< draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-06.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-07.txt >
MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Internet-Draft ZTE
Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura
Expires: October 26, 2017 Individual Expires: December 15, 2017 Individual
I. Varlashkin I. Varlashkin
Google Google
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
April 24, 2017 June 13, 2017
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return Path Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return Path
draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-06 draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-07
Abstract Abstract
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is expected to be able to Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is expected to be able to
monitor wide variety of encapsulations of paths between systems. monitor wide variety of encapsulations of paths between systems.
When a BFD session monitors an explicitly routed unidirectional path When a BFD session monitors an explicitly routed unidirectional path
there may be a need to direct egress BFD peer to use a specific path there may be a need to direct egress BFD peer to use a specific path
for the reverse direction of the BFD session. for the reverse direction of the BFD session.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 26, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 15, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Direct Reverse BFD Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Control of the Reverse BFD Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Case of MPLS Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. BFD Reverse Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. BFD Reverse Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Static and RSVP-TE sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Static and RSVP-TE sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Use Case Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Use Case Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. BFD Reverse Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Return Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RFC 5880 [RFC5880], RFC 5881 [RFC5881], and RFC 5883 [RFC5883] [RFC5880], [RFC5881], and [RFC5883] established the BFD protocol for
established the BFD protocol for IP networks. RFC 5884 [RFC5884] and IP networks. [RFC5884] and [RFC7726] set rules of using BFD
RFC 7726 [RFC7726] set rules of using BFD asynchronous mode over IP/ asynchronous mode over IP/MPLS LSPs. These standards implicitly
MPLS LSPs. These standards implicitly assume that the egress BFD assume that the egress BFD peer will use the shortest path route
peer will use the shortest path route regardless of route being used regardless of route being used to send BFD control packets towards
to send BFD control packets towards it. it.
For the case where a LSP is explicitly routed it is likely that the For the case where a LSP is explicitly routed it is likely that the
shortest return path to the ingress BFD peer would not follow the shortest return path to the ingress BFD peer would not follow the
same path as the LSP in the forward direction. The fact that BFD same path as the LSP in the forward direction. The fact that BFD
control packets are not guaranteed to follow the same links and nodes control packets are not guaranteed to follow the same links and nodes
in both forward and reverse directions is a significant factor in in both forward and reverse directions is a significant factor in
producing false positive defect notifications, i.e. false alarms, if producing false positive defect notifications, i.e. false alarms, if
used by the ingress BFD peer to deduce the state of the forward used by the ingress BFD peer to deduce the state of the forward
direction. direction.
This document defines the BFD Reverse Path TLV as an extension to LSP This document defines the BFD Reverse Path TLV as an extension to LSP
Ping [RFC8029] and proposes that it is to be used to instruct the Ping [RFC8029] and proposes that it is to be used to instruct the
egress BFD peer to use an explicit path for its BFD control packets egress BFD peer to use an explicit path for its BFD control packets
associated with a particular BFD session. The TLV will be allocated associated with a particular BFD session. The TLV will be allocated
from the TLV and sub-TLV registry defined by RFC 8029 [RFC8029]. As from the TLV and sub-TLV registry defined in [RFC8029]. As a special
a special case, forward and reverse directions of the BFD session can case, forward and reverse directions of the BFD session can form a
form a bi-directional co-routed associated channel. bi-directional co-routed associated channel.
1.1. Conventions used in this document 1.1. Conventions used in this document
1.1.1. Requirements Language 1.1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
[RFC2119]. 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Problem Statement 2. Problem Statement
When BFD is used to monitor unidirectional explicitly routed path, When BFD is used to monitor unidirectional explicitly routed path,
e.g. MPLS-TE LSP, BFD control packets in forward direction would be e.g. MPLS-TE LSP, BFD control packets in forward direction would be
in-band using the mechanism defined in [RFC5884] and [RFC5586]. But in-band using the mechanism defined in [RFC5884] and [RFC5586]. But
the reverse direction of the BFD session would follow the shortest the reverse direction of the BFD session would follow the shortest
path route and that might lead to the problem in detecting failures path route and that might lead to the problem in detecting failures
on a unidirectional explicit path as described below: on a unidirectional explicit path as described below:
o a failure detection by ingress node on the reverse path cannot be o a failure detection by ingress node on the reverse path cannot be
interpreted as bi-directional failure unambiguously and thus interpreted as bi-directional failure unambiguously and thus
trigger, for example, protection switchover of the forward trigger, for example, protection switchover of the forward
direction without possibility of being a false positive. direction without possibility of being a false positive.
To address this scenario the egress BFD peer would be instructed to To address this scenario the egress BFD peer would be instructed to
use a specific path for BFD control packets. use a specific path for BFD control packets.
3. Direct Reverse BFD Path 3. Control of the Reverse BFD Path
3.1. Case of MPLS Data Plane
LSP ping, defined in [RFC8029], uses BFD Discriminator TLV [RFC5884] LSP ping, defined in [RFC8029], uses BFD Discriminator TLV [RFC5884]
to bootstrap a BFD session over an MPLS LSP. This document defines a to bootstrap a BFD session over an MPLS LSP. This document defines a
new TLV, BFD Reverse Path TLV, that MUST contain a single sub-TLV new TLV, BFD Reverse Path TLV, that MUST contain a single sub-TLV
that can be used to carry information about the reverse path for the that can be used to carry information about the reverse path for the
BFD session that is specified by value in BFD Discriminator TLV. BFD session that is specified by value in BFD Discriminator TLV.
3.1.1. BFD Reverse Path TLV 3.1. BFD Reverse Path TLV
The BFD Reverse Path TLV is an optional TLV within the LSP ping The BFD Reverse Path TLV is an optional TLV within the LSP ping
[RFC8029]. However, if used, the BFD Discriminator TLV MUST be [RFC8029]. However, if used, the BFD Discriminator TLV MUST be
included in an Echo Request message as well. If the BFD included in an Echo Request message as well. If the BFD
Discriminator TLV is not present when the BFD Reverse Path TLV is Discriminator TLV is not present when the BFD Reverse Path TLV is
included, then it MUST be treated as malformed Echo Request, as included, then it MUST be treated as malformed Echo Request, as
described in [RFC8029]. described in [RFC8029].
The BFD Reverse Path TLV carries information about the path onto The BFD Reverse Path TLV carries information about the path onto
which the egress BFD peer of the BFD session referenced by the BFD which the egress BFD peer of the BFD session referenced by the BFD
skipping to change at page 4, line 31 skipping to change at page 4, line 31
BFD Reverse Path TLV Type is 2 octets in length and has a value of BFD Reverse Path TLV Type is 2 octets in length and has a value of
TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA as requested in Section 5). TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA as requested in Section 5).
Length field is 2 octets long and defines the length in octets of the Length field is 2 octets long and defines the length in octets of the
Reverse Path field. Reverse Path field.
Reverse Path field contains a sub-TLV. Any Target FEC sub-TLV Reverse Path field contains a sub-TLV. Any Target FEC sub-TLV
(already defined, or to be defined in the future) for TLV Types 1, (already defined, or to be defined in the future) for TLV Types 1,
16, and 21 of MPLS LSP Ping Parameters registry MAY be used in this 16, and 21 of MPLS LSP Ping Parameters registry MAY be used in this
field. Exactly one sub-TLV MUST be included in the Reverse Path TLV. field. None, one or more sub-TLVs MAY be included in the BFD Reverse
If more than one sub-TLV is present in the Reverse Path TLV, then, in Path TLV. If none sub-TLVs found in the BFD Reverse Path TLV, the
order to avoid ambiguity of which of TLVs to use, the egress BFD peer egress BFD peer MUST revert to using the default, i.e., over IP
MUST send Echo Reply with the received Reverse Path TLVs and set the network, reverse path.
Return Code to "Too Many TLVs Detected" Section 3.2.
If the egress LSR cannot find the path specified in the Reverse Path If the egress LSR cannot find the path specified in the Reverse Path
TLV it MUST send Echo Reply with the received Reverse Path TLV and TLV it MUST send Echo Reply with the received Reverse Path TLV and
set the Return Code to "Failed to establish the BFD session. The set the Return Code to "Failed to establish the BFD session. The
specified reverse path was not found" Section 3.2. The egress BFD specified reverse path was not found" Section 3.3. The egress BFD
peer MAY establish the BFD session over IP network as defined in peer MAY establish the BFD session over IP network as defined in
[RFC5884]. [RFC5884].
3.1.2. Static and RSVP-TE sub-TLVs 3.2. Static and RSVP-TE sub-TLVs
When an explicit path on an MPLS data plane is set either as Static When an explicit path on an MPLS data plane is set either as Static
or RSVP-TE LSP respective sub-TLVs defined in [RFC7110] MAY be used or RSVP-TE LSP respective sub-TLVs defined in [RFC7110] MAY be used
to identify the explicit reverse path for the BFD session. to identify the explicit reverse path for the BFD session.
3.2. Return Codes 3.3. Return Codes
This document defines the following Return Codes for MPLS LSP Echo This document defines the following Return Codes for MPLS LSP Echo
Reply: Reply:
o "Too Many TLVs Detected", (TBD3). When more than one Reverse Path
TLV found in the received Echo Request by the egress BFD peer, an
Echo Reply with the return code set to "Too Many TLVs Detected"
MUST be sent to the ingress BFD peer Section 3.1.1.
o "Failed to establish the BFD session. The specified reverse path o "Failed to establish the BFD session. The specified reverse path
was not found", (TBD4). When a specified reverse path is not was not found", (TBD4). When a specified reverse path is not
available at the egress BFD peer, an Echo Reply with the return available at the egress BFD peer, an Echo Reply with the return
code set to "Failed to establish the BFD session. The specified code set to "Failed to establish the BFD session. The specified
reverse path was not found" MUST be sent back to the ingress BFD reverse path was not found" MUST be sent back to the ingress BFD
peer Section 3.1.1. peer Section 3.1.
4. Use Case Scenario 4. Use Case Scenario
In the network presented in Figure 2 node A monitors two tunnels to In the network presented in Figure 2 node A monitors two tunnels to
node H: A-B-C-D-G-H and A-B-E-F-G-H. To bootstrap a BFD session to node H: A-B-C-D-G-H and A-B-E-F-G-H. To bootstrap a BFD session to
monitor the first tunnel, node A MUST include a BFD Discriminator TLV monitor the first tunnel, node A MUST include a BFD Discriminator TLV
with Discriminator value (e.g. foobar-1) and MAY include a BFD with Discriminator value (e.g. foobar-1) and MAY include a BFD
Reverse Path TLV that references H-G-D-C-B-A tunnel. To bootstrap a Reverse Path TLV that references H-G-D-C-B-A tunnel. To bootstrap a
BFD session to monitor the second tunnel, node A MUST include a BFD BFD session to monitor the second tunnel, node A MUST include a BFD
Discriminator TLV with a different Discriminator value (e.g. foobar- Discriminator TLV with a different Discriminator value (e.g. foobar-
skipping to change at page 5, line 48 skipping to change at page 5, line 43
E---------F E---------F
Figure 2: Use Case for BFD Reverse Path TLV Figure 2: Use Case for BFD Reverse Path TLV
If an operator needs node H to monitor a path to node A, e.g. If an operator needs node H to monitor a path to node A, e.g.
H-G-D-C-B-A tunnel, then by looking up list of known Reverse Paths it H-G-D-C-B-A tunnel, then by looking up list of known Reverse Paths it
MAY find and use the existing BFD session. MAY find and use the existing BFD session.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. TLV 5.1. BFD Reverse Path TLV
The IANA is requested to assign a new value for BFD Reverse Path TLV The IANA is requested to assign a new value for BFD Reverse Path TLV
from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and
sub-TLVs" sub-registry. sub-TLVs" sub-registry.
+----------+----------------------+---------------+ +----------+----------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+----------+----------------------+---------------+ +----------+----------------------+---------------+
| X (TBD1) | BFD Reverse Path TLV | This document | | X (TBD1) | BFD Reverse Path TLV | This document |
+----------+----------------------+---------------+ +----------+----------------------+---------------+
Table 1: New BFD Reverse Type TLV Table 1: New BFD Reverse Type TLV
5.2. Return Codes 5.2. Return Code
The IANA is requested to assign a new Return Code value from the The IANA is requested to assign a new Return Code value from the
"Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Ping Parameters" registry, "Return Codes" sub-registry, as follows Ping Parameters" registry, "Return Codes" sub-registry, as follows
using a Standards Action value. using a Standards Action value.
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| X (TBD3) | Too Many TLVs Detected. | This document |
| X (TBD4) | Failed to establish the BFD session. | This document | | X (TBD4) | Failed to establish the BFD session. | This document |
| | The specified reverse path was not | | | | The specified reverse path was not | |
| | found. | | | | found. | |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
Table 2: New Return Code Table 2: New Return Code
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC7726], Security considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC7726],
and [RFC8029], apply to this document. and [RFC8029], apply to this document.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Normative References
Authors greatly appreciate thorough review and the most helpful
comments from Eric Gray and Carlos Pignataro.
8. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
skipping to change at page 7, line 45 skipping to change at page 7, line 36
Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7726, Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7726,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7726, January 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7726, January 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7726>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7726>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Authors greatly appreciate thorough review and the most helpful
comments from Eric Gray and Carlos Pignataro.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
ZTE ZTE
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Individual Individual
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
51 lines changed or deleted 46 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/