idnits 2.17.1 draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-01.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 (June 28, 2017) is 2465 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 BESS Working Group G. Mirsky 3 Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. 4 Intended status: Standards Track June 28, 2017 5 Expires: December 30, 2017 7 BFD for Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multi-Point MPLS LSP 8 draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-01 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 December 30, 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 6.1. Source MEP ID IP Address Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 1. Introduction 71 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] defines a method of using Bidirectional 72 Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] to monitor and detect unicast failures 73 between the sender (head) and one or more receivers (tails) in 74 multipoint or multicast networks. This document describes procedures 75 for using such mode of BFD protocol to detect data plane failures in 76 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) point-to-multipoint (p2mp) Label 77 Switched Paths (LSPs). The document also describes applicability of 78 out-band solutions to bootstrap a BFD session in this environment. 80 2. Conventions used in this document 82 2.1. Terminology 84 MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching 86 LSP: Label Switched Path 88 BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 90 p2mp: Point-to-Multipoint 92 FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class 94 G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel 96 ACH: Associated Channel Header 97 GAL: G-ACh Label 99 2.2. Requirements Language 101 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 102 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 103 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 104 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 105 capitals, as shown here. 107 3. Multipoint BFD Encapsulation 109 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] defines the tail of multipoint BFD session 110 demultiplexes received BFD control packet based not on Your 111 Discriminator, as defined in [RFC5880], but using source IP address, 112 My Discriminator and the identity of the multipoint tree which the 113 Multipoint BFD Control packet was received from. The identity of the 114 multipoint tree MAY be provided by the p2mp MPLS LSP label in case of 115 inclusive p-tree or upstream assigned label in case of aggregate 116 p-tree. 118 3.1. IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD 120 IP/UDP encapsulation for multipoint BFD over p2mp MPLS LSP follows 121 the same rules as defined in Section 7 [RFC5884] for BFD over p2p 122 LSP: 124 UDP destination port MUST be set to 3784; 126 destination IP address MUST be from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and 127 from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6; 129 if multiple alternative paths for the given p2mp LSP Forwarding 130 Equivalence Class(FEC) exist, the MultipointHead SHOULD use 131 Entropy Label [RFC6790] used for LSP Ping [RFC8029] to exercise 132 that particular alternative path; 134 or the MultipointHead MAY use, as destination IP address, the IP 135 address discovered by LSP Ping traceroute [RFC8029] to exercise 136 that particular alternate path. 138 3.2. Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD 140 Non-IP encapsulation for multipoint BFD over p2mp MPLS LSP MUST use 141 Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Label (GAL) [RFC5586] at the 142 bottom of the label stack followed by Associated Channel Header 143 (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 6.1 IP Address. If the Length 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. Security Considerations 166 This document does not introduce new security aspects but inherits 167 all security considerations from [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC7726], 168 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], [RFC8029], and [RFC6425]. 170 6. IANA Considerations 172 6.1. Source MEP ID IP Address Type 174 IANA is required to allocate value (TBD) for the Source Source MEP ID 175 IP Address type from the "CC/CV MEP-ID TLV" registry which is under 176 the "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types" registry. 178 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 179 | Value | Description | Reference | 180 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 181 | TBA1 | IP Address | This document | 182 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 184 Table 1: Source MEP ID IP Address TLV Type 186 7. Acknowledgements 188 8. Normative References 190 [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover] 191 Morin, T. and R. Kebler, "Multicast VPN fast upstream 192 failover", draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-02 (work in 193 progress), March 2017. 195 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] 196 Katz, D., Ward, D., and J. Networks, "BFD for Multipoint 197 Networks", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-10 (work in 198 progress), April 2017. 200 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 201 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 202 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 203 . 205 [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., 206 "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, 207 DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, 208 . 210 [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 211 (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, 212 . 214 [RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, 215 "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label 216 Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884, 217 June 2010, . 219 [RFC6425] Saxena, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., 220 Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane 221 Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP 222 Ping", RFC 6425, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011, 223 . 225 [RFC6428] Allan, D., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and J. Drake, Ed., 226 "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, 227 and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport 228 Profile", RFC 6428, DOI 10.17487/RFC6428, November 2011, 229 . 231 [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and 232 L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", 233 RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, 234 . 236 [RFC7726] Govindan, V., Rajaraman, K., Mirsky, G., Akiya, N., and S. 237 Aldrin, "Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD 238 Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7726, 239 DOI 10.17487/RFC7726, January 2016, 240 . 242 [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., 243 Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label 244 Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, 245 DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, 246 . 248 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 249 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 250 May 2017, . 252 Author's Address 254 Greg Mirsky 255 ZTE Corp. 257 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com