idnits 2.17.1 draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04.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 (October 12, 2018) is 2024 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 October 12, 2018 5 Expires: April 15, 2019 7 BFD for Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multi-Point MPLS LSP 8 draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04 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 the applicability of 16 out-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 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 15, 2019. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2018 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. Multipoint BFD Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3.1. IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3.2. Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD . . . . . . . . . 4 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 the applicability 78 of 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 how the tail of multipoint BFD 110 session demultiplexes received BFD control packet when Your 111 Discriminator is not set, i.e., equals zero. Because 112 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] uses BFD in Demand mode the head of BFD 113 multipoint session transmits BFD control packets with Your 114 Discriminator set to zero. As a result, a tail cannot demultiplex 115 BFD sessions using Your Discriminator, as defined in [RFC5880]. 116 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] requires that in order to demultiplex BFD 117 sessions the tail uses the source IP address, My Discriminator and 118 the identity of the multipoint tree which the Multipoint BFD Control 119 packet was received from. The identity of the multipoint tree MAY be 120 provided by the p2mp MPLS LSP label in case of inclusive p-tree or 121 upstream assigned label in case of aggregate p-tree. The source IP 122 address MAY be drawn from the IP header if BFD control packet 123 transmitted by the head using IP/UDP encapsulation as described in 124 Section 3.1. Non-IP encapsulation case described in Section 3.2. 126 3.1. IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD 128 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] defines IP/UDP encapsulation for multipoint 129 BFD over p2mp MPLS LSP: 131 UDP destination port MUST be set to 3784; 133 destination IP address MUST be from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and 134 from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6; 136 This specification further clarifies that: 138 if multiple alternative paths for the given p2mp LSP Forwarding 139 Equivalence Class(FEC) exist, the MultipointHead SHOULD use 140 Entropy Label [RFC6790] used for LSP Ping [RFC8029] to exercise 141 that particular alternative path; 142 or the MultipointHead MAY use, as destination IP address, the IP 143 address discovered by LSP Ping traceroute [RFC8029] to exercise 144 that particular alternate path. 146 3.2. Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD 148 Non-IP encapsulation for multipoint BFD over p2mp MPLS LSP MUST use 149 Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Label (GAL) [RFC5586] at the 150 bottom of the label stack followed by Associated Channel Header 151 (ACH). Channel Type field in ACH MUST be set to BFD CV [RFC6428]. 152 To provide the identity of the MultipointHead for the particular 153 multipoint BFD session this document defines new Source MEP ID IP 154 Address type (TBA1) in Section 6.1. If the Length value is 4, then 155 the Value field contains an IPv4 address. If the Length value is 16, 156 then the Value field contains an IPv6 address. Any other value of 157 the Length field MUST be considered as an error, and the BFD control 158 packet MUST be discarded. 160 4. Bootstrapping Multipoint BFD 162 4.1. LSP Ping 164 MaultipointHead MAY use LSP Ping [RFC8029] using in Target FEC TLV, 165 as appropriate, sub-TLVs defined in Section 3.1 [RFC6425]. 167 4.2. Control Plane 169 BGP-BFD Attribute [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover] MAY be used to 170 bootstrap multipoint BFD session on a tail. 172 5. Security Considerations 174 This document does not introduce new security aspects but inherits 175 all security considerations from [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC7726], 176 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], [RFC8029], and [RFC6425]. 178 6. IANA Considerations 180 6.1. Source MEP ID IP Address Type 182 IANA is required to allocate value (TBD) for the Source MEP ID IP 183 Address type from the "CC/CV MEP-ID TLV" registry which is under the 184 "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types" registry. 186 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 187 | Value | Description | Reference | 188 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 189 | TBA1 | IP Address | This document | 190 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 192 Table 1: Source MEP ID IP Address TLV Type 194 7. Acknowledgements 196 TBD 198 8. Normative References 200 [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover] 201 Morin, T., Kebler, R., and G. Mirsky, "Multicast VPN fast 202 upstream failover", draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-03 203 (work in progress), May 2018. 205 [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] 206 Katz, D., Ward, D., Networks, J., and G. Mirsky, "BFD for 207 Multipoint Networks", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18 (work 208 in progress), June 2018. 210 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 211 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 212 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 213 . 215 [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., 216 "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, 217 DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, 218 . 220 [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 221 (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, 222 . 224 [RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, 225 "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label 226 Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884, 227 June 2010, . 229 [RFC6425] Saxena, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., 230 Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane 231 Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP 232 Ping", RFC 6425, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011, 233 . 235 [RFC6428] Allan, D., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and J. Drake, Ed., 236 "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, 237 and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport 238 Profile", RFC 6428, DOI 10.17487/RFC6428, November 2011, 239 . 241 [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and 242 L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", 243 RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, 244 . 246 [RFC7726] Govindan, V., Rajaraman, K., Mirsky, G., Akiya, N., and S. 247 Aldrin, "Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD 248 Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7726, 249 DOI 10.17487/RFC7726, January 2016, 250 . 252 [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., 253 Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label 254 Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, 255 DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, 256 . 258 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 259 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 260 May 2017, . 262 Author's Address 264 Greg Mirsky 265 ZTE Corp. 267 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com