idnits 2.17.1 draft-hu-bier-bfd-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (October 24, 2017) is 2376 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'ISO9577' is defined on line 256, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10 == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-bier-ping-02 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 BIER WG Fangwei. Hu 3 Internet-Draft Greg Mirsky 4 Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation 5 Expires: April 27, 2018 Chang Liu 6 China Unicom 7 October 24, 2017 9 BIER BFD 10 draft-hu-bier-bfd-00.txt 12 Abstract 14 Point to multipoint (P2MP) BFD is designed to verify multipoint 15 connectivity. This document specifies the support of P2MP BFD in 16 BIER network. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2018. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3. BIER BFD Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 4. Bootstrapping BIER BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 4.1. One-hop Bootstrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 4.2. Multi-hop Bootstrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 5. Discriminators and Packet Demultiplexing . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 1. Introduction 71 Bit Index Explicit Replication(BIER)[I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] 72 provides optimal forwarding of multicast data packets through a 73 multicast domain. It does so without requiring any explicit tree- 74 building protocol and without requiring intermediate nodes to 75 maintain any per-flow state. 77 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] defines a method of using Bidirectional 78 Detection(BFD) to monitor and detect unicast failures between the 79 sender (head) and one or more receivers (tails) in multipoint or 80 multicast networks. 82 This document describes the procedures for using such mode of BFD 83 protocol to provide verification of multipoint or multicast 84 connectivity between a multipoint sender (the "head", Bit-Forwarding 85 Ingress Routers(BFIRs)) and a set of one or more multipoint receivers 86 (the"tails", Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers(BFERs)).This document 87 defines use of the point-to-multipoint BFD for BIER domain. 89 2. Conventions used in this document 91 2.1. Terminology 93 This document uses the acronyms defined in 94 [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] along with the following: 96 BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection. 98 OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance. 100 P2MP: Point to Multi-Point. 102 2.2. Requirements Language 104 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 105 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 106 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 107 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 108 capitals, as shown here. 110 3. BIER BFD Encapsulation 112 The BIER encapsulation is specified in section 2 of 113 [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation]. The Proto field identifies the 114 type of the payload. If the proto field is 5,the payload is OAM 115 packet. [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation]does not provide 116 definition for identification of an BIER OAM packet. This document 117 defines the format of BIER OAM packet. 119 0 1 2 3 120 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 1 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 122 | V | Msg Type | Flags | Length | 123 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 124 ~ BIER OAM Control Packet ~ 125 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 127 V: two bits long field indicates the current version of the BIER 128 OAM header. The current value is 0. 130 Msg Type - six bits long field identifies OAM protocol, e.g. Echo 131 Request/Reply or BFD. If the Msg Type is BFD, the BIER OAM 132 control packet is BIER BFD packet. 134 Flags - eight bits long field carries bit flags that define 135 optional capability. 137 Length - two octets long field that is length of the BIER OAM 138 control packet in octets. 140 4. Bootstrapping BIER BFD 142 4.1. One-hop Bootstrapping 144 The ISIS BFD-Enable TLV is defined in [RFC6213], which could be used 145 for BIER BFD bootstrapping if the underlay routing protocol is ISIS 146 routing protocol. When the adjacency between BIER nodes reaches the 147 2-Way state, ISIS Hellos will already have been exchanged. If an 148 BIER node supports BFD, it will have learned whether the other BIER 149 node has BFD enabled by whether or not a BFD-Enabled TLV was included 150 in its Hellos. The BFD-Enable TLV format is defined in [RFC6213] and 151 reused in this document. The MT ID is the BIER multi-topology 152 identify. If the BIER node only supports single ISIS topology, the 153 MT ID is zero. NLPID is a Network Layer Protocol ID [RFC6328] and 154 will be [TBD](IANA assigned, suggesting 0XC2) for BIER, but 155 additional topology and protocol pairs could conceivably be listed. 157 4.2. Multi-hop Bootstrapping 159 The BIER OAM ping could be used for BIER BFD bootstrap. The 160 multipoint header sends the BIER OAM packet with Target SI-Bitstring 161 TLV (section 3.3.2 of [I-D.ietf-bier-ping]) carrying the set of BFER 162 information (Sub-domain-id, Set ID, BS Len, Bitstring) to the 163 multipoint tails to bootstrap the BIER BFD sessions. 165 5. Discriminators and Packet Demultiplexing 167 The tail(BFER) demultiplexes incoming BFD packets based on a 168 combination of the source address and My discriminator as specified 169 in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]. The source address is BFIR-id and BIER 170 MPLS Label(MPLS network) or BFIR-id and BIFT-id(Non-MPLS network)for 171 BIER BFD. 173 6. Security Considerations 175 7. Acknowledgements 177 8. IANA Considerations 179 [ISO9577]defines one-octet network layer protocol identifiers that 180 are commonly called NLPIDs and [RFC6328] defines the NLPID IANA 181 consideration. The code points 0xC0, 0xC1, 0xCC, 0xCF are assigned 182 to TRILL, IEEE 802.1aq , IPv4 and PPP respectively [RFC6328]. It is 183 requested for IANA to assign 0XC2 to NLPID for BIER in this document. 185 +-------------+---------------------+ 186 | Code Point | Use | 187 +-------------+---------------------+ 188 | 0xC0 | TRILL | 189 | 0xC1 | IEEE 802.1aq | 190 | 0xC2 | BIER[This Document] | 191 | 0xCC | IPv4 | 192 | 0xCF | PPP | 193 +-------------+---------------------+ 195 Table 1 197 IANA is requested to create new registry called "BIER OAM Message 198 Type" and assign new type from the BIER OAM Message Type registry as 199 follows: 201 +--------+--------------+------------------+ 202 | Value | Description | Reference | 203 +--------+--------------+------------------+ 204 | TBD1 | BIER BFD | [this document] | 205 +--------+--------------+------------------+ 207 Table 2 209 9. References 211 9.1. Normative References 213 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] 214 Katz, D., Ward, D., and J. Networks, "BFD for Multipoint 215 Networks", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10 (work in 216 progress), April 2017. 218 [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] 219 Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and 220 S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit 221 Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08 (work in 222 progress), September 2017. 224 [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] 225 Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J., 226 Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index 227 Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS Networks", 228 draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10 (work in progress), 229 October 2017. 231 [I-D.ietf-bier-ping] 232 Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M., 233 and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", draft-ietf-bier- 234 ping-02 (work in progress), July 2017. 236 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 237 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 238 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 239 . 241 [RFC6213] Hopps, C. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS BFD-Enabled TLV", 242 RFC 6213, DOI 10.17487/RFC6213, April 2011, 243 . 245 [RFC6328] Eastlake 3rd, D., "IANA Considerations for Network Layer 246 Protocol Identifiers", BCP 164, RFC 6328, 247 DOI 10.17487/RFC6328, July 2011, 248 . 250 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 251 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 252 May 2017, . 254 9.2. Informative References 256 [ISO9577] ISO/IEC TR 9577:1999,, "International Organization for 257 Standardization "Information technology - 258 Telecommunications and Information exchange between 259 systems - Protocol identification in the network layer"", 260 1999. 262 Authors' Addresses 264 Fangwei Hu 265 ZTE Corporation 266 No.889 Bibo Rd 267 Shanghai 201203 268 China 270 Phone: +86 21 68896273 271 Email: hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn 273 Greg Mirsky 274 ZTE Corporation 275 USA 277 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com 278 Chang Liu 279 China Unicom 280 No.9 Shouti Nanlu 281 Beijing 100048 282 China 284 Phone: +86-010-68799999-7294 285 Email: liuc131@chinaunicom.cn