Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-for-ubfd
draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-for-ubfd
Source Packet Routing in Networking M. Chen
Internet-Draft X. Wang
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: 19 October 2023 W. Jiang
Y. Liu
China Mobile
X. Chen
Huawei
17 April 2023
Segment Routing for Unaffiliated BFD Echo Function
draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-for-ubfd-06
Abstract
This document describes how to leverage Segment Routing (SR) to
ensure that the Unaffiliated BFD (U-BFD) Echo packets must reach the
remote system before being looped back to the local system. This
enables that U-BFD works not only for one hop scenario but for
multiple hops scenario as well.
In addition, this document also defines a way to explicitly specify
the loop back path of the U-BFD Echo packets. This is useful in the
case where the forward and reverse path of the Echo packets are
required to follow the same path.
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
[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
as shown here.
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/.
Chen, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SR Unaffiliated Echo April 2023
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 19 October 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Tunnel U-BFD Packets to Remote System . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Specify Reverse Path of U-BFD Echo Packets . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Binding SID for Segment-List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
BFD Echo function was originally defined in [RFC5880] and [RFC5881],
where the remote system is required to loop the BFD Echo packets back
to the local system. To support BFD Echo Function, some negotiations
between the local system and remote system are needed, and both the
local and remote system need to maintain the BFD session state.
Unaffiliated BFD Echo Function (U-BFD) is defined in
[I-D.ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo]. Where the destination IP address
of the BFD Echo packets is set to one of the IP addresses of the
local system. Therefore, the Echo packets can be automatically
Chen, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SR Unaffiliated Echo April 2023
looped back (through normal IP forwarding) by the remote system to
the local system. With U-BFD, the remote system does not need to
support any BFD related functions and maintain any session states.
This further simplifies the BFD Echo Function process at the remote
system hence greatly increases scalability.
But, the U-BFD works when there is only one hop between the local
system and remote system. Otherwise, the Echo packets will be
prematurely looped back by an intermediate node, and the Echo packets
will not reach the remote system. This may result in false negative
issue. Take the following figure (Figure 1) as an example, if the
U-BFD is expected to monitor the path between node A and node C, node
A (as the local system) sets the destination IP to itself and sends
the Echo packets to node B. Since node B has the route to node A,
the Echo packets will be directly forwarded back to node A. If there
is a failure on the path between node B and node C, obviously, the
U-BFD session cannot detect it.
+-+ +-+ +-+
|A|--------|B|---------|C|
+-+ +-+ +-+
Figure 1, Multi-hop Scenario
In addition, in some scenarios, for example, mobile backhaul network,
where the forward and reverse direction of a path are required to
along the same path. When apply BFD in mobile backhaul network, it
also expects that the BFD control packets in both directions follow
the same path, otherwise, it may result in false positive issue.
Take the following figure (Figure 2) as an example, there are two
paths (A-B-C, A-D-C) between node A and node C. Assuming that it
expects to monitor the path A-B-C by using BFD, where node A is the
local system and node C is the remote system. If node C chooses path
C-D-A to send the Echo packets, when a failure occurs on path C-D-A,
node A (the local system) may not receive the BFD packets and
consider that path A-B-C is failed. But actually path A-B-C is
working.
+-+ +-+ +-+
|A|--------|B|---------|C|
+-+ +-+ +-+
| +-+ |
+---------|D|----------+
+-+
Figure 2, Multi-hop, Multi-path Scenario
Chen, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SR Unaffiliated Echo April 2023
To solve the above issues, this document describes how to leverage
the Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] to ensure that the U-BFD Echo
packets must reach the remote system before being looped back. This
enables that U-BFD Echo Function works not only for one hop scenario
but for multiple hops scenario. In addition, by using SR policy
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], the loop back path of the
Echo packets can be specified as required. This is useful in the
case where the forward and loop back path of the Echo packets are
required to follow the same path.
2. Tunnel U-BFD Packets to Remote System
When using U-BFD to monitor a path, the U-BFD echo packets are
constructed as specified in [I-D.ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo], then
the U-BFD echo packets are encapsulated in an SR tunnel and sent to
the remote system. It needs to make sure that the SR tunnel and the
path being monitored follow the same path and share the same fate,
otherwise the UP/Down state can not reflect the health of the path
being monitored. This can be satisfied if the path itself is an SR
path, where the U-BFD echo packets, just as other data traffic, are
transmitted over the SR tunnel to the remote system. When the packet
arrives the remote system, the SR encapsulation (e.g, MPLS Label
Stack, or IPv6 Header with/without SRH) is removed, the inner IP
header is exposed. Since the destination IP address of the inner
header is one of the routable IP addresses of the local system, the
echo packet will be forwarded back to the local system via IP
routing.
If the path is an pure IP path, SR over IP [RFC8663] or SRv6 Best
Effort (BE) can be used to tunnel the U-BFD echo packets to the
remote system. Once the packet reaches the remote system, the remote
system decapsulates the echo packet and forwards it back to the local
system based on the inner header.
3. Specify Reverse Path of U-BFD Echo Packets
In some cases, for example, mobile backhaul network, bidirectional
paths are often used. And in general, the forward and reverse
direction of the bidirectional path are required to follow the same
path hence to share the same fate. Therefore, when apply U-BFD to
monitor such a bidirectional path, the forward and reserve path the
U-BFD echo need to follow the same path as well.
In the case of SR, [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] is
normally used to implement bidirectional path. To ensure that the
U-BFD Echo packets can reach the remote system before looping back to
the local system, the SR policy MUST have a candidate path that is
associated with a Segment-List, and the Segment-List MUST include a
Chen, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SR Unaffiliated Echo April 2023
SID that identifies the remote system. That means the U-BFD Echo
packets will be tunneled by the SR policy to the remote system, and
then looped back.
To specify the loopback path, a series of SIDs or a Binding SID
(BSID) that is associated with the loopback path MUST be added to the
SID stack of the U-BFD Echo packets. This can be done through the
following ways:
Given the topology in Figure 2, the SR policy can be modeled as
below:
1. Not explicitly specify the reserve path:
SR policy POL1 <headend = A, color = 1, endpoint = C>
Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1>
Preference 200
Weight W1, SID-List <B,C>
The U-BFD Echo packets are transmitted to the remote system
according the SR policy. When the Echo packets reach the remote
system, they will be decapsulated and then forwarded back to the
local system according to inner IP header.
2. Specify the reverse path by carrying a Reverse Binding Segment
Identifier (R-BSID):
SR policy POL2 <headend = A, color = 1, endpoint = C>
Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 2>
Preference 200
Weight W1, SID-List <B, C>, L-BSID, R-BSID
Two new attributes, which are referred to as Local BSID (L-BSID)
and Remote BSID (R-BSID), are introduced to a candidate path.
Here, the L-BSID or R-BSID is a BSID that correlates to a
specific SID List rather a candidate path. The L-BSID is a local
BSID on the headend, in the above example, it identifies the SID-
List <B, C>. The R-BSID identifies another corresponding SID
list <B, A> that is deployed on the endpoint (Node C) and has the
same path and share the same fate with SID-list <B, C>. SID List
<B, C> and SID List <B, A> form a bidirectional SR path. With
this, a SID stack <B, C, R-BSID> will be attached to the U-BFD
echo packets, the SID B and C will take the echo packets to the
remote system, the R-BSID will bring the echo packets back to the
local system.
Chen, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SR Unaffiliated Echo April 2023
3. Specify the reverse path by explicitly carrying the SID list of
the reverse path:
SR policy POL2 <headend = A, color = 1, endpoint = A>
Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 3>
Preference 200
Weight W1, SID-List <B, C>, Reverse SID-List <B, A>
A new attribute, Reverse SID-List, is introduced to a candidate
path, it corresponds to a SID-List of the candidate path. In the
above example, the SID-List <B, C> and Reverse SID-List <B, A>
form a bidirectional path. With this, a SID stack <B, C, B, A>
will be attached to the U-BFD echo packets, th SID B and C will
take the echo packets to the remote system, and the SID B and A
will bring the back to the local system.
4. Binding SID for Segment-List
With the current SR policy, a BSID corresponds to a candidate path
that may have multiple SID Lists. In the case of bidirectional SR
path, the forward or reverse path corresponds to a specific SID List.
In order to identify a SID List with a SID, the straightforward idea
is to define a BSID to for SID list. A bidirectional SR path
correlates to two SID Lists: the forward SID List and the reverse SID
List. Therefore, two BSIDs (L-BSID and R-BSID) need to be defined
for a bidirectional SR path to identify the corresponding SID list.
An information model of a SR policy with the L-BSID and R-BSID is as
follows:
SR policy POL1 <headend = H1, color = 1, endpoint = E1>
Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1>
Preference 100
Weight W1, SID-List1 <SID11...SID1i>, L-BSID-1, R-BSID-1
Candidate-path CP2 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 2>
Preference 200
Weight W2, SID-List2 <SID21...SID2j>, L-BSID-2, R-BSID-2
The POL1 has two candidate paths, CP1 and CP2. Each has a SID-List,
a Local BSID (L-BSID) and a Reverse BSID (R-BSID). The L-BSID
corresponds to the SID List (e.g., L-BSID-1 corresponds to SID-List
<SID11...SID1i>). The R-BSID corresponds a SID List of a candidate
path of a policy that is deployed on the endpoint (E1), as following.
Assume that the SID-List1 of POL1 and the SID-List1 of POL2 form a
Chen, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SR Unaffiliated Echo April 2023
bidirectional SR path. For policy POL1, the R-BSID-1 is the same as
the L-BSID-1' of policy POL2; and the R-BSID-1' of POL2 is the same
as the L-BSID-1 of policy POL1.
SR policy POL2 <headend = E1, color = 1, endpoint = H1>
Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
200:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1>
Preference 100
Weight W1, SID-List1 <SID11...SID1i>, L-BSID-1', R-BSID-1'
Candidate-path CP2 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
200:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 2>
Preference 200
Weight W2, SID-List2 <SID21...SID2j>, L-BSID-2', R-BSID-2'
Therefore, to deploy such a policy, it needs to know the R-BSID of
the corresponding reverse SID List. It assumes that a controller
will learn the L-BSID of each SID list and is responsible for the
configuration of SR policy on both the headend and endpoint of the SR
policies.
The corresponding BGP or PECP extensions in support of SR policy with
BSID for SID List will be defined in future version.
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce additional security requirements and
mechanisms other than the ones described in
[I-D.ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo] and
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
7. Acknowledgements
Many thanks for the Changwang Lin for his valuable comments.
8. Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to this document:
Chen, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SR Unaffiliated Echo April 2023
Cheng Li
Huawei
EMail: c.l@huawei.com
Pingwei Fan
Huawei
EMail: fanpingwei@huawei.com
Sheng Fang
Huawei
EMail: fangsheng@huawei.com
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo]
Cheng, W., Wang, R., Min, X., Rahman, R., and R. C.
Boddireddy, "Unaffiliated BFD Echo", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-06, 25
March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-06>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
routing-policy-22, 22 March 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
segment-routing-policy-22>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
Chen, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SR Unaffiliated Echo April 2023
[RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5881, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5881>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8663] Xu, X., Bryant, S., Farrel, A., Hassan, S., Henderickx,
W., and Z. Li, "MPLS Segment Routing over IP", RFC 8663,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8663, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8663>.
Authors' Addresses
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Xuanxuan Wang
Huawei
Email: wxxuan@huawei.com
Wenying Jiang
China Mobile
Email: jiangwenying@chinamobile.com
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Xinjun Chen
Huawei
Email: ifocus.chen@huawei.com
Chen, et al. Expires 19 October 2023 [Page 9]
