<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08">

<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

<front>
	<title abbrev="BFD in SPRING MPLS">Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane</title>

	<author initials="G." surname="Mirsky" fullname="Greg Mirsky">
		<organization>ZTE Corp.</organization>
		<address>
			<email>gregimirsky@gmail.com</email>
		</address> 
	</author>
	
	 	<author initials="J." surname="Tantsura" fullname="Jeff  Tantsura">
		<organization>Apstra, Inc.</organization>
		<address>
			<email>jefftant.ietf@gmail.com</email>
		</address> 
	</author>
	
	 	<author initials="I." surname="Varlashkin" fullname="Ilya Varlashkin">
		<organization>Google</organization>
		<address>
			<email>Ilya@nobulus.com</email>
		</address> 
	</author>
	
	    <author fullname="Mach(Guoyi) Chen" initials="M." surname="Chen">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city/>
          <code/>
          <country/>
        </postal>
        <email>mach.chen@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    
    <date year="2019"/>

    <area>Routing</area>

    <workgroup>SPRING Working Group</workgroup>

    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

   <keyword>LSP Ping</keyword>
   
   <keyword>BFD </keyword>
	
	<abstract>
	<t>
   Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of source routing. It
   can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. 
   A segment is encoded as an MPLS label, and  an ordered list of segments 
   is encoded as a stack of labels.
   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is expected 
   to monitor any existing path between systems. This document defines
   how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD session, control path 
   in reverse direction of the SR-MPLS tunnel and applicability of
   BFD Demand mode in the SR-MPLS domain.
	 </t>
	</abstract>
</front>

<middle>
  <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
 <t>
 <xref target="RFC5880"/>, <xref target="RFC5881"/>, and <xref target="RFC5883"/> 
 defined the operation of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol
 between the two systems over IP networks.
 <xref target="RFC5884"/> and <xref target="RFC7726"/> set rules 
 for using BFD Asynchronous mode over point-to-point (p2p) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
 Label Switched Path (LSP). These latter standards implicitly assume that the remote 
 BFD system, which is at the egress Label Edge Router (LER),
 will use the shortest path route regardless of the path the BFD system at the ingress LER
 uses to send BFD Control packets towards it. Throughourt this document references to
 ingress LER and egrees LER are used, respectively, as shortened version of "BFD system at the ingress/egress
 LER".
 </t>

 <t>
 This document defines the use of LSP Ping for Segment Routing networks over MPLS
 data plane <xref target="RFC8287"/> to bootstrap 
 and control path of a BFD session from the egress to ingress LER
 using Segment Routing tunnel with MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS).
 </t>
         
     <section title="Conventions">
         <section title="Terminology">

            <t>BFD:         Bidirectional Forwarding Detection</t>
            <t>FEC:         Forwarding Equivalence Class</t>
           <t>MPLS:         Multiprotocol Label Switching</t>
           <t>SR-MPLS   Segment Routing with MPLS data plane</t>
            <t>LSP:         Label Switched Path</t>
            <t>LER          Label Edge Router</t>
            <t>p2p           Point-to-point</t>
            <t>p2mp         Point-to-multipoint</t>
            <t>SID           Segment Identifier</t>
            <t>SR            Segment Routing</t>
         </section>    
         
        <section title="Requirements Language">
             <t>
   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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> 
   when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
             </t>
          </section>
      </section>
     </section> 

<section anchor="seg-rout-oper" title="Bootstrapping BFD Session over Segment Routed Tunnel with MPLS Data Plane">
<t>
Use of an LSP Ping to bootstrap BFD over MPLS LSP is required, as documented in <xref target="RFC5884"/>,
to establish an association between a fault detection message, i.e., BFD Control message,
and the Forwarding Equivalency Class (FEC) of a single label stack LSP in case
of Penultimate Hop Popping or when the egress LER distributes the Explicit NULL label
to the penultimate hop router. The Explicit NULL label is not advertised as a Segment Identifier (SID) by an SR node
but, as demonstrated in section 3.1 <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls"/>
if the operation at the penultimate hop is NEXT; then
the egress SR node will receive an IP encapsulated packet. Thus the conclusion is that LSP Ping MUST be used to bootstrap
a BFD session in SR-MPLS domain.
</t>
<t>
As demonstrated in <xref target="RFC8287"/>, the introduction of Segment Routing network domains
with an MPLS data plane requires three new sub-TLVs that 
MAY be used with Target FEC TLV. Section 6.1 addresses use of
the new sub-TLVs in Target FEC TLV in LSP ping and LSP traceroute. 
For the case of LSP ping, the <xref target="RFC8287"/> states that:
<list>
<t>
The initiator, i.e., ingress LER, MUST include FEC(s) corresponding to the destination segment.
</t>
<t>
The initiator MAY include FECs corresponding to some or all of
segments imposed in the label stack by the ingress LER to
communicate the segments traversed.
</t>
</list>
</t>         

<t>
It has been noted in <xref target="RFC5884"/> that a BFD session monitors for 
defects particular &lt;MPLS LSP, FEC&gt; tuple. <xref target="RFC7726"/> clarified
how to establish and operate multiple BFD sessions for the same &lt;MPLS LSP, FEC&gt; tuple.
Because only the ingress LER is aware of the SR-based explicit route, the egress LER
can associate the LSP ping with BFD Discriminator TLV with only one of the FECs it advertised for
the particular segment. Thus this document clarifies that:
<list>
<t>
When LSP Ping is used to bootstrapping a BFD session for SR-MPLS tunnel
the FEC corresponding to the segment to be associated with the BFD session
MUST be as the very last sub-TLV in the Target FEC TLV.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
If the target segment is an anycast prefix segment (<xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments"/>) the corresponding Anycast SID
MUST be included in the Target TLV as the very last sub-TLV. Also, for
BFD Control packet the ingress SR node MUST use precisely the same label stack encapsulation,
especially Entropy Label (<xref target="RFC6790"/>), as for the LSP ping with the BFD Discriminator TLV that bootstrapped the BFD session.
Other operational aspects of using BFD
to monitor the continuity of the path to the particular Anycast SID, advertised by a group of SR-MPLS capable
nodes, will be considered in the future versions of the document.
</t>
<t>
Encapsulation of a BFD Control packet in Segment Routing network with MPLS data plane
MUST follow Section 7 <xref target="RFC5884"/> when the IP/UDP header used and
MUST follow Section 3.4 <xref target="RFC6428"/> without IP/UDP header being used. 
</t>
</section>      

<section anchor="seg-rout-return" title="Use BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel">
<t>
For BFD over MPLS LSP case, per <xref target="RFC5884"/>, egress LER MAY 
send BFD Control packet to the ingress LER either over IP network or an MPLS LSP. 
Similarly, for the case of BFD over p2p SR-MPLS tunnel, the egress LER
MAY route BFD Control packet over the IP network, as described in <xref target="RFC5883"/>, or
transmit over a segment tunnel, as described in Section 7 <xref target="RFC5884"/>.
   In some cases, there may be a need to direct egress LER to use a specific path
   for the reverse direction of the BFD session by using the BFD Reverse Path TLV and following all
   procedures as defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed"/>. 
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="non-fec-tlv" title="Use Non-FEC Path TLV">
<t>
 For the case of MPLS data plane, 
Segment Routing Architecture <xref target="RFC8402"/> 
explains that "a segment is encoded as an MPLS label. An ordered list of segments is encoded as a stack of labels." 
YANG Data Model for MPLS Static LSPs <xref target="I-D.ietf-mpls-static-yang"/>
models outgoing MPLS labels to be imposed as leaf-list <xref target="RFC6020"/>,
i.e., as array of rt-types:mpls-label <xref target="RFC8294"/>.
</t>
<t>
This document defines new optional Non-FEC Path TLV.
The format of the Non-FEC Path TLV is presented in <xref target="non-fec-tlv-fig"/>
          <figure align="left" anchor="non-fec-tlv-fig" title="Non-FEC Path TLV Format">
          <artwork><![CDATA[    
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Non-FEC Path TLV Type      |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                          Non-FEC Path                         ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
</t>
<t>
Non-FEC Path TLV Type is two octets in length and has a value of
   TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA as requested in <xref target="iana-non-fec-tlv"/>).
   </t>
<t>
   Length field is two octets long and defines the length in octets of the
   Non-FEC Path field.
   </t>
   <t>
  Non-FEC Path field contains a sub-TLV. Any Non-FEC Path sub-TLV
   (defined in this document or to be defined in the future) for Non-FEC 
   Path TLV type MAY be used in this
   field.  None or one sub-TLV MAY be included in the Non-FEC
   Path TLV. If no sub-TLV has been found in the Non-FEC Path TLV, the
   egress LER MUST revert to using the reverse path selected
   based on its local policy. If there is more than one sub-TLV, then
   the Return Code in echo reply MUST be set to value TBD3 "Too Many TLVs Detected"
 (to be assigned by IANA as requested in <xref target="return-code-iana"/>).
   </t>
    <t>
Non-FEC Path TLV MAY be used to specify the reverse path of the BFD session identified in the BFD Discriminator TLV.
If the Non-FEC Path TLV is present in the echo request message the  BFD Discriminator TLV MUST
be present as well. If the BFD Discriminator TLV is absent when the Non-FEC Path TLV is
   included, then it MUST be treated as malformed Echo Request, as
   described in <xref target="RFC8029"/>.
   </t>
   <t>
This document defines Static Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV that MAY be used with the Non-FEC Path TLV.
The format of the sub-TLV is presented in <xref target="spring-mpls-sub-tlv"/>.
</t>
             <t>
          <figure align="left" anchor="spring-mpls-sub-tlv" title="Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV">
          <artwork><![CDATA[    
  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  SR MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV Type  |           Length              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                    Label Entry 1 (Top Label)                  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                         Label Entry 2                         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                                                               ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                    Label Entry N (Bottom Label)               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
        </figure>
            </t> 
<t>
The Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV Type is two octets in length, and has a value of TBD2 
(to be assigned by IANA as requested in <xref target="iana-non-fec-tlv"/>).
</t>
<t>
The egress LER MUST use the Value field as label stack for BFD Control packets
for the BFD session identified by the source IP address of the MPLS LSP Ping packet
and the value in the BFD Discriminator TLV. Label Entries MUST be in network order.
</t>
<!--
<t>
As in <xref target="I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed"/>, empty BFD Reverse TLV requires the egress
BFD peer switch the reverse path of the BFD session, specified by BFD Discriminator TLV,
to the path selected based on locally defined policy. If more than one SR Static MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV is present, then
the egress BFD peer MUST send Echo Reply with Return Code field set to "Too Many TLVs Detected"
<xref target="return-code-iana"/>.
</t>
-->

<t>
The Non-FEC Path TLV and Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV
MAY be used in Reply Path TLV defined in <xref target="RFC7110"/>, particularly
to ensure end-to-end veryfication of multi-AS SR tunnel, as described in <xref target="I-D.ninan-spring-mpls-inter-as-oam"/>.
</t>

</section>

<section anchor="dynamic-protocol" title="BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel with Dynamic Control Plane">
<t>
When Segment Routed domain with MPLS data plane uses distributed tunnel computation BFD Reverse Path TLV MAY
use Target FEC sub-TLVs defined in <xref target="RFC8287"/>.
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="demand-bfd" title="Applicability of BFD Demand Mode in SR-MPLS Domain">
<t>
<xref target="I-D.mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand"/> defines how Demand mode of BFD, specified in sections 6.6 and 6.18.4 of <xref target="RFC5880"/>,
can be used to monitor uni-directional MPLS LSP. Similar procedures can be following in SR-MPLS to monitor uni-directional SR tunnels:
<list style="symbols">
<t>an ingress SR node bootstraps BFD session over SR-MPLS in Async BFD mode;</t>
<t>once BFD session is Up, the ingress SR node switches the egress LER into the Demand mode by setting D field in BFD Control packet it transmits;</t>
<t>if the egress LER detects the failure of the BFD session, it sends its BFD Control packet to the ingress SR node over the IP network with a Poll sequence;</t>
<t>if the ingress SR node receives a BFD Control packet from the remote node in a Demand mode 
with Poll sequence and Diag field indicating the failure, the ingress SR node transmits BFD Control packet with Final over IP and switches the BFD over SR-MPLS
back into Async mode, sending BFD Control packets one per second.</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="sr-p2mp-bfd-sec" title="Using BFD to Monitor Pont-to-Multipoint SR Policy">
<t>
<xref target="I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy"/> defined variants of SR Policy to deliver point-to-multipoint (p2mp) services.
For the given P2MP segment <xref target="RFC8562"/> can be used if, for example, leaves have an
alternative source of the multicast service flow to select. In such a scenario, a leaf may switch to using the alternative flow
after p2mp BFD detects the failure in the working multicast path. For scenarios where it is required for the root to
monitor the state of the multicast tree <xref target="RFC8563"/> can be used. The root may use the detection of the failure
of the multicast tree to the particular leaf to restore the path for that leaf or re-instantiate the whole multicast tree.
</t>
<t>
An essential part of using p2mp BFD is the bootstrapping the BFD session at all the leaves. The root, acting as the MultipointHead,
MAY use LSP Ping with the BFD Discriminator TLV. Alternatively, extensions
to routing protocols, e.g., BGP, or management plane, e.g., PCEP,
MAY be used to associate the particular P2MP segment with MultipointHead's Discriminator. Extensions for routing protocols and
management plane are for further study.
</t>
</section>

     <section anchor="iana-consider" title="IANA Considerations">
     <section anchor="iana-non-fec-tlv" title="Non-FEC Path TLV">    
<t>
IANA is requested to assign new TLV type from the from Standards Action range
of the registry "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" as defined in <xref target="spring-non-fec-tlv-table"/>.
</t>
     <texttable anchor="spring-non-fec-tlv-table" title="New Non-FEC Path TLV">
    <ttcol align="left">Value</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">TLV Name</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">Reference</ttcol>
    <c>&nbsp;TBD1</c>
    <c>Non-FEC Path TLV</c>
    <c>This&nbsp;document</c>
    </texttable>
    
<t>
IANA is requested to create new Non-FEC Path sub-TLV registry for the Non-FEC Path TLV, as described in <xref target="iana-non-fec-sub-tlv-reg-tbl"/>.
</t>
      <texttable anchor="iana-non-fec-sub-tlv-reg-tbl" title="Non-FEC Path sub-TLV registry">
    <ttcol align="left">Range</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="center">Registration Procedures</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">Note</ttcol>
     <c>0-16383</c>
    <c>Standards Action</c>
    <c>This range is for mandatory TLVs or for optional TLVs that require an error message if not recognized.</c>
     <c>16384-31743</c>
    <c>Specification Required</c>
    <c>Experimental RFC needed</c>
     <c>32768-49161</c>
    <c>Standards Action</c>
    <c>This range is for optional TLVs that can be silently dropped if not recognized.</c>
     <c>49162-64511</c>
    <c>Specification Required</c>
    <c>Experimental RFC needed</c>
    <c>64512-65535</c>
    <c>Private Use</c>
    <c/>
    </texttable> 
   
    <t>IANA is requested to allocate the following values from the Non-FEC Path sub-TLV registry as defined in <xref target="spring-sub-tlv-table"/>.</t>
    <texttable anchor="spring-sub-tlv-table" title="New Segment Routing Tunnel sub-TLV">
    <ttcol align="left">Value</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">Description</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">Reference</ttcol>
      <c>0</c>
    <c>Reserved</c>
    <c>This document</c>
       <c>&nbsp;TBD2</c>
    <c>Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV</c>
    <c>This&nbsp;document</c>
         <c>65535</c>
    <c>Reserved</c>
    <c>This document</c>
   </texttable>
</section>

<section anchor="iana-return-code" title="Return Code">
<t>
IANA is requested to create Non-FEC Path sub-TLV sub-registry for
the new Non-FEC Path TLV and assign a new Return Code value from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry, "Return Codes" sub-registry, as follows using a
Standards Action value.
</t>

     <texttable anchor="return-code-iana" title="New Return Code">
    <ttcol align="left">Value</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">Description</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">Reference</ttcol>
    <c>X&nbsp;TBD3</c>
    <c>Too Many TLVs Detected.</c>
    <c>This&nbsp;document</c>
     </texttable>
     </section>

     </section>
     
     <section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
     <t>
 Security considerations discussed in <xref target="RFC5880"/>, 
 <xref target="RFC5884"/>, <xref target="RFC7726"/>, and <xref target="RFC8029"/> 
 apply to this document. 
     </t>
     </section>
      
     
      <section title="Acknowledgments">
         <t>
         TBD
         </t>  
      </section>

  </middle>
  
    <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
     
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174"?>
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5880"?>
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5881"?>
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5883"?>
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5884"?>
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8029"?>

  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7726"?>
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6428"?>
       
  <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8287'?>
  <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8402'?>
  
  <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8562'?>
  <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8563'?>
  
  <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls'?>
    <?rfc include='reference.I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy'?>
  <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed'?>
 
  <?rfc include='reference.I-D.mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand'?>

   </references>
   
    <references title="Informative References">
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6020"?>   
    <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8294'?>
    <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6790'?>      
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7110"?>
       <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-mpls-static-yang'?>
       <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments'?>
       <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ninan-spring-mpls-inter-as-oam'?>
    </references>


 </back>
 </rfc>
