| < draft-ietf-spring-bfd-01.txt | draft-ietf-spring-bfd-02.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPRING Working Group G. Mirsky | SPRING Working Group G. Mirsky | |||
| Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. | Internet-Draft Ericsson | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura | Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura | |||
| Expires: 23 September 2021 Juniper Networks | Expires: 27 March 2022 Juniper Networks | |||
| I. Varlashkin | I. Varlashkin | |||
| M. Chen | M. Chen | |||
| Huawei | Huawei | |||
| J. Wenying | J. Wenying | |||
| CMCC | CMCC | |||
| 22 March 2021 | 23 September 2021 | |||
| Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks | |||
| Using MPLS Dataplane | Using MPLS Dataplane | |||
| draft-ietf-spring-bfd-01 | draft-ietf-spring-bfd-02 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of source | Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of source | |||
| routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching | routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching | |||
| (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. A segment is | (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 | encoded as an MPLS label, and an ordered list of segments is encoded | |||
| as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is | as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is | |||
| expected to monitor any existing path between systems. This document | expected to monitor any existing path between systems. This document | |||
| defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD | defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 48 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 48 ¶ | |||
| 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 23 September 2021. | This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 March 2022. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | |||
| license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | |||
| Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 28 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 28 ¶ | |||
| detection message, i.e., BFD Control message, and the Forwarding | detection message, i.e., BFD Control message, and the Forwarding | |||
| Equivalency Class (FEC) of a single label stack LSP in case of | Equivalency Class (FEC) of a single label stack LSP in case of | |||
| Penultimate Hop Popping or when the egress LER distributes the | Penultimate Hop Popping or when the egress LER distributes the | |||
| Explicit NULL label to the penultimate hop router. The Explicit NULL | Explicit NULL label to the penultimate hop router. The Explicit NULL | |||
| label is not advertised as a Segment Identifier (SID) by an SR node | label is not advertised as a Segment Identifier (SID) by an SR node | |||
| but, as demonstrated in section 3.1 [RFC8660] if the operation at the | but, as demonstrated in section 3.1 [RFC8660] if the operation at the | |||
| penultimate hop is NEXT; then the egress SR node will receive an IP | penultimate hop is NEXT; then the egress SR node will receive an IP | |||
| encapsulated packet. Thus the conclusion is that LSP Ping MUST be | encapsulated packet. Thus the conclusion is that LSP Ping MUST be | |||
| used to bootstrap a BFD session in an SR-MPLS domain if there are no | used to bootstrap a BFD session in an SR-MPLS domain if there are no | |||
| other means to bootstrap the BFD session, e.g., using an extension to | other means to bootstrap the BFD session, e.g., using an extension to | |||
| a dynamic routing protocol as described in | a dynamic routing protocol as described in [RFC9026] and | |||
| [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover] and | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case]. | [I-D.ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case]. | |||
| As demonstrated in [RFC8287], the introduction of Segment Routing | As demonstrated in [RFC8287], the introduction of Segment Routing | |||
| network domains with an MPLS data plane requires three new sub-TLVs | network domains with an MPLS data plane requires three new sub-TLVs | |||
| that MAY be used with Target FEC TLV. Section 6.1 addresses the use | that MAY be used with Target FEC TLV. Section 6.1 addresses the use | |||
| of the new sub-TLVs in Target FEC TLV in LSP ping and LSP traceroute. | of the new sub-TLVs in Target FEC TLV in LSP ping and LSP traceroute. | |||
| For the case of LSP ping, the [RFC8287] states that: | For the case of LSP ping, the [RFC8287] states that: | |||
| The initiator, i.e., ingress LER, MUST include FEC(s) | The initiator, i.e., ingress LER, MUST include FEC(s) | |||
| corresponding to the destination segment. | corresponding to the destination segment. | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 21 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 21 ¶ | |||
| information about the implementation of this specification. | information about the implementation of this specification. | |||
| 14. References | 14. References | |||
| 14.1. Normative References | 14.1. Normative References | |||
| [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed] | [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed] | |||
| Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen, | Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen, | |||
| "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return | "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return | |||
| Path for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", Work in | Path for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", Work in | |||
| Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-17, | Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-18, | |||
| 16 February 2021, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- | 20 August 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ | |||
| mpls-bfd-directed-17>. | draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-18>. | |||
| [I-D.mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand] | [I-D.mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand] | |||
| Mirsky, G., "BFD in Demand Mode over Point-to-Point MPLS | Mirsky, G., "BFD in Demand Mode over Point-to-Point MPLS | |||
| LSP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-bfd- | LSP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-bfd- | |||
| mpls-demand-08, 9 September 2020, | mpls-demand-09, 30 March 2021, | |||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-bfd- | |||
| 08>. | mpls-demand-09>. | |||
| [I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy] | [I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy] | |||
| Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z. | Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z. | |||
| Zhang, "SR Replication Policy for P2MP Service Delivery", | Zhang, "SR Replication Policy for P2MP Service Delivery", | |||
| Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-voyer-spring-sr- | Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-voyer-spring-sr- | |||
| p2mp-policy-03, 2 July 2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/ | p2mp-policy-03, 2 July 2019, | |||
| draft-voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-03>. | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-voyer-spring- | |||
| sr-p2mp-policy-03>. | ||||
| [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 14, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 23 ¶ | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8563>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8563>. | |||
| [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., | [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., | |||
| Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment | Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment | |||
| Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, | Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>. | |||
| 14.2. Informative References | 14.2. Informative References | |||
| [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover] | ||||
| Morin, T., Kebler, R., and G. Mirsky, "Multicast VPN Fast | ||||
| Upstream Failover", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | ||||
| draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-15, 21 January 2021, | ||||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast- | ||||
| failover-15>. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case] | [I-D.ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case] | |||
| Mirsky, G. and J. Xiaoli, "Bidirectional Forwarding | Mirsky, G. and J. Xiaoli, "Fast Failover in Protocol | |||
| Detection (BFD) for Multi-point Networks and Protocol | Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Using | |||
| Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Use Case", | Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multipoint | |||
| Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp- | Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- | |||
| use-case-05, 30 November 2020, | pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-07, 10 September 2021, | |||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-bfd- | |||
| case-05>. | p2mp-use-case-07>. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments] | [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments] | |||
| Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., | Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., | |||
| Decraene, B., and M. Horneffer, "Anycast Segments in MPLS | Decraene, B., and M. Horneffer, "Anycast Segments in MPLS | |||
| based Segment Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | based Segment Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | |||
| draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-03, 27 April 2020, | draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-03, 27 April 2020, | |||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-mpls- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring- | |||
| anycast-segments-03>. | mpls-anycast-segments-03>. | |||
| [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and | [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and | |||
| L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", | L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", | |||
| RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, | RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | [RFC9026] Morin, T., Ed., Kebler, R., Ed., and G. Mirsky, Ed., | |||
| "Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover", RFC 9026, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC9026, April 2021, | ||||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9026>. | ||||
| Authors' Addresses | ||||
| Greg Mirsky | Greg Mirsky | |||
| ZTE Corp. | Ericsson | |||
| Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com | ||||
| Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com, gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com | ||||
| Jeff Tantsura | Jeff Tantsura | |||
| Juniper Networks | Juniper Networks | |||
| Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com | Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com | |||
| Ilya Varlashkin | Ilya Varlashkin | |||
| Email: Ilya@nobulus.com | Email: Ilya@nobulus.com | |||
| End of changes. 16 change blocks. | ||||
| 34 lines changed or deleted | 32 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/ | ||||