bit, G-bit, is used to flag a Group
Index (more in Section 5.2.1). TLVs of the same type and with the
same index can be repeated as part of the same message, unless
specified otherwise by the definition of the specific TLV. Indexed
TLVs are encoded as in the following figure:
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (2 octets) | Length (2 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|G| Index (15 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value (variable) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2
Indexed TLVs SHOULD be sorted by the sender by their type and index
value. The reported length in indexed TLVs refers to the total
encoded TLV value (ie. with the length of the index field excluded).
A monitoring station can properly match indexed TLVs to the
corresponding NLRI only if - or as long as - NLRIs are decoded
successfully. In case of any parsing or error condition that
prevents full decoding of the BGP PDU, the station MUST stop matching
indexed TLVs to NLRIs.
Of the BMP message types defined so far, indexed TLVs apply only to
Route Monitoring messages. For example, they do not apply to Route
Mirroring messages because a sender may not be aware of the payload
of the transported BGP Update message.
5. BMP Message Format
5.1. Common Header
While the structure of the Common header remains unaltered, the
following two definitions are changed compared to Section 4.1 of
[RFC7854]:
* Version: Indicates the BMP version. This is set to '4' for all
message types defined in RFC 7854 [RFC7854].
* Message Length: Total length of the message in bytes (including
headers, encapsulated BGP Message PDU TLV and optional TLV data).
5.2. TLV Data in Route Monitoring
For consistency with the Route Mirroring type defined in Section 4.7
of [RFC7854], this document extends the encoding of the Route
Monitoring message type where the Per-peer header is followed by
mandatory and optional TLVs.
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
The BGP Update PDU (Section 4.3 of [RFC4271]) is encoded itself as
part of a BGP Message TLV with code point TBD1 and index set to zero.
A Route Monitoring message MUST contain one BGP Message TLV which may
be preceded or followed by other optional TLV data.
Corollary, the BGP Update PDU is not encoded as part of the message
as it was the case for BMPv3 (RFC 7854 [RFC7854]) but it is rather
enclosed in a TLV.
5.2.1. Group TLV
In a Route Monitoring message where a BGP Update PDU carries N NLRIs,
indexed TLVs do allow to handle the cases of 1:1 and N:1 relationship
among TLVs and NLRIs (ie. one TLV applies to one NLRI, N TLVs apply
to one same NLRI). The cases of 1:N and M:N relationships (i.e., one
TLV applies to N NLRIs and M TLVs apply to N NLRIs) can benefit by a
form of grouping. For that purpose, a Group TLV is defined with the
aim to limit both verbosity and repetitions.
The Group TLV value MUST contain:
* A 2-byte Group Index where the top-most bit (G-bit) MUST be set to
one (1). The full 2-byte value, that is including the G-bit, MUST
be unique to the message
* Two or more 2-byte NLRI indexes whose values MUST be less or equal
to the amount of NLRIs packed in the BGP Update PDU.
An NLRI index can be listed as part of multiple Group TLVs within the
same message. NLRI indexes within a Group TLV SHOULD be sorted by
the sender. A Group Index MUST NOT reference an NLRI index 0. A
Group TLV MUST NOT include its own or another Group Index. Multiple
non-Group TLVs MAY point to the same Group Index, i.e., a group can
be reused within the same Route Monitoring message.
The Group TLV type is TBD2. It is RECOMMENDED that this TLV is
encoded first in order to ease parsing of the Route Monitoring
message at the BMP station side.
5.2.2. VRF/Table Name TLV
The Information field contains a UTF-8 string whose value MUST be
equal to the value of the VRF or table name (i.e., RD instance name)
being conveyed. The string size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255
bytes. This is in line with Section 5.2.1 of [RFC9069].
The VRF/Table Name TLV type is TBD3
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
5.2.3. Stateless Parsing TLV
Stateless parsing helps scaling the amount of Route Monitoring
messages that can be processed at collection time, avoiding to have
to correlate them to BGP capabilities received as part of the Peer Up
message, for example.
Some BGP capabilities are not per AFI/SAFI, like 4-byte ASN RFC 6793
[RFC6793], and hence these can potentially be part of the BMP Peer
flags [IANA-BPPF] of a Route Monitoring message. Those that are,
instead, per AFI/SAFI require finer granularity and hence the need to
use an indexed TLV.
The Stateless Parsing TLV type is TBD4 and its Value is organized as
follows:
* Capability Type, 1 byte
* Capability Value, variable length
The Capability Type field encodes a value from the BGP Capabilities
Codes [IANA-BCC] registry defined by RFC 5492 [RFC5492].
The Capability Value encodes the BGP capability exactly as it is
encoded in the BGP Open of the session. For example, an ADD-PATH
capability, as defined by RFC 7911 [RFC7911], for IP/Unicast with
value Send/Receive would be encoded in the Capability Value as:
* AFI, 2 bytes, value=1
* SAFI, 1 byte, value=1
* Value, 1 byte, value=3
The index of the Stateless Parsing TLV MUST be set to zero.
If no Stateless Parsing TLV is present in a Route Monitoring message,
the receiver MUST fall back to use capabilities present in the BGP
Open PDU contained in the relevant BMP Peer Up message in order to
properly parse BGP Update PDUs. Each BGP capability is to be encoded
in a separate Stateless Parsing TLV.
It is RECOMMENDED that the Stateless Parsing TLV is encoded preceding
the BGP Message TLV in order to ease parsing of the Route Monitoring
message at the BMP station side.
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
5.3. TLV Data in Peer Down
The Peer Down Notification message type (Section 4.9 of [RFC7854]) is
extended following a consistent approach with the Peer Up type
(Section 4.10 of [RFC7854]). That is, the message is extended so
that optional TLVs are placed at the end of the message.
This means for Reason codes 1 or 3, a BGP Notification PDU follows;
the PDU MAY be further followed by TLV data. For Reason code 2, a
2-byte field follows to provide additional Finite State Machine (FSM)
info; this field MAY be followed by TLV data. For all other Reason
codes, TLV data MAY follow the Reason field.
5.4. TLV Data in Other BMP Messages
All other message types defined in RFC7854 [RFC7854] do already
provision for TLV data. It is RECOMMENDED that all future defined
BMP message types will also provide for optional TLV data following a
consistency model for encoding with existing message types.
6. Error Handling
RFC8654 [RFC8654] permits BGP Update and other messages to grow to a
length of 65535 octets. This may cause a BMP PDU that attempts to
encapsulate such long messages to overflow.
A BMP exporter and a BMP station may not support the same version of
the protocol; being BMP uni-directional, with data flowing only from
the exporter to the station, the station SHOULD close the BMP session
and log the condition as a warning; the exporter SHOULD retry to
connect with a non-aggressitve timer.
A BMP station may not support some of the TLVs encoded by the
exporter; the station MUST ignore unsupported TLV types;
additionally, in case of indexed TLVs, if the index is invalid (i.e.
out of bounds), the TLV MUST be ignored. The station SHOULD log the
condition as a warning.
7. Security Considerations
It is not believed that this document adds any additional security
considerations compared to RFC7854 [RFC7854].
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
8. Operational Considerations
In Route Monitoring messages, the number of TLVs can be bound to the
amount of NLRIs carried in the BGP Update message. This may degrade
the packing of information in such messages and have specific impacts
on the memory and CPU used in a BMP implementation. As a result of
that it should always be possible to disable such features to
mitigate their impact.
9. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to rename of the "Peer Up TLVs" registry
defined by BMP Peer Up Message Namespace [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up]
into "Peer Up and Peer Down TLVs" and the definition of one new
registry "BMP Route Monitoring TLVs". As part of the "BMP Route
Monitoring TLVs" registry, the following new TLV types are defined
(Section 5.2):
* Type = TBD1: Support for BGP Message TLV. The value field is
defined in Section 5.2
* Type = TBD2: Support for grouping of TLVs. The value field is
defined in Section 5.2.1. The recommended value for this TLV is
0.
* Type = TBD3: Support for VRF/Table Name TLV. The value field is
defined in Section 5.2.2
* Type = TBD4: Support for Stateless Parsing TLV. The value field
is defined in Section 5.2.3. The recommended value for this TLV
is 1.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up]
Scudder, J. and P. Lucente, "BMP Peer Up Message
Namespace", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
grow-bmp-peer-up-05, 2 October 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-
bmp-peer-up-05>.
[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>.
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8654] Bush, R., Patel, K., and D. Ward, "Extended Message
Support for BGP", RFC 8654, DOI 10.17487/RFC8654, October
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8654>.
[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>.
10.2. Informative References
[IANA-BCC] IANA, "Capabilities Codes", 2025,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/>.
[IANA-BPPF]
IANA, "BMP Peer Flags", 2024,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-
parameters.xhtml#peer-flags>.
[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>.
[RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>.
[RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
Appendix A. Wire-format Example
The diagram in Figure 3 shows an example of a Route Monitoring
message carrying a BGP UPDATE containing 10 NLRIs. The TLVs are
comprised of:
1. a Group TLV with index 0x000b, pointing to NLRI 1, 2, 3 and 10
2. a Group TLV with index 0x000c, pointing to NLRI 4, 5 and 6
3. a Stateless Parsing TLV with index 0x0000
4. a TLV pertaining to NLRI 7
5. a TLV pertaining to the NLRIs listed in the Group TLV defined in
1
6. a TLV pertaining to the NLRIs listed in the Group TLV defined in
2
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Common Header + Per-Peer Header (6 + 42 bytes) ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type=TBD2 | length=0x0008 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| index=0x000b |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| value={0x0001, 0x0002, |
| 0x0003, 0x000a} |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type=TBD2 | length=0x0006 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| index=0x000c |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| value={0x0004, 0x0005, |
| 0x0006} |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type=TBD4 | length=0x0005 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| index=0 | cap=69 | afi=1 ~
~ | safi=1 | value=3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type=TBD1 | length=X |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
|0| index=0 | value=$BGP_UPDATE_PDU{ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~
~ ~
~ NLRI_1 .. NLRI_10 ~
~ } |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type=SomeTlvX | length=0x0004 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| index=0x000b |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| value={4 bytes} |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type=SomeTlvY | length=0x0008 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| index=0x000c |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| value={8 bytes} ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| type=SomeTlvZ | length=0x0008 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| index=0x0007 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| value={8 bytes} ~
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jeff Haas, Camilo Cardona, Thomas
Graf, Pierre Francois, Ben Maddison, Tim Evens, Luuk Hendriks,
Maxence Younsi, Ahmed Elhassany, Colin Petrie, Dhananjay Pakti and
Shunwan Zhuang for their valuable input. The authors would also like
to thank Greg Skinner, Zongpeng Du and Mohamed Boucadair for their
review.
Authors' Addresses
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Veemweg 23
3771 Barneveld
Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BMP TLV February 2025
Yunan Gu
Huawei
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: guyunan@huawei.com
Lucente & Gu Expires 28 August 2025 [Page 13]