idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bfd-multihop-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 257. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 228. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 235. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 241. ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978, Section 5.4, paragraph 1 (on line 245), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 2026, Section 10.4C, paragraph 1 text on line 36. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'KEYWORDS' is mentioned on line 49, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'KEYWORD' is defined on line 181, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-bfd-base-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-03 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2740 (ref. 'OSPFv3') (Obsoleted by RFC 5340) Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group D. Katz 3 Internet Draft Juniper Networks 4 D. Ward 5 Cisco Systems 6 Expires: December, 2006 June, 2006 8 BFD for Multihop Paths 9 draft-ietf-bfd-multihop-04.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). All Rights Reserved. 38 Abstract 40 This document describes the use of the Bidirectional Forwarding 41 Detection protocol (BFD) over multihop paths, including 42 unidirectional links. 44 Conventions used in this document 46 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 47 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 48 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [KEYWORDS]. 50 1. Introduction 52 The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol [BFD] defines a 53 method for liveness detection of arbitrary paths between systems. 54 The BFD one-hop specification [BFD-1HOP] describes how to use BFD 55 across single hops of IPv4 and IPv6. 57 BFD can also be useful on arbitrary paths between systems, which may 58 span multiple network hops and follow unpredictable paths. 59 Furthermore, a pair of systems may have multiple paths between them 60 that may overlap. This document describes methods for using BFD in 61 such scenarios. 63 2. Issues 65 There are two primary issues in the use of BFD for multihop paths. 66 The first is security and spoofing; [BFD-1HOP] describes a 67 lightweight method of avoiding spoofing by requiring a TTL/hop limit 68 of 255 on both transmit and receive, but this obviously does not work 69 across multiple hops. The utilization of BFD authentication 70 addresses this issue. 72 The more subtle issue is that of demultiplexing multiple BFD sessions 73 between the same pair of systems to the proper BFD session. In 74 particular, the first BFD packet received for a session may carry a 75 Your Discriminator value of zero, resulting in ambiguity as to which 76 session the packet should be associated. Once the discriminator 77 values have been exchanged, all further packets are demultiplexed to 78 the proper BFD session solely by the contents of the Your 79 Discriminator field. 81 [BFD-1HOP] addresses this by requiring that multiple sessions 82 traverse independent physical or logical links--the first packet is 83 demultiplexed based on the link over which it was received. In the 84 more general case, this scheme cannot work, as two paths over which 85 BFD is running may overlap to an arbitrary degree (including the 86 first and/or last hop.) 88 3. Demultiplexing Packets 90 There are a number of possibilities for addressing the demultiplexing 91 issue which may be used, depending on the application. 93 3.1. Totally Arbitrary Paths 95 It may be desired to use BFD for liveness detection over paths for 96 which no part of the route is known (or if known, may not be stable.) 97 A straightforward approach to this problem is to limit BFD deployment 98 to a single session between a source/destination address pair. 99 Multiple sessions between the same pair of systems must have at least 100 one endpoint address distinct from one another. 102 In this scenario, the initial packet is demultiplexed to the 103 appropriate BFD session based on the source/destination address pair 104 when Your Discriminator is set to zero. 106 This approach is appropriate for general connectivity detection 107 between systems over routed paths, and is also useful for OSPF 108 Virtual Links [OSPFv2] [OSPFv3]. 110 3.2. Out-of-band Discriminator Signalling 112 Another approach to the demultiplexing problem is to signal the 113 discriminator values in each direction through an out-of-band 114 mechanism prior to establishing the BFD session. Once learned, the 115 discriminators are sent as usual in the BFD Control packets; no 116 packets with Your Discriminator set to zero are ever sent. This 117 method is used by the BFD MPLS specification [BFD-MPLS]. 119 This approach is advantageous because it allows BFD to be directed by 120 other system components that have knowledge of the paths in use, and 121 from BFD's perspective it is very simple. 123 The disadvantage is that it requires at least some level of BFD- 124 specific knowledge in parts of the system outside of BFD. 126 3.3. Unidirectional Links 128 Unidirectional links are classified as multihop paths because the 129 return path (which must exist at some level in order to make the link 130 useful) may be arbitrary, and the return paths for BFD sessions 131 protecting parallel unidirectional links may overlap or even be 132 identical. (If two unidirection links, one in each direction, are to 133 carry a single BFD session, this can be done using the single-hop 134 approach.) 136 Either of the two methods outlined earlier may be used in the 137 Unidirectional link case, but a more general solution can be done 138 strictly within BFD and without addressing limitations. 140 The approach is similar to the one-hop specification, since the 141 unidirectional link is a single hop. Let's define the two systems as 142 the Unidirectional Sender and the Unidirectional Receiver. In this 143 approach the Unidirectional Sender MUST operate in the Active role 144 (as defined in the base BFD specification), and the Unidirectional 145 Receiver MUST operate in the Passive role. 147 In the Passive role, by definition, the Unidirectional Receiver does 148 not transmit any BFD Control packets until it learns the 149 discriminator value in use by the other system (upon receipt of the 150 first BFD Control packet.) The Unidirectional Receiver demultiplexes 151 the first packet to the proper BFD session based on the physical or 152 logical link over which was received. This allows the receiver to 153 learn the remote discriminator value, which it then echoes back to 154 the sender in its own (arbitrarily routed) BFD Control packet, after 155 which time all packets are demultiplexed solely by discriminator. 157 4. Encapsulation 159 The encapsulation of BFD Control packets for multihop application in 160 IPv4 and IPv6 is identical to that defined in [BFD-1HOP], except that 161 the UDP destination port MUST have a value of 4784. This can aid in 162 the demultiplexing and internal routing of incoming BFD packets. 164 5. Authentication 166 By their nature, multihop paths expose BFD to spoofing. 167 Implementations of BFD SHOULD utilize authentication over multihop 168 paths to help mitigate denial-of-service attacks. 170 Normative References 172 [BFD] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection", 173 draft-ietf-bfd-base-05.txt, June, 2006. 175 [BFD-1HOP] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single 176 Hop)", draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-05.txt, June, 2006. 178 [BFD-MPLS] Aggarwal, R., and Kompella, K., "BFD for MPLS LSPs", 179 draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-03.txt, June, 2006. 181 [KEYWORD] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 182 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 184 [OSPFv2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. 186 [OSPFv3] Coltun, R., et al, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 2740, December 1999. 188 Security Considerations 190 No additional security issues are raised in this document beyond 191 those that exist in the referenced BFD documents. 193 IANA Considerations 195 This document has no actions for IANA. 197 Authors' Addresses 199 Dave Katz 200 Juniper Networks 201 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 202 Sunnyvale, California 94089-1206 USA 203 Phone: +1-408-745-2000 204 Email: dkatz@juniper.net 206 Dave Ward 207 Cisco Systems 208 170 W. Tasman Dr. 209 San Jose, CA 95134 USA 210 Phone: +1-408-526-4000 211 Email: dward@cisco.com 213 Changes from the previous draft 215 The only substantive change was the addition of the assigned UDP port 216 number for use with this protocol. All other changes are purely 217 editorial in nature. 219 IPR Disclaimer 221 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 222 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 223 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 224 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 225 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 226 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 227 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 228 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 230 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 231 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 232 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 233 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 234 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 235 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 237 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 238 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 239 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 240 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 241 ipr@ietf.org. 243 Full Copyright Notice 245 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 247 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 248 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 249 retain all their rights. 251 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 252 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 253 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 254 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 255 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 256 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 257 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 259 Acknowledgement 261 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 262 Internet Society. 264 This document expires in December, 2006.