Internet DRAFT - draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base
draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base
Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya
Internet-Draft C. Pignataro
Updates: 5880 (if approved) D. Ward
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: October 19, 2014 M. Bhatia
Alcatel-Lucent
P. K. Santosh
Juniper Networks
April 17, 2014
Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)
draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base-03
Abstract
This document defines a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of negotiation aspects
eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as
well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating
the path monitoring.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 http://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 October 19, 2014.
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
(http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Seamless BFD Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. BFD Target Identifier Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. UDP Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. S-BFD Discriminators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Reflector BFD Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. State Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. New State Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. State Variable Initialization and Maintenance . . . . . . 8
9. Full Reachability Validations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Initiator Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1.1. Initiator State machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Responder Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2.1. Responder Demultiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2.2. Reflector BFD Session Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.3. Further Packet Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.4. Diagnostic Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.5. The Poll Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.6. Control Plane Independent (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.7. Additional Initiator Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.8. Additional Responder Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Partial Reachability Validations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Scaling Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Co-existence with Traditional BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13. BFD Echo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
16. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
17. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Loop Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD), [RFC5880] and related
documents, has efficiently generalized the failure detection
mechanism for multiple protocols and applications. There are some
improvements which can be made to better fit existing technologies.
There is a possibility of evolving BFD to better fit new
technologies. This document focuses on several aspects of BFD in
order to further improve efficiency, to expand failure detection
coverage and to allow BFD usage for wider scenarios. This document
extends BFD to provide solutions to use cases listed in
[I-D.aldrin-bfd-seamless-use-case]. Because defined mechanism
eliminates much of negotiation aspects of the BFD protocol, "Seamless
BFD" (S-BFD) has been chosen as the name for this mechanism.
2. Seamless BFD Overview
Each protocol instance (e.g. OSPF/IS-IS) allocates one or more BFD
discriminators on its network node, ensuring that BFD discriminators
allocated are unique within the network domain. Allocated BFD
discriminators may be advertised by the protocol. Required result is
that a protocol possess the knowledge of mapping between network
targets to BFD discriminators. Each network nodes will also create a
BFD session instance that listens for incoming BFD control packets
with "your discriminator" having protocol allocated values. The
listener BFD session instance, upon receiving a BFD control packet
targeted to one of local S-BFD discriminator values, will transmit a
response BFD control packet back to the sender.
Once above setup is complete, any network node, understanding the
mapping between network targets to BFD discriminators, can quickly
perform reachability check to these network targets by simply sending
BFD control packets with known BFD discriminator value as "your
discriminator".
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
For example:
<------- IS-IS Network ------->
+---------+
| |
A---------B---------C---------D
^ ^
| |
SystemID SystemID
xxx yyy
BFD Discrim BFD Discrim
123 456
Figure 1: S-BFD for IS-IS Network
IS-IS with SystemID xxx allocates BFD discriminator 123, and
advertises the BFD discriminator 123 in IS-IS TLV. IS-IS with
SystemID yyy allocates BFD discriminator 456, and advertises the BFD
discriminator 456 IS-IS TLV. Both network nodes (node A and node D)
creates listener BFD session instance. When network node A wants to
check a reachability to network node D, node A can send a BFD control
packet, destined to node D, with "your discriminator" set as 456. If
listener BFD on node D receives this BFD control packet, then
response BFD control packet is sent back to node A, which allows node
A to complete the reachability test.
Note that a protocol may create an explicit mapping between a
protocol ID (e.g. System-ID, Router-ID) to a BFD discriminator. A
protocol may also create an explicit mapping between a network target
(e.g. IP address) to a BFD discriminator. A protocol may even
function with implicit mapping between a network target (e.g. IPv4
address) to a BFD discriminator, i.e. IPv4 address is used as BFD
discriminator value. Decisions and rules on how protocols allocate
and distribute BFD discriminators are outside the scope of this
document.
3. Terminology
The reader is expected to be familiar with the BFD, IP, MPLS and SR
terminology and protocol constructs. This section describes several
new terminology introduced by Seamless BFD.
o BFD Target Identifier: Network entity that is provisioned as a
target of Seamless BFD.
o BFD Target Identifier Type: Type of network entity that is
provisioned as a target of Seamless BFD.
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
o BFD Target Identifier Table: A table containing BFD target
identifier type, BFD target identifier and corresponding BFD
discriminator.
o Reflector BFD Session: A BFD session listening for incoming BFD
control packets destined for local BFD target identifier(s).
4. BFD Target Identifier Types
This document defines a generic mechanism where network nodes can
send BFD control packets to specific network targets to perform
various tasks. One task is to perform a reachability check (i.e
requesting immediate response back). Details of this task is further
defined in sections to follow. Further tasks (i.e. using BFD control
packet to request specific services from specific network nodes) may
be defined. Therefore, this document defines a code point for BFD
Target Identifier. Each locally allocated S-BFD discriminator MUST
be associated to BFD Target Identifier type, to allow demultiplexing
to a specific task or service.
BFD Target Identifier types:
Value BFD Target Identifier Type
------ --------------------------
0 Reserved
1 Network Target Discriminator
Procedures defined in this document are to be associated with BFD
Target Identifier Type 1 (Network Target Discriminator).
Note that IP based BFD from [RFC5885] is supported by this
specification, but non-IP based BFD is outside the scope of this
document.
Further identifier types are to be defined as needed basis.
5. UDP Port
S-BFD functions on a well-known UDP port: TBD1.
6. S-BFD Discriminators
Protocols (i.e. client of S-BFD) may request an arbitrary BFD
discriminator value, or protocols may request a specific BFD
discriminator value. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED for
implementations to create a separate discriminator pool for S-BFD
sessions to minimize the collision between existing BFD sessions and
S-BFD sessions. In such case, incoming BFD control packets MUST be
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
demultiplexed first with UDP port to identify the discriminator table
to look up the session. Regardless of the approach, collision can
happen with following scenarios.
o Existing BFD session already using a discriminator value that
collides with specific discriminator value requested for S-BFD
session.
* Implementation SHOULD allow migrating existing BFD sessions to
free up the discriminator to accommodate specific discriminator
value requested for S-BFD session.
o S-BFD session already using a discriminator value, arbitrarily
allocated, that collides with specific discriminator value
requested for S-BFD session. The two S-BFD sessions are of
different BFD Target Identifier type.
* Protocol requesting arbitrary discriminator value MUST support
migrating to another discriminator value, and implementations
MUST allow migrating existing S-BFD sessions to free up the
discriminator to accommodate specific discriminator value
requested for S-BFD session.
o S-BFD session already using a discriminator value, arbitrary
allocated, that collides with specific discriminator value
requested for S-BFD session. The two S-BFD sessions are of same
BFD Target Identifier type.
* No action is required, as the two can share the discriminator.
One important characteristics of S-BFD discriminator is that it MUST
be network wide unique. If multiple network nodes allocated same
S-BFD discriminator value, then S-BFD control packets falsely
terminating on a wrong network node can result in reflector BFD
session (described in Section 7) to generate a response back, due to
"your discriminator" matching. This is clearly not desirable. If
only IP based S-BFD is concerned, then it is possible for S-BFD
reflector session to require demultiplexing of incoming S-BFD control
packet with combination of destination IP address and "your
discriminator". Then S-BFD discriminator only has to be unique
within a local node. However, S-BFD is a generic mechanism defined
to run on wide range of environments: IP, MPLS, Segment Routing
([I-D.previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing]), etc. For other
transports like MPLS, because of the need to use non-routable IP
destination address, it is not possible for S-BFD reflector session
to demultiplex using IP destination address. With PHP, there may not
be any incoming label stack to aid in demultiplexing either. Thus,
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
S-BFD imposes a requirement that S-BFD discriminators MUST be network
wide unique.
7. Reflector BFD Session
Each network node MUST create one or more reflector BFD sessions.
This reflector BFD session is a session which transmits BFD control
packets in response to received valid locally destined BFD control
packets. Specifically, this reflector BFD session is to have
following characteristics:
o MUST NOT transmit any BFD control packets based on local timer
expiry.
o MUST transmit BFD control packet in response to a received valid
locally destined BFD control packet.
o MUST be capable of sending only two states: UP and ADMINDOWN.
One reflector BFD session MAY be responsible for handling received
BFD control packets targeted to all local BFD target identifiers, or
few reflector BFD sessions MAY each be responsible for subset of
local BFD target identifiers. This policy is a local matter, and is
outside the scope of this document.
Note that incoming BFD control packets destined to BFD target
identifier types may be IPv4, IPv6 or MPLS based. For those BFD
target identifier types, implementations MAY either allow the same
reflector BFD session to handle all incoming BFD control packets in
address family agnostic fashion, or setup multiple reflector BFD
sessions to handle incoming BFD control packets with different
address families. This policy is again a local matter, and is
outside the scope of this document.
8. State Variables
S-BFD introduces some new state variables, and modifies the usage of
existing ones.
8.1. New State Variables
A new state variable is added to the base specification in support of
S-BFD.
o bfd.SessionType: The type of this session. Allowable values are:
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
* SBFDInitiator: Any session on a network node that attempts to
perform a path monitoring to any BFD target identifier on other
network nodes.
* SBFDReflector: Any session on a network node, which receives
BFD control packets transmitted by an initiator and responds
back to initiator is referred as responder.
This variable MUST be initialized to the appropriate type when the
session is created, according to the rules in section TBD.
8.2. State Variable Initialization and Maintenance
Some state variables defined in section 6.8.1 of the BFD base
specification need to be initialized or manipulated differently
depending on the session type.
o bfd.DemandMode: This variable MUST be initialized to 1 for session
type SBFDInitiator, and MUST be initialized to 0 for session type
SBFDReflector.
9. Full Reachability Validations
9.1. Initiator Behavior
Any network node can attempt to perform a full reachability
validation to any BFD target identifier on other network nodes, as
long as destination BFD target identifier is provisioned to use this
mechanism. BFD control packets transmitted by the initiator is to
have "your discriminator" corresponding to destination BFD target
identifier.
A node that initiates a BFD control packet MAY create an active BFD
session to periodically send BFD control packets to a target, or a
BFD control packet MAY be crafted and sent out on "as needed basis"
(ex: BFD ping) without any session presence. In both cases, a BFD
instance MUST have a unique "my discriminator" value assigned. If a
node is to create multiple BFD instances to the same BFD target
identifier, then each instance MUST have separate "my discriminator"
values assigned. A BFD instance MUST NOT use a discriminator
corresponding to one of local BFD target identifiers as "my
discriminator". This is to prevent incoming response BFD control
packets ("pong" packets) having "your discriminator" as a
discriminator corresponding to the local BFD target identifier.
Below ASCII art describes high level concept of full reachability
validations using this mechanism. R2 reserves value XX as BFD
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
discriminator for its BFD target identifier. ASCII art shows that R1
and R4 performing full reachability validation to XX on R2.
-- md=50/yd=XX (BFD ping) -->
<-- md=XX/yd=50 (BFD pong) --
[*]
R1 ---------------------- R2 ----------- R3 ----------- R4
| ^
| |
| + - md=60/yd=XX (BFD ping) --
+ - - -md=XX/yd=60 (BFD pong) -->
[*] Reflector BFD session on R2.
Figure 2: S-BFD path monitoring
If BFD control packet is to be sent via IP path, then:
o Destination IP address MUST be an IP address corresponding to
target identifier.
o Source IP address MUST be a local IP address.
o IP TTL MUST be 255 for full reachability validations. Partial
reachability validations MAY use smaller TTL value (see
Section 10).
o Well-known UDP destination port(s) for IP based S-BFD.
If BFD control packet response is determined to explicitly be label
switched, then:
o BFD control packet MUST get imposed with a label stack that is
expected to reach the target node.
o MPLS TTL MUST be 255 for full reachability validations. Partial
reachability validations MAY use smaller TTL value (see
Section 10).
o Destination IP address MUST be 127/8 for IPv4 and
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 for IPv6.
o Source IP address MUST be a local IP address.
o IP TTL=1.
o Well-known UDP destination port(s) for MPLS based S-BFD
9.1.1. Initiator State machine
The following diagram provides an overview of the initiator state
machine. The notation on each arc represents the state of the remote
system (as received in the State field in the BFD Control packet) or
indicates the expiration of the Detection Timer.
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
+--+
ADMIN DOWN, | |
TIMER | V
+------+ UP +------+
| |-------------------->| |----+
| DOWN | | UP | | UP
| |<--------------------| |<---+
+------+ ADMIN DOWN, +------+
TIMER
Figure 3: S-BFD Initiator FSM
Note that the above state machine is different from the base BFD
specification[RFC5880]. This is because the Init state is no longer
applicable for the initiator of the S-BFD session. Another important
difference is the transition of the state machine from the Down state
to the Up state when a packet with State Up is received by the
initiator. The definitions of the states and the events have the
same meaning as in the base BFD specification [RFC5880].
9.2. Responder Behavior
A network node which receives BFD control packets transmitted by an
initiator is referred as responder. Responder, upon reception of BFD
control packets, is to perform necessary relevant validations
described in [RFC5880]/[RFC5881]/[RFC5883]/[RFC5884]/[RFC5885].
9.2.1. Responder Demultiplexing
When responder receives a BFD control packet, if "your discriminator"
value is not one of local entries in the BFD target identifier table,
then this packet MUST NOT be considered for this mechanism. If "your
discriminator" value is one of local entries in the BFD target
identifier table, then the packet is determined to be handled by a
reflector BFD session responsible for specified BFD targeted
identifier. If the packet was determined to be processed further for
this mechanism, then chosen reflector BFD session is to transmit a
response BFD control packet using procedures described in
Section 9.2.2, unless prohibited by local administrative or local
policy reasons.
9.2.2. Reflector BFD Session Procedures
BFD target identifier type MUST be used to determine further
information on how to reach back to the initiator.
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
In addition, destination IP address of received BFD control packet
MUST be examined to determine how to construct response BFD control
packet to send back to the initiator.
If destination IP address of received BFD control packet is not 127/8
for IPv4 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 for IPv6, then:
o Destination IP address MUST be copied from received source IP
address.
o Source IP address MUST be copied from received destination IP
address if received destination IP address is a local address.
Otherwise local IP address MUST be used.
o IP TTL MUST be 255.
Response BFD control packet SHOULD be IP routed back, but MAY
explicitly be label switched.
If BFD control packet response is determined to be IP routed, then:
o Destination IP address MUST be copied from received source IP
address.
o Source IP address MUST be a local address.
o IP TTL MUST be 255.
If BFD control packet response is determined to explicitly be label
switched, then:
o BFD control packet MUST get label switched back to the initiator.
Determining the label stack to be imposed on a response BFD
control packet is outside the scope of this document.
o MPLS TTL MUST be 255.
o Destination IP address MUST be 127/8 for IPv4 and
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 for IPv6.
o Source IP address MUST be a local IP address.
o IP TTL MUST be 1.
Regardless of the response type, BFD control packet being sent by the
responder MUST perform following procedures:
o Copy "my discriminator" from received "your discriminator", and
"your discriminator" from received "my discriminator".
o UDP destination port MUST be same as received UDP destination
port.
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
9.3. Further Packet Details
Further details of BFD control packets sent by initiator (ex: active
BFD session):
o Well-known UDP destination port assigned for S-BFD.
o UDP source port as per described in [RFC5881]/[RFC5883]/[RFC5884]/
[RFC5885].
o "my discriminator" assigned by local node.
o "your discriminator" corresponding to an identifier of target
node.
o "State" MUST be set to a value reflecting local state.
o "Desired Min TX Interval" MUST be set to a value reflecting local
desired minimum transmit interval.
o "Required Min RX Interval" MUST be zero.
o "Required Min Echo RX Interval" SHOULD be zero.
o "Detection Multiplier" MUST be set to a value reflecting locally
used multiplier value.
o "Demand bit (D)" MUST be set by the initiator.
Further details of BFD control packets sent by responder (reflector
BFD session):
o Well-known UDP destination port assigned for S-BFD.
o UDP source port as described in [RFC5881]/[RFC5883]/[RFC5884]/
[RFC5885].
o "my discriminator" MUST be copied from received "your
discriminator".
o "your discriminator" MUST be copied from received "my
discriminator".
o "State" MUST be UP or ADMINDOWN. Clarification of reflector BFD
session state is described in Section 9.8.
o "Desired Min TX Interval" MUST be copied from received "Desired
Min TX Interval".
o "Required Min RX Interval" MUST be set to a value reflecting how
many incoming control packets this reflector BFD session can
handle.
o "Required Min Echo RX Interval" SHOULD be set to zero.
o "Detection Multiplier" MUST be copied from received "Detection
Multiplier".
o "Demand bit (D)" MUST be cleared by the reflector.
9.4. Diagnostic Values
Diagnostic value in both directions MAY be set to a certain value, to
attempt to communicate further information to both ends. However,
details of such are outside the scope of this specification.
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
9.5. The Poll Sequence
The Poll sequence MUST operate in accordance with [RFC5880].
9.6. Control Plane Independent (C)
Control plane independent (C) bit for BFD instances speaking to a
reflector BFD session MUST work according to [RFC5880]. Reflector
BFD session also MUST work according to [RFC5880]. Specifically, if
reflector BFD session implementation does not share fate with control
plane, then response BFD control packets transmitted MUST have
control plane independent (C) bit set. If reflector BFD session
implementation shares fate with control plane, then response BFD
control packets transmitted MUST NOT have control plane independent
(C) bit set.
9.7. Additional Initiator Behavior
o If initiator receives valid BFD control packet in response to
transmitted BFD control packet, then initiator SHOULD conclude
that packet reached intended target.
o When a sufficient number of BFD control packets have not arrived
as they should, the initiator could declare loss of reachability.
The criteria for declaring loss of reachability and the action
that would be triggered as a result are outside the scope of this
specification.
o Relating to above bullet item, it is critical for an
implementation to understand the latency to/from reflector BFD
session on target node. In other words, for very first BFD
control packet transmitted, an implementation MUST NOT expect
response BFD control packet to be received for time equivalent to
sum of latencies: initiator node to target node and target node
back to initiator node.
o If initiator receives a packet with D bit set, the packet MUST be
discarded.
9.8. Additional Responder Behavior
o BFD control packets transmitted by a reflector BFD session MUST
have "Required Min RX Interval" set to a value which reflects how
many incoming control packets this reflector BFD session can
handle. Responder can control how fast initiators will be sending
BFD control packets to self by ensuring "Required Min RX Interval"
reflects a value based on current load.
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
o If a reflector BFD session wishes to communicate to some or all
initiators that monitored BFD target identifier is "temporarily
out of service", then BFD control packets with "state" set to
ADMINDOWN are sent to those initiators. Initiators, upon
reception of such packets, MUST NOT conclude loss of reachability
to corresponding BFD target identifier, and MUST back off packet
transmission interval to corresponding BFD target identifier an
interval no faster than 1 second. If a reflector BFD session is
generating a response BFD control packet for BFD target identifier
that is in service, then "state" in response BFD control packets
MUST be set to UP.
o If a reflector receives a packet with D bit cleared, the packet
MUST be discarded.
10. Partial Reachability Validations
Same mechanism as described in "Full Reachability Validations"
section will be applied with exception of following differences on
initiator.
o When initiator wishes to perform a partial reachability validation
towards identifier X upto identifier Y, number of hops to
identifier Y is calculated.
o TTL value based on this calculation is used as the IP TTL or MPLS
TTL on top most label, and "your discriminator" of transmitted BFD
control packet will carry BFD discriminator corresponding to
target transit identifier Y.
o Imposed label stack or IP destination address will continue to be
of identifier X.
11. Scaling Aspect
This mechanism brings forth one noticeable difference in terms of
scaling aspect: number of BFD sessions. This specification
eliminates the need for egress nodes to have fully active BFD
sessions when only one side desires to perform reachability
validations. With introduction of reflector BFD concept, egress no
longer is required to create any active BFD session per path/LSP
basis. Due to this, total number of BFD sessions in a network is
reduced.
If traditional BFD technology was used on a network comprised of N
nodes, and each node monitored M unidirectional paths/LSPs, then
total number of BFD sessions in such network will be:
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
(((N - 1) x M) x 2)
Assuming that each network node creates one reflector BFD session to
handle all local BFD target identifiers, then total number of BFD
sessions in same scenario will be:
(((N - 1) x M) + N)
12. Co-existence with Traditional BFD
This mechanism has no issues being deployed with traditional BFDs
([RFC5881]/[RFC5883]/[RFC5884]/[RFC5885]) because BFD discriminators
which allow this mechanism to function are explicitly reserved and
separate UDP port values are used with S-BFD.
13. BFD Echo
BFD echo is outside the scope of this document.
14. Security Considerations
Same security considerations as [RFC5880], [RFC5881], [RFC5883],
[RFC5884] and [RFC5885] apply to this document.
Additionally, implementing the following measures will strengthen
security aspects of the mechanism described by this document.
o Implementations MUST provide filtering capability based on source
IP addresses or source node segment IDs of received BFD control
packets: [RFC2827].
o Implementations MUST NOT act on received BFD control packets
containing Martian addresses as source IP addresses.
o Implementations MUST ensure response target IP addresses or node
segment IDs are reachable.
o Initiator MAY pick crypto sequence number based on authentication
mode configured.
o The reflector MUST NOT look at the crypto sequence number before
accepting the packet.
o Reflector MAY look at the Key ID
[I-D.ietf-bfd-generic-crypto-auth] in the incoming packet and
verify the authentication data.
o Reflector MUST accept the packet if authentication is successful.
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
o Reflector MUST compute the Authentication data and MUST use the
same sequence number that it received in the S-BFD packet that it
is responding to.
o Initiator MUST accept the S-BFD packet if it either comes with the
same sequence number as it had sent or its within the window that
it finds acceptable (described in detail in
[I-D.ietf-bfd-generic-crypto-auth])
Using the above method,
o Reflectors continue to remain stateless despite using security.
o Reflectors are not susceptible to replay attacks as they always
respond to S-BFD packets irrespective of the sequence number
carried.
o An attacker cannot impersonate the Reflector since the Initiator
will only accept S-BFD packets that come with the sequence number
that it had originally used when sending the S-BFD packet.
15. IANA Considerations
BFD Target Identifier types:
Value BFD Target Identifier Type
------ --------------------------
0 Reserved
1 Network Target Discriminator
New UDP port number, TBD1, will be requested for S-BFD.
16. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Jeffrey Haas for performing thorough
reviews and providing number of suggestions. Authors would like to
thank Girija Raghavendra Rao, Marc Binderberger, Les Ginsberg,
Srihari Raghavan, Vanitha Neelamegam and Vengada Prasad Govindan from
Cisco Systems for providing valuable comments.
17. Contributing Authors
Tarek Saad
Cisco Systems
Email: tsaad@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
Email: msiva@cisco.com
Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Mallik Mudigonda
Cisco Systems
Email: mmudigon@cisco.com
Sam Aldrin
Huawei Technologies
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
18. References
18.1. Normative References
[I-D.aldrin-bfd-seamless-use-case]
Aldrin, S., Bhatia, M., Mirsky, G., Kumar, N., and S.
Matsushima, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) Use Case", draft-aldrin-bfd-seamless-use-case-01
(work in progress), March 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.
[RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June
2010.
[RFC5883] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, June 2010.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.
18.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bfd-generic-crypto-auth]
Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and D. Zhang, "BFD Generic
Cryptographic Authentication", draft-ietf-bfd-generic-
crypto-auth-05 (work in progress), October 2013.
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
[I-D.previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Horneffer, M.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "Segment
Routing with IS-IS Routing Protocol", draft-previdi-
filsfils-isis-segment-routing-02 (work in progress), March
2013.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June 2010.
Appendix A. Loop Problem
Consider a scenario where we have two nodes and both are S-BFD
capable.
Node A (IP 1.1.1.1) ---------------- Node B (IP 2.2.2.2)
|
|
Man in the Middle (MiM)
Assume node A reserved a discriminator 0x01010101 for target
identifier 1.1.1.1 and has a reflector session in listening mode.
Similarly node B reserved a discriminator 0x02020202 for its target
identifier 2.2.2.2 and also has a reflector session in listening
mode.
Suppose MiM sends a spoofed packet with MyDisc = 0x01010101, YourDisc
= 0x02020202, source IP as 1.1.1.1 and dest IP as 2.2.2.2. When this
packet reaches Node B, the reflector session on Node B will swap the
discriminators and IP addresses of the received packet and reflect it
back, since YourDisc of the received packet matched with reserved
discriminator of Node B. The reflected packet that reached Node A
will have MyDdisc=0x02020202 and YourDisc=0x01010101. Since YourDisc
of the received packet matched the reserved discriminator of Node A,
Node A will swap the discriminators and reflects the packet back to
Node B. Since reflectors MUST set the TTL of the reflected packets to
255, the above scenario will result in an infinite loop with just one
malicious packet injected from MiM.
FYI: Packet fields do not carry any direction information, i.e., if
this is Ping packet or reply packet.
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
Solutions
The current proposals to avoid the loop problem are:
o Overload "D" bit (Demand mode bit): Initiator always sets the 'D'
bit and reflector clears it. This way we can identify if a
received packet was a reflected packet and avoid reflecting it
back. However this changes the interpretation of 'D' bit.
o Use of State field in the BFD control packets: Initiator will
always send packets with State set to "DOWN" and reflector will
send back packets with state field set to "UP. Reflectors will
never reflect any received packets with state as "UP". However
the only issue is the use of state field differently i.e. state in
the S-BFD control packet from initiator does not reflect the local
state which is anyway not significant at reflector.
o Use of local discriminator as My Disc at reflector: Reflector will
always fill in My Discriminator with a locally allocated
discriminator value (not reserved discriminators) and will not
copy it from the received packet.
Authors' Addresses
Nobo Akiya
Cisco Systems
Email: nobo@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Dave Ward
Cisco Systems
Email: wardd@cisco.com
Manav Bhatia
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Seamless BFD Base April 2014
Santosh
Juniper Networks
Email: santoshpk@juniper.net
Akiya, et al. Expires October 19, 2014 [Page 20]
