| < draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-01.txt | draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group N. Gupta | Network Working Group N. Gupta | |||
| Internet-Draft A. Dogra | Internet-Draft A. Dogra | |||
| Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc. | Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| Expires: December 27, 2015 C. Docherty | Expires: April 15, 2016 C. Docherty | |||
| June 25, 2015 | ||||
| Fast failure detection using peer learning in VRRP with BFD | G. Mirsky | |||
| draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-01 | J. Tantsura | |||
| Ericsson | ||||
| October 13, 2015 | ||||
| Abstract | Fast failure detection in VRRP with BFD | |||
| draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02 | ||||
| This draft presents an enhanced failure detection mechanism to detect | Abstract | |||
| the failure of VRRP Master router on the LAN using a peer learning | ||||
| mode. Typically the VRRP protocol is able to perform the transparent | ||||
| fail-over detection within a time period of 3 seconds with default | ||||
| fail-over timers. Real-time protocols (voice/video/real-time | ||||
| transactional) require a maximum network disruption in the order of | ||||
| 150ms for traffic on the network. A failure detection and fail-over | ||||
| time of 150ms on conventionally configured VRRP protocol is extremely | ||||
| aggressive and may impact the reliability and performance of the | ||||
| network. | ||||
| A more efficient mechanism for real-time failure detection can be | This document describes how Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) | |||
| enabled in VRRP protocol by building a peer table, using a new VRRP | can be used to support sub-second detection of a Master Router | |||
| Advert packet type. This will help in forming a mesh of BFD | failure in the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP). | |||
| sessions. Once the BFD sessions are created, VRRP can receive faster | ||||
| notification of failures, without the overhead of increased VRRP | ||||
| protocol Advert messages. | ||||
| Status of this Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| 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 December 27, 2015. | This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2016. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2015 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 | |||
| carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
| to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
| 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
| 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 3. Extension to VRRP protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3. Applicability of Single-hop BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 3.1. VRRP Peer Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.1. Extension to VRRP protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3.2. VRRP BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT Packet Type . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.2. VRRP Peer Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 4. Sample configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.3. VRRP BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT Packet Type . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 5. Critical BFD session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 3.4. Sample configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 6. Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 3.5. Critical BFD session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 7. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4. Applicability of p2mp BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 5. Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 11.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 11.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| Appendix A. Using Multipoint BFD sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Fast failure detection in the network is becoming increasingly | The Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) provides redundant | |||
| important. VRRP helps in providing redundant Virtual gateways in the | Virtual gateways in the Local Area Network (LAN), which is typically | |||
| LAN, which is typically the first point of failure for end-hosts | the first point of failure for end-hosts sending traffic out of the | |||
| sending traffic out of the LAN. A faster failure detection of VRRP | LAN. Fast failure detection of VRRP Master is critical in supporting | |||
| master becomes very critical as it can isolate all end-hosts that are | high availability of services and improved Quality of Experience to | |||
| unable to detect any alternate path. In VRRP [RFC5798] protocol | users. In VRRP [RFC5798] specification, Backup routers depend on | |||
| specification, Backup routers depends on Advert packets generated at | VRRP packets generated at a regular interval by the Master router, to | |||
| a regular interval by the Master router, to detect the health of the | detect the health of the VRRP Master. Faster failure detection can | |||
| VRRP Master. Faster failure detection can be achieved within VRRP | be achieved within VRRP protocol by reducing the Advertisement | |||
| protocol by reducing the Advert and hold down timers. But Aggressive | Interval and hold down timers. However, aggressive timers can put | |||
| timers can put extra load on the network bandwidth which may not be | extra load on CPU and the network bandwidth which may not be | |||
| desirable. | desirable. | |||
| As the VRRP protocol depends on the availability of L3 IPv4 or IPv6 | Since the VRRP protocol depends on the availability of Layer 3 IPv4 | |||
| between redundant peers, VRRP protocol can interact with the L3 | or IPv6 connectivity between redundant peers, the VRRP protocol can | |||
| variant of BFD as described in [RFC5881], to achieve a much faster | interact with the Layer 3 variant of BFD as described in [RFC5881] | |||
| failure detection of the VRRP Master in the LAN. BFD as specified by | or [I-D.draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint] to achieve a much faster failure | |||
| the RFC [RFC5880] can provide a much faster failure detection in the | detection of the VRRP Master on the LAN. BFD, as specified by the | |||
| range of 150ms. | [RFC5880] or [I-D.draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint] can provide a much | |||
| faster failure detection in the range of 150ms, if implemented in the | ||||
| part of a Network device which scales better than VRRP when | ||||
| aggressive timers are used. | ||||
| BFD IPv4 or IPv6 [RFC5881] requires that for a BFD session to be | 2. Requirements Language | |||
| formed, both peers participating in a BFD session need to know to its | ||||
| peer IPv4 or IPV6 address. This poses a unique problem with the | ||||
| definition of the VRRP [RFC5798] protocol, that makes the operation | ||||
| with BFD IPv4 or IPv6 [RFC5881] more challenging. As in VRRP it is | ||||
| only the Master peer that sends Advert packets. This means that a | ||||
| Master peer is not aware of any Backup peers, and Backup peers are | ||||
| only aware of the Master peer. This also means that Backup peers are | ||||
| not aware of other Backups in the Network. | ||||
| Since BFD IPv4 or IPv6 [RFC5881] requires that a session be formed by | In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements | |||
| both peers using a full destination and source address, there needs | of the specification. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", | |||
| to be some external means to provide this information to BFD on | "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", | |||
| behalf of VRRP. Once the peer information is made available, VRRP | and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in | |||
| can form BFD sessions with each of the peers that exist in the | RFC 2119. [RFC2119] | |||
| 3. Applicability of Single-hop BFD | ||||
| BFD for IPv4 or IPv6 (Single Hop) [RFC5881] requires that in order | ||||
| for a BFD session to be formed both peers participating in a BFD | ||||
| session need to know to its peer IPv4 or IPV6 address. This poses a | ||||
| unique problem with the definition of the VRRP protocol, that makes | ||||
| the use of BFD for IPv4 or IPv6 [RFC5881] more challenging. In VRRP | ||||
| it is only the Master router that sends Advert packets. This means | ||||
| that a Master router is not aware of any Backup routers, and Backup | ||||
| routers are only aware of the Master router. This also means that a | ||||
| Backup router is not aware of any other Backup routers in the | ||||
| Network. | ||||
| Since BFD for IPv4 or IPv6 [RFC5881] requires that a session be | ||||
| formed by both peers using a full destination and source address, | ||||
| there needs to be some external means to provide this information to | ||||
| BFD on behalf of VRRP. Once the peer information is made available, | ||||
| VRRP can form BFD sessions with each of the peers that exist in the | ||||
| Virtual Router. The most important BFD session for a given Virtual | Virtual Router. The most important BFD session for a given Virtual | |||
| Router is identified as the Critical Path BFD Session, which is the | Router is identified as the Critical Path BFD Session, which is the | |||
| session that forms between the current VRRP Master, and the highest | session that forms between the current VRRP Master router, and the | |||
| priority Backup. Should the Critical Path BFD Session be identified | highest priority Backup router. When the Critical Path BFD Session | |||
| by the VRRP as having changed state from UP to DOWN, then this will | identified by VRRP as having changed state from Up to Down, then this | |||
| be interpreted by the VRRP state machine on the highest priority | will be interpreted by the VRRP state machine on the highest priority | |||
| Backup peer as a Master Down event. A Master Down event means that | Backup router as a Master Down event. A Master Down event means that | |||
| the highest priority Backup peer will immediately become the new | the highest priority Backup peer will immediately become the new | |||
| Master for the Virtual Router. | Master for the Virtual Router. | |||
| NOTE: At all times, the normal fail-over mechanism defined in the | NOTE: At all times, the normal fail-over mechanism defined in the | |||
| VRRP [RFC5798] will be unaffected, and the BFD fail-over mechanism | VRRP [RFC5798] will be unaffected, and the BFD fail-over mechanism | |||
| will always resort to normal VRRP fail-over. | will always resort to normal VRRP fail-over. | |||
| This draft defines the mechanism used by VRRP protocol to Build a | This draft defines the mechanism used by the VRRP protocol to build a | |||
| peer table that will help in forming a mesh of BFD sessions and the | peer table that will help in forming a mesh of BFD sessions and the | |||
| detection of Critical Path BFD session. If the Critical Path BFD | detection of Critical Path BFD session. If the Critical Path BFD | |||
| session were to go down it will signal a Master down event and make | session were to go down, it will signal a Master Down event and make | |||
| the most preferred Backup router as the VRRP Master. This requires | the most preferred Backup router as the VRRP Master router. This | |||
| an extension to the VRRP protocol. | requires an extension to the VRRP protocol. | |||
| This can be achieved by defining a new type in the VRRP Advert | This can be achieved by defining a new type in the VRRP Advert | |||
| packet, and allowing VRRP peers to build a peer table in any of the | packet, and allowing VRRP peers to build a peer table in any of the | |||
| operational state, Master or Backup. | operational state, Master or Backup. | |||
| 2. Requirements Language | 3.1. Extension to VRRP protocol | |||
| In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements | ||||
| of the specification. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", | ||||
| "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", | ||||
| and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in | ||||
| RFC 2119. [RFC2119] | ||||
| 3. Extension to VRRP protocol | ||||
| In this mode of operation VRRP peers learn the adjacent peers, and | In this mode of operation VRRP peers learn the adjacent routers, and | |||
| form BFD sessions between the learnt peers. In order to build the | form BFD sessions between the learnt routers. In order to build the | |||
| peer table, all peers send VRRP Advert packets whilst in any of the | peer table, all routers send VRRP Advert packets whilst in any of the | |||
| operational states (Master or Backup). Normally VRRP [RFC5798] peers | operational states (Master or Backup). Normally VRRP peers only send | |||
| only send Advert packets whilst in the Master state, however in this | Advert packets whilst in the Master state, however in this mode VRRP | |||
| mode VRRP Backup peers will also send Advert packets with the type | Backup peers will also send Advert packets with the type field set to | |||
| field set to BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT type defined in Section 3.2. VRRP | BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT type defined in Section 3.3 of this document. | |||
| Master peer will still continue to send packets with Advert type as | The VRRP Master router will still continue to send packets with the | |||
| ADVERTISEMENT as defined in the VRRP [RFC5798] protocol. This is to | Advert type as ADVERTISEMENT as defined in the VRRP protocol. This | |||
| maintain inter-operability with peers complying to VRRP [RFC5798] | is to maintain inter-operability with peers complying to VRRP | |||
| protocol. | protocol. | |||
| Additionally Advert packets sent from Backup Peers must not use the | Additionally Advert packets sent from Backup Peers must not use the | |||
| Virtual router MAC address as the source address. Instead it must | Virtual router MAC address as the source address. Instead it must | |||
| use the Interface MAC address as the source address from which the | use the Interface MAC address as the source address from which the | |||
| packet is sent from. This is because the source MAC override feature | packet is sent from. This is because the source MAC override feature | |||
| is used by the Master to send Advert packets from the Virtual Router | is used by the Master to send Advert packets from the Virtual Router | |||
| MAC address, which is used to keep the bridging cache on LAN switches | MAC address, which is used to keep the bridging cache on LAN switches | |||
| and bridging devices refreshed with the destination port for the | and bridging devices refreshed with the destination port for the | |||
| Virtual Router MAC. | Virtual Router MAC. | |||
| 3.1. VRRP Peer Table | 3.2. VRRP Peer Table | |||
| VRRP peers can now form the peer table by learning the source address | VRRP peers can now form the peer table by learning the source address | |||
| in the ADVERTISEMENT or BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT packet sent by VRRP | in the ADVERTISEMENT or BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT packet sent by VRRP | |||
| Master or Backup peers. This allows all peers to create a mesh of | Master or Backup peers. This allows all peers to create a mesh of | |||
| BFD sessions with all other operational peers. | BFD sessions with all other operational peers. | |||
| A peer entry should be removed from the peer table if Advert is not | A peer entry should be removed from the peer table if Advert is not | |||
| received from a peer for a period of (3 * the Advert interval). | received from a peer for a period of (3 * the Advert interval). | |||
| 3.2. VRRP BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT Packet Type | 3.3. VRRP BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT Packet Type | |||
| The following figure shows the VRRP packet as defined in VRRP | The following figure shows the VRRP packet as defined in VRRP | |||
| [RFC5798] RFC. | [RFC5798] RFC. | |||
| 0 1 2 3 | 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 | 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 | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | IPv4 Fields or IPv6 Fields | | | IPv4 Fields or IPv6 Fields | | |||
| ... ... | ... ... | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 42 ¶ | |||
| VRRP Master Router. Type 2 (BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT) is used by the | VRRP Master Router. Type 2 (BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT) is used by the | |||
| VRRP Backup router. This is to distinguish the packets sent by the | VRRP Backup router. This is to distinguish the packets sent by the | |||
| VRRP backup Router. Rest of the fields in Advert packet remain the | VRRP backup Router. Rest of the fields in Advert packet remain the | |||
| same. | same. | |||
| 1 ADVERTISEMENT | 1 ADVERTISEMENT | |||
| 2 BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT | 2 BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT | |||
| A packet with unknown type MUST be discarded. | A packet with unknown type MUST be discarded. | |||
| 4. Sample configuration | 3.4. Sample configuration | |||
| The following figure shows a simple network with three VRRP routers | The following figure shows a simple network with three VRRP routers | |||
| implementing one virtual router. | implementing one virtual router. | |||
| +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | |||
| | Rtr1 | | Rtr2 | | Rtr3 | | | Rtr1 | | Rtr2 | | Rtr3 | | |||
| |(MR VRID=1)| |(BR VRID=1)| |(BR VRID=1)| | |(MR VRID=1)| |(BR VRID=1)| |(BR VRID=1)| | |||
| | (PR=200) | | (PR=150) | | (PR=100) | | | (PR=200) | | (PR=150) | | (PR=100) | | |||
| | VRIPVX= A | | VRIPVX= A | | VRIPVX= A | | | VRIPVX= A | | VRIPVX= A | | VRIPVX= A | | |||
| +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | |||
| B C D | B C D | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 31 ¶ | |||
| BR = Backup Router | BR = Backup Router | |||
| PR = VRRP Router priority | PR = VRRP Router priority | |||
| VRID = VRRP Router ID | VRID = VRRP Router ID | |||
| VRIPVX= IPv4 or IPv6 address protected by | VRIPVX= IPv4 or IPv6 address protected by | |||
| the VRRP Router | the VRRP Router | |||
| B,C,D = Interface IPv4 or IPv6 address of | B,C,D = Interface IPv4 or IPv6 address of | |||
| the Virtual Router | the Virtual Router | |||
| In the above configuration there are three routers on the LAN | In the above configuration there are three routers on the LAN | |||
| protecting an IPv4 or IPv6 address associated to a Virtual Router ID | protecting an IPv4 or IPv6 address associated to a Virtual Router ID | |||
| 1. The Rtr1 is the master router as it has the highest priority | 1. Rtr1 is the Master router since it has the highest priority | |||
| compared the Rtr2 and Rtr3. Now if peer learning extension is | compared to Rtr2 and Rtr3. Now if peer learning extension is enabled | |||
| enabled on all the peers. Rtr1 will send the Advert packet with type | on all the peers. Rtr1 will send the Advert packet with type field | |||
| field set to 1. While Rtr2 and Rtr3 will send the Advert packet with | set to 1. While Rtr2 and Rtr3 will send the Advert packet with type | |||
| type field set to 2. In the above configuration the peer table built | field set to 2. In the above configuration the peer table built at | |||
| at each router is shown below: | each router is shown below: | |||
| Rtr1 Peer table | Rtr1 Peer table | |||
| +------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------+ | |||
| | Peer Address | Priority | | | Peer Address | Priority | | |||
| +------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------+ | |||
| | C | 150 | | | C | 150 | | |||
| +------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------+ | |||
| | D | 100 | | | D | 100 | | |||
| +------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 27 ¶ | |||
| | Peer Address | Priority | | | Peer Address | Priority | | |||
| +------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------+ | |||
| | B | 200 | | | B | 200 | | |||
| +------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------+ | |||
| | C | 150 | | | C | 150 | | |||
| +------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------+ | |||
| Once the peer tables are formed, VRRP on each router can form a mesh | Once the peer tables are formed, VRRP on each router can form a mesh | |||
| of BFD sessions with all the learnt peers. | of BFD sessions with all the learnt peers. | |||
| 5. Critical BFD session | 3.5. Critical BFD session | |||
| Critical BFD Session is determined to be the session between the VRRP | The Critical BFD Session is determined to be the session between the | |||
| Master and the next best VRRP Backup. Failure of the Critical BFD | VRRP Master and the next best VRRP Backup. Failure of the Critical | |||
| session indicates that the Master is no longer available and the most | BFD session indicates that the Master is no longer available and the | |||
| preferred Backup will now become Master. | most preferred Backup will now become Master. | |||
| In the above example the Critical BFD session is shared between Rtr1 | In the above example the Critical BFD session is shared between Rtr1 | |||
| and Rtr2. If the BFD Session goes from UP to DOWN state, Rtr2 can | and Rtr2. If the BFD Session goes from Up to Down state, Rtr2 can | |||
| treat it as a Master down event and immediately assume the role of | treat it as a Master down event and immediately assume the role of | |||
| VRRP Master router for VRID 1 and Rtr3 will become the critical | VRRP Master router for VRID 1 and Rtr3 will become the critical | |||
| backup. | Backup. | |||
| 6. Scalability Considerations | 4. Applicability of p2mp BFD | |||
| [I-D.draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint] provides an alternative solution that | ||||
| uses default route rather than dynamic routing. This approach can be | ||||
| an efficient in some network deployments. Each redundancy group | ||||
| presents itself as p2mp BFD session with its Master being the root | ||||
| and Backup routers being tails of the p2mp BFD session. The Master | ||||
| router starts transmitting BFD control packets with VRID as source IP | ||||
| address. Backup router demultiplexes p2mp BFD test sessions based on | ||||
| VRID that it been configured with. Once Backup router accepts p2mp | ||||
| session from the new Master router backup router the Backup router | ||||
| MAY use My Discriminator from received p2mp BFD control packet to | ||||
| demultiplex p2mp BFD sessions. When a Backup router detects failure | ||||
| of the Master router it re-evaluates its role in the VRID. As | ||||
| result, the Backup router may become the Master router of the given | ||||
| VRID or continue as a Backup router. If the former is the case, then | ||||
| the new Master router MUST select My Discriminator and start | ||||
| transmitting p2mp BFD control packets using Master IP address as | ||||
| source IP address for p2mp BFD control packets. If the latter is the | ||||
| case, then the Backup router MUST wait for p2mp BFD control packet | ||||
| with source IP address set to VRID. | ||||
| 5. Scalability Considerations | ||||
| When forming mesh of BFD sessions one possible scenario can occur if | When forming mesh of BFD sessions one possible scenario can occur if | |||
| the system is not able to scale well with the increased load of | the system is not able to scale well with the increased load of | |||
| multiple BFD sessions. To mitigate this problem sharing of BFD | multiple BFD sessions. To mitigate this problem sharing of BFD | |||
| sessions with other protocols and opening less number of BFD sessions | sessions with other protocols and opening less number of BFD sessions | |||
| should be considered, i.e between Master and the most preferred | should be considered, i.e. between Master and the most preferred | |||
| Backup router part of the VRRP instance. | Backup router of the VRRP instance. | |||
| To reduce the number of packets generated at a regular interval, | To reduce the number of packets generated at a regular interval, | |||
| Backup Advert packets may be sent at a reduced rate as compared to | Backup Advert packets may be sent at a reduced rate as compared to | |||
| Advert packets sent by the VRRP Master. | Advert packets sent by the VRRP Master. | |||
| 7. Operational Considerations | In a Data Centre with VXLAN extending the Layer 2 network, when | |||
| implementing Section 4 of this document, inherently multicast traffic | ||||
| is flooded or replicated to all the Virtual Tunneling End Points by | ||||
| means of multicast traffic in the underlay network. The amount of | ||||
| replication or flooding depends on the number of Virtual Tunnelling | ||||
| End Points connected to the VXLAN network. VRRP is typically | ||||
| deployed on the Virtual Tunneling End Points. If Multipoint BFD is | ||||
| used for tracking the state of VRRP Master Router the Multipoint BFD | ||||
| packets will get carried over the Layer 2 Overlay, this can lead to a | ||||
| lot of traffic getting flooded on the overlay as the rate at which | ||||
| BFD packets are generated will be typically in sub second range. | ||||
| Which is the problem if VRRP is configured with sub second timers. | ||||
| So in such scenarios where flooding of Multicast traffic is a | ||||
| concern, it is recommended to use Point to Point BFD sessions to | ||||
| avoid inherent flooding of Multicast traffic and configure VRRP to | ||||
| default or slow timers. | ||||
| A VRRP [RFC5798] peer that forms a member of this Virtual Router, but | 6. Operational Considerations | |||
| does not support this feature or extension must be configured with | ||||
| the lowest priority, and will only operate as the Router of last | A VRRP peer that forms a member of this Virtual Router, but does not | |||
| resort on failure of all other VRRP routers supporting this | support this feature or extension must be configured with the lowest | |||
| functionality. | priority, and will only operate as the Router of last resort on | |||
| failure of all other VRRP routers supporting this functionality. | ||||
| It is recommended that mechanism defined by this draft, to interface | It is recommended that mechanism defined by this draft, to interface | |||
| VRRP with BFD should be used when BFD can support more aggressive | VRRP with BFD should be used when BFD can support more aggressive | |||
| monitoring timers than VRRP. Otherwise it is desirable not to | monitoring timers than VRRP. Otherwise it is desirable not to | |||
| interface VRRP with BFD for determining the health of VRRP Master. | interface VRRP with BFD for determining the health of VRRP Master. | |||
| This Draft does not preclude the possibility of the peer table being | This Draft does not preclude the possibility of the peer table being | |||
| populated by means of manual configuration, instead of using the | populated by means of manual configuration, instead of using the | |||
| BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT as defined by the Draft. | BACKUP ADVERTISEMENT as defined by the Draft. | |||
| 8. IANA Considerations | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
| This draft includes no request to IANA. | This draft includes no request to IANA. | |||
| 9. Security Considerations | 8. Security Considerations | |||
| Security considerations are discussed in the Section 9 of VRRP | Security considerations discussed in [RFC5798], [RFC5880] and | |||
| protocol [RFC5798] specification. There are no additional security | [I-D.draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint], apply to this document. There are | |||
| considerations identified by this draft. | no additional security considerations identified by this draft. | |||
| 10. Acknowledgements | 9. Acknowledgements | |||
| The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Gerry Meyer, | The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Gerry Meyer, | |||
| and Mouli Chandramouli, for their contributions to the draft. The | and Mouli Chandramouli, for their contributions to the draft. The | |||
| authors will also like to thank Jeffrey Hass, Maik Pfeil and Vengada | authors will also like to thank Jeffrey Haas, Maik Pfeil and Vengada | |||
| Prasad Govindan for their comments and suggestions. | Prasad Govindan for their comments and suggestions. | |||
| 11. References | 10. Normative References | |||
| 11.1. Informative References | ||||
| [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection | [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection | |||
| (BFD)", RFC 5880. | (BFD)", RFC 5880, 2010. | |||
| 11.2. 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", RFC 2119. | Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, 1997. | |||
| [RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection | [RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection | |||
| (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881. | (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, 2010. | |||
| [RFC5798] Nadas, S., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) | [RFC5798] Nadas, S., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) | |||
| Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798. | Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798, 2010. | |||
| [I-D.draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint] | [I-D.draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint] | |||
| Katz, D., Ward, D., and S. Pallagatti, "BFD for Multipoint | Katz, D., Ward, D., and S. Pallagatti, "BFD for Multipoint | |||
| Networks", Work in Progress draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-06. | Networks", Work in Progress draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-07, | |||
| 2015. | ||||
| Appendix A. Using Multipoint BFD sessions | ||||
| Possibility of detecting the failure of VRRP Master using Multipoint | ||||
| BFD [I-D.draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint] sessions is still under | ||||
| consideration. | ||||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Nitish Gupta | Nitish Gupta | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| Sarjapur Outer Ring Road | Sarjapur Outer Ring Road | |||
| Bangalore 560103 | Bangalore 560103 | |||
| India | India | |||
| Phone: +91 80 4429 2530 | Phone: +91 80 4429 2530 | |||
| skipping to change at line 410 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 34 ¶ | |||
| Email: addogra@cisco.com | Email: addogra@cisco.com | |||
| URI: http://www.cisco.com/ | URI: http://www.cisco.com/ | |||
| Colin Docherty | Colin Docherty | |||
| 25 George Grieve Way | 25 George Grieve Way | |||
| Tranent | Tranent | |||
| East Lothian, Scotland EH332QT | East Lothian, Scotland EH332QT | |||
| United Kingdom | United Kingdom | |||
| Email: colin@doch.org.uk | Email: colin@doch.org.uk | |||
| Greg Mirsky | ||||
| Ericsson | ||||
| Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com | ||||
| Jeff Tantsura | ||||
| Ericsson | ||||
| Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com | ||||
| End of changes. 42 change blocks. | ||||
| 150 lines changed or deleted | 173 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/ | ||||