idnits 2.17.1 draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-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 date (April 21, 2017) is 2561 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-09 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky 3 Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. 4 Intended status: Standards Track April 21, 2017 5 Expires: October 23, 2017 7 BFD for Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multi-Point MPLS LSP 8 draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-00 10 Abstract 12 This document describes procedures for using Bidirectional Forwarding 13 Detection (BFD) for multipoint networks to detect data plane failures 14 in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) point-to-multipoint (p2mp) 15 Label Switched Paths (LSPs). It also describes applicability of out- 16 band solutions to bootstrap a BFD session in this environment. 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 http://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 October 23, 2017. 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 (http://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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3. Multipoint BFD Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3.1. IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3.2. Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD . . . . . . . . . 3 59 4. Bootstrapping Multipoint BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 4.1. LSP Ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 4.2. Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 5.1. Source MEP ID IP Address Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 1. Conventions used in this document 71 1.1. Terminology 73 MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching 75 LSP: Label Switched Path 77 BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 79 p2mp: Point-to-Multipoint 81 FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class 83 G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel 85 ACH: Associated Channel Header 87 GAL: G-ACh Label 89 1.2. Requirements Language 91 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 92 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 93 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 95 2. Introduction 97 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] defines a method of using Bidirectional 98 Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] to monitor and detect unicast failures 99 between the sender (head) and one or more receivers (tails) in 100 multipoint or multicast networks. This document describes procedures 101 for using such mode of BFD protocol to detect data plane failures in 102 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) point-to-multipoint (p2mp) Label 103 Switched Paths (LSPs). The document also describes applicability of 104 out-band solutions to bootstrap a BFD session in this environment. 106 3. Multipoint BFD Encapsulation 108 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] defines the tail of multipoint BFD session 109 demultiplexes received BFD control packet based not on Your 110 Discriminator, as defined in [RFC5880], but using source IP address, 111 My Discriminator and the identity of the multipoint tree which the 112 Multipoint BFD Control packet was received from. The identity of the 113 multipoint tree MAY be provided by the p2mp MPLS LSP label in case of 114 inclusive p-tree or upstream assigned label in case of aggregate 115 p-tree. 117 3.1. IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD 119 IP/UDP encapsulation for multipoint BFD over p2mp MPLS LSP follows 120 the same rules as defined in Section 7 [RFC5884] for BFD over p2p 121 LSP: 123 UDP destination port MUST be set to 3784; 125 destination IP address MUST be from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and 126 from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6; 128 if multiple alternative paths for the given p2mp LSP Forwarding 129 Equivalence Class(FEC) exist, the MultipointHead SHOULD use 130 Entropy Label [RFC6790] used for LSP Ping [RFC8029] to excercise 131 that particular alternative path; 133 or the MultipointHead MAY use, as destination IP address, the IP 134 address discovered by LSP Ping traceroute [RFC8029] to exercise 135 that particular alternate path. 137 3.2. Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD 139 Non-IP encapsulation for multipoint BFD over p2mp MPLS LSP MUST use 140 Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Label (GAL) [RFC5586] at the 141 bottom of the label stack followed by Associated Channel Header 142 (ACH). Channel Type field in ACH MUST be set to BFD CV [RFC6428]. 144 To provide identity of the MultipointHead for the particular 145 multipoint BFD session this document defines new Source MEP ID type 146 TBA1 Section 5.1 IP Address. If the Legnth value is 4, then the 147 Value field contains IPv4 address. If the Length value is 16, then 148 the Value field contains IPv6 address. Any other value of the Length 149 field MUST be considered as error and the BFD control packet MUST be 150 discarded. 152 4. Bootstrapping Multipoint BFD 154 4.1. LSP Ping 156 MaultipointHead MAY use LSP Ping [RFC8029] using in Target FEC TLV, 157 as appropriate, sub-TLVs defined in Section 3.1 [RFC6425]. 159 4.2. Control Plane 161 BGP-BFD Attribute [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover] MAY be used to 162 bootstrap multipoint BFD session on a tail. 164 5. IANA Considerations 166 5.1. Source MEP ID IP Address Type 168 IANA is required to allocate value (TBD) for the Source Source MEP ID 169 IP Address type from the "CC/CV MEP-ID TLV" registry which is under 170 the "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types" registry. 172 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 173 | Value | Description | Reference | 174 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 175 | TBA1 | IP Address | This document | 176 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 178 Table 1: Source MEP ID IP Address TLV Type 180 6. Security Considerations 182 Thi document does not introduce new security aspects but inherits all 183 security considerations from [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC7726], 184 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], [RFC8029], and [RFC6425]. 186 7. Acknowledgements 187 8. Normative References 189 [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover] 190 Morin, T. and R. Kebler, "Multicast VPN fast upstream 191 failover", draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-02 (work in 192 progress), March 2017. 194 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] 195 Katz, D., Ward, D., and J. Networks, "BFD for Multipoint 196 Networks", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-09 (work in 197 progress), October 2016. 199 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 200 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 201 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 202 . 204 [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., 205 "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, 206 DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, 207 . 209 [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 210 (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, 211 . 213 [RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, 214 "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label 215 Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884, 216 June 2010, . 218 [RFC6425] Saxena, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., 219 Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane 220 Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP 221 Ping", RFC 6425, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011, 222 . 224 [RFC6428] Allan, D., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and J. Drake, Ed., 225 "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, 226 and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport 227 Profile", RFC 6428, DOI 10.17487/RFC6428, November 2011, 228 . 230 [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and 231 L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", 232 RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, 233 . 235 [RFC7726] Govindan, V., Rajaraman, K., Mirsky, G., Akiya, N., and S. 236 Aldrin, "Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD 237 Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7726, 238 DOI 10.17487/RFC7726, January 2016, 239 . 241 [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., 242 Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label 243 Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, 244 DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, 245 . 247 Author's Address 249 Greg Mirsky 250 ZTE Corp. 252 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com