< draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-12.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-13.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: February 22, 2020 Nuage Networks Expires: June 21, 2020 Nuage Networks
I. Varlashkin I. Varlashkin
Google Google
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
August 21, 2019 December 19, 2019
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return Path Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return Path
draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-12 draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-13
Abstract Abstract
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is expected to be able to Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is expected to be able to
monitor a wide variety of encapsulations of paths between systems. monitor a 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 February 22, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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 24 skipping to change at page 2, line 24
1.1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Control of the Reverse BFD Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Control of the Reverse BFD Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. BFD Reverse Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. BFD Reverse Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Use Case Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Use Case Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. BFD Reverse Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. BFD Reverse Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Return Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Return Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5880], [RFC5881], and [RFC5883] established the BFD protocol for [RFC5880], [RFC5881], and [RFC5883] established the BFD protocol for
IP networks. [RFC5884] and [RFC7726] set rules for using BFD IP networks. [RFC5884] and [RFC7726] set rules for using BFD
asynchronous mode over IP/MPLS LSPs. These standards do not define asynchronous mode over IP/MPLS LSPs. These standards do not define
means to control the path selection at the egress BFD peer to send means to control the path selection at the egress BFD peer to send
BFD control packets towards the ingress BFD system. BFD control packets towards the ingress BFD system.
For the case when BFD is used to detect defects of the traffic For the case when BFD is used to detect defects of the traffic
skipping to change at page 7, line 18 skipping to change at page 7, line 18
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+--------+----------------------------------------------+-----------+ +--------+----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| (TBD3) | Inappropriate Target FEC Stack sub-TLV | This | | (TBD3) | Inappropriate Target FEC Stack sub-TLV | This |
| | present. | document | | | present. | document |
| (TBD4) | Failed to establish the BFD session. The | This | | (TBD4) | Failed to establish the BFD session. The | This |
| | specified reverse path was not found. | document | | | specified reverse path was not found. | document |
+--------+----------------------------------------------+-----------+ +--------+----------------------------------------------+-----------+
Table 2: New Return Code Table 2: New Return Code
7. Security Considerations 7. Implementation Status
- The organization responsible for the implementation: ZTE
Corporation.
- The implementation's name ROSng empowers traditional routers, e.g.,
ZXCTN 6000.
- A brief general description: A Return Path can be specified for a
BFD session over RSVP tunnel or LSP. Same can be specified for a
backup RSVP tunnel/LSP.
The implementation's level of maturity: production.
- Coverage: RSVP LSP (no support for Static LSP)
- Version compatibility: draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-10.
- Licensing: proprietary.
- Implementation experience: simple once you support RFC 7110.
- Contact information: Qian Xin qian.xin2@zte.com.cn
- The date when information about this particular implementation was
last updated: 12/16/2019
Note to RFC Editor: This section MUST be removed before publication
of the document.
8. 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.
8. Normative References 9. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
skipping to change at page 8, line 24 skipping to change at page 9, line 12
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Authors greatly appreciate thorough review and the most helpful Authors greatly appreciate thorough review and the most helpful
comments from Eric Gray and Carlos Pignataro. comments from Eric Gray and Carlos Pignataro. Authors greatly
appreciate the help of Qian Xin, who provided the information about
the implementation of this specification.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
ZTE ZTE
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Nuage Networks Nuage Networks
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 44 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/