Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane
draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-03

Abstract

Segment Routing architecture leverages the paradigm of source routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. A segment is encoded as an MPLS label and an ordered list of segments is encoded as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is expected to monitor any kind of paths between systems. This document defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap and control path in reverse direction of a BFD session on the Segment Routing static MPLS tunnel.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on June 7, 2018.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 1.1. Conventions used in this document
• 1.1.1. Terminology
• 1.1.2. Requirements Language
• 2. Bootstrapping BFD session over Segment Routed tunnel
• 3. Use BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel
• 4. Use Non-FEC Path TLV
• 5. BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel with Dynamic Control Plane
• 6. IANA Considerations
• 6.1. Segment Routing Static MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV
• 6.2. Return Code
• 7. Security Considerations
• 8. Acknowledgements
• 9. References
• 9.1. Normative References
• 9.2. Informative References
• Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

[RFC5880], [RFC5881], and [RFC5883] established the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol for IP networks. [RFC5884] and [RFC7726] set rules of using BFD Asynchronous mode over Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP). These latter standards implicitly assume that the egress BFD peer, which is the egress Label Edge Router (LER), will use the shortest path route regardless of the path the ingress LER uses to send BFD control packets towards it.

This document defines use of LSP Ping for Segment Routing networks over MPLS dataplane [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping] to bootstrap and control path of a BFD session from the egress to ingress LER using static MPLS tunnel.

1.1. Conventions used in this document

1.1.1. Terminology

BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection

FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class

MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching

LSP: Label Switching Path

LER: Label Edge Router

1.1.2. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

2. Bootstrapping BFD session over Segment Routed tunnel

As demonstrated in [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping] introduction of Segment Routing network domains with an MPLS data plane requires three new sub-TLVs that MAY be used with Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) TLV. Section 6.1 addresses use of the new sub-TLVs in Target FEC TLV in LSP ping and LSP traceroute. For the case of LSP ping the [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping] states that:

• Initiator MUST include FEC(s) corresponding to the destination segment.
• Initiator, i.e. ingress LSR, MAY include FECs corresponding to some or all of segments imposed in the label stack by the ingress LSR to communicate the segments traversed.

It has been noted in [RFC5884] that a BFD session monitors for defects particular <MPLS LSP, FEC> tuple. [RFC7726] clarified how to establish and operate multiple BFD sessions for the same <MPLS LSP, FEC> tuple. Because only ingress edge router is aware of the SR-based explicit route the egress edge router can associate the LSP ping with BFD Discriminator TLV with only one of the FECs it advertised for the particular segment. Thus this document clarifies that:

• When LSP Ping is used to bootstrap a BFD session the FEC corresponding to the destination segment to be associated with the BFD session MUST be as the very last sub-TLV in the Target FEC TLV.

Encapsulation of a BFD Control packet in Segment Routing network with MPLS dataplane MUST follow Section 7 [RFC5884] when IP/UDP header used and MUST follow Section 3.4 [RFC6428] without IP/UDP header being used.

3. Use BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel

For BFD over MPLS LSP case, per [RFC5884], egress LER MAY send BFD control packet to the ingress LER either over IP network or an MPLS LSP. Similarly, for the case of BFD over p2p segment tunnel with MPLS data plane, the ingress LER MAY route BFD control packet over IP network, as described in [RFC5883], or transmit over a segment tunnel, as described in Section 7 [RFC5884]. In some cases there may be a need to direct egress BFD peer to use specific path for the reverse direction of the BFD session by using the BFD Reverse Path TLV and following all procedures as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed].

4. Use Non-FEC Path TLV

For the case of MPLS dataplane, Segment Routing Architecture [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] explains that "a segment is encoded as an MPLS label. An ordered list of segments is encoded as a stack of labels." YANG Data Model for MPLS Static LSPs [I-D.ietf-mpls-static-yang] models outgoing MPLS labels to be imposed as leaf-list [RFC6020], i.e., as array of rt-types:mpls-label [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-routing-types].

    
    0                   1                   2                   3
    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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    Non-FEC Path TLV Type    |           Length              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                             |
    ~                        Non-FEC Path                         ~
    |                                                             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 1: Non-FEC Path TLV Format

This document defines new optional Non-FEC Path TLV. The format of the Non-FEC Path TLV is presented in Figure 1

Non-FEC Path TLV Type is 2 octets in length and has a value of TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA as requested in Table 1).

Length field is 2 octets long and defines the length in octets of the Non-FEC Path field.

Non-FEC Path field contains a sub-TLV. Any Non-FEC Path sub-TLV (defined in this document or to be defined in the future) for Non-FEC Path TLV type MAY be used in this field. None or one sub-TLV MAY be included in the Non-FEC Path TLV. If no sub-TLV has been found in the Non-FEC Path TLV, the egress BFD peer MUST revert to using the reverse path selected based on its local policy. If there are more than one sub-TLV, then the Return Code in echo reply MUST be set to "Too Many TLVs Detected" Table 4.

Non-FEC Path TLV MAY be used to specify the reverse path of the BFD session identified in the BFD Discriminator TLV. If the Non-FEC Path TLV is present in the echo request message the BFD Discriminator TLV MUST be present as well. If the BFD Discriminator TLV is absent when the Non-FEC Path TLV is included, then it MUST be treated as malformed Echo Request, as described in [RFC8029].

This document defines Static Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV that MAY be used with the Non-FEC Path TLV. The format of the sub-TLV is presented in Figure 2.

    
 0                   1                   2                   3
 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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | SR MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV Type |           Length              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       Label Entry 1                         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       Label Entry 2                         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                                                             ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       Label Entry N                         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 2: Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV

The Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV Type is two octets in length, and has a value of TBD (to be assigned by IANA as requested in Section 6).

The egress LSR MUST use the Value field as label stack for BFD control packets for the BFD session identified by the source IP address of the MPLS LSP Ping packet and the value in the BFD Discriminator TLV. Label Entries MUST be in network order.

5. BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel with Dynamic Control Plane

When Segment Routed domain with MPLS data plane uses distributed tunnel computation BFD Reverse Path TLV MAY use Target FEC sub-TLVs defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping].

6. IANA Considerations

6.1. Segment Routing Static MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV

IANA is requested to assign new TLV type from the from Standards Action range of the registry "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" as defined in the Table 1.

IANA is requested to create new Non-FEC Path sub-TLV registry for the Non-FEC Path TLV as described in Table 2.

IANA is requested to allocate following values from the Non-FEC Path sub-TLV registry as defined in Table 3.

6.2. Return Code

IANA is requested to create Non-FEC Path sub-TLV subregistry for the new Non-FEC Path TLV. assign a new Return Code value from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry, "Return Codes" sub-registry, as follows using a Standards Action value.

7. Security Considerations

Security considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC7726], and [RFC8029] apply to this document.

8. Acknowledgements

TBD

9. References

9.1. Normative References

9.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses