Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case
draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case
PIM Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track J. Xiaoli
Expires: 12 June 2022 ZTE Corporation
9 December 2021
Fast Failover in Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
Using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multipoint Networks
draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-10
Abstract
This document specifies how Bidirectional Forwarding Detection for
multipoint networks can provide sub-second failover for routers that
participate in Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM).
An extension to the PIM Hello message used to bootstrap a point-to-
multipoint BFD session is also defined in this document.
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 12 June 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Mirsky & Xiaoli Expires 12 June 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BFD P2MP Use in PIM-SM December 2021
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
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. BFD Discriminator PIM Hello Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Using P2MP BFD in PIM Router Monitoring . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. P2MP BFD in PIM DR Load Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Multipoint BFD Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
Faster convergence in the control plane minimizes the periods of
traffic blackholing, transient routing loops, and other situations
that may negatively affect service data flow. Faster convergence in
the control plane is beneficial to unicast and multicast routing
protocols.
[RFC7761] is the current specification of the Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) for IPv4 and IPv6 networks. A
conforming implementation of PIM-SM elects a Designated Router (DR)
on each PIM-SM interface. When a group of PIM-SM nodes is connected
to a shared media segment, e.g., Ethernet, the node elected as DR
acts on behalf of directly connected hosts in the context of the PIM-
SM protocol. Failure of the DR impacts the quality of the multicast
services it provides to directly connected hosts because the default
failure detection interval for PIM-SM routers is 105 seconds.
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] was originally
defined to detect a failure of a point-to-point (p2p) path, single-
hop [RFC5881] or multihop [RFC5883]. In some PIM-SM deployments, a
Mirsky & Xiaoli Expires 12 June 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BFD P2MP Use in PIM-SM December 2021
p2p BFD can be used to detect a failure and enable faster failover.
[RFC8562] extends the BFD base specification [RFC5880] for multipoint
and multicast networks, which matches the deployment scenarios for
PIM-SM over a LAN segment. A BFD system in p2mp environment that
transmits BFD Control messages using the BFD Demand mode [RFC5880]
creates less BFD state than the Asynchronous mode. Point-to-
multipoint (p2mp) BFD can enable faster detection of PIM-SM router
failure compared to PIM-SM without BFD and thus minimize multicast
service disruption. The monitored PIM-SM router acts as the head and
other routers as tails of a p2mp BFD session. This document defines
the monitoring of a PIM-SM router using p2mp BFD. This document also
defines the extension to PIM-SM [RFC7761] to bootstrap a PIM-SM
router to join in p2mp BFD session over shared media segment.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
1.1.1. Terminology
This document uses terminology defined in [RFC5880], [RFC8562], and
[RFC7761]. Familiarity with these specifications and the terminology
used is expected.
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. BFD Discriminator PIM Hello Option
Figure 1 displays the new optional BFD Discriminator PIM Hello option
to bootstrap a tail of the p2mp BFD session.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OptionType | OptionLength |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HeadDiscriminator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: BFD Discriminator PIM Hello Option
where new fields are interpreted as:
Mirsky & Xiaoli Expires 12 June 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BFD P2MP Use in PIM-SM December 2021
OptionType: TBA.
OptionLength: MUST be set to 4.
HeadDiscriminator: the four-octet field MUST be included in the
BFD Discriminator PIM-SM Hello option. The value MUST NOT be
zero. It equals the value of My Discriminator ([RFC5880])
allocated by the head.
If the value of the OptionLength field is not equal to 4, the BFD
Discriminator PIM Hello option is considered malformed, and the
receiver MUST stop processing PIM Hello options. If the value of the
HeadDiscriminator field equals zero, then the BFD Discriminator PIM
Hello option MUST be considered invalid, and the receiver MUST ignore
it. The receiver SHOULD log a notification regarding the malformed
or invalid BFD Discriminator Hello option under the control of a
throttling logging mechanism.
2.1. Using P2MP BFD in PIM Router Monitoring
If the head is no longer serving the function that prompted it to be
monitored, then it MUST cease including the BFD Discriminator PIM
Hello option in its PIM-Hello message, and it SHOULD shut down the
BFD session following the procedures described in Section 5.9
[RFC8562].
The head MUST create a BFD session of type MultipointHead [RFC8562].
Note that any PIM-SM router, regardless of its role, MAY become a
head of a p2mp BFD session. To control the volume of BFD control
traffic on a shared media segment, an operator should carefully
select PIM-SM routers configured as a head of a p2mp BFD session.
The head MUST include the BFD Discriminator PIM Hello option in its
PIM Hello messages.
A PIM-SM router that is configured to monitor the head by using p2mp
BFD is referred to throughout this document as a "tail". When such a
tail receives a PIM-Hello packet with the BFD Discriminator PIM Hello
option, the tail MAY create a p2mp BFD session of type
MultipointTail, as defined in [RFC8562].
Mirsky & Xiaoli Expires 12 June 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BFD P2MP Use in PIM-SM December 2021
The node that includes the BFD Discriminator PIM Hello option
transmits BFD Control packets periodically. For the tail to
correctly demultiplex BFD [RFC8562], the source address and My
Discriminator of the BFD packets MUST be the same as the source
address and the HeadDiscriminator, respectively, of the PIM Hello
message. If that is not the case, the tail BFD node would not be
able to monitor the state of the PIM-SM node, that is, the head of
the p2mp BFD session, though the regular PIM-SM mechanisms remain
fully operational.
If the tail detects a MultipointHead failure [RFC8562], it MUST
delete the corresponding neighbor state and follow procedures defined
in [RFC7761] for the DR and additional neighbor state deletion after
the neighbor timeout expires.
If the head ceases to include the BFD Discriminator PIM Hello option
in its PIM-Hello message, tails SHOULD close the corresponding
MultipointTail BFD session without affecting the PIM state in any
way. Thus, the tail stops using BFD to monitor the head and reverts
to the procedures defined in [RFC7761].
2.2. P2MP BFD in PIM DR Load Balancing
[RFC8775] specifies the PIM Designated Router Load Balancing (DRLB)
functionality. Any PIM router that advertises the DRLB-Cap Hello
Option can become the head of a p2mp BFD session, as specified in
Section 2.1. The head router administratively sets the
bfd.SessionState to Up in the MultipointHead session [RFC8562] only
if it is a Group Designated Router (GDR) Candidate, as specified in
Sections 5.5 and 5.6 of [RFC8775]. If the router is no longer the
GDR, then it MUST shut down following the procedures described in
Section 5.9 [RFC8562]. For each GDR Candidate that includes BFD
Discriminator option in its PIM Hello, the PIM DR MUST create a
MultipointTail session [RFC8562]. PIM DR demultiplexes BFD sessions
based on the value of the My Discriminator field and the source IP
address. If PIM DR detects a failure of one of the sessions, it MUST
remove that router from the GDR Candidate list and immediately
transmit a new DRLB-List option.
2.3. Multipoint BFD Encapsulation
The MultipointHead of a p2mp BFD session when transmitting BFD
Control packets:
MUST set TTL or Hop Limit value to 255 (Section 5 [RFC5881]).
Similarly, all received BFD Control packets that are demultiplexed
to the session MUST be discarded if the received TTL or Hop Limit
is not equal to 255;
Mirsky & Xiaoli Expires 12 June 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BFD P2MP Use in PIM-SM December 2021
MUST use the group address ALL-PIM-ROUTERS ('224.0.0.13' for IPv4
and 'ff02::d' for IPv6) as destination IP address
3. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate a new OptionType value from PIM-Hello
Options registry according to:
+=======+========+==========================+===============+
| Value | Length | Name | Reference |
+=======+========+==========================+===============+
| TBA | 4 | BFD Discriminator Option | This document |
+-------+--------+--------------------------+---------------+
Table 1: BFD Discriminator option type
4. Security Considerations
This document defines a way to accelerate detecting a failure that
affects PIM functionality by using BFD. The operation of either
protocol is not changed.
The security considerations discussed in [RFC7761], [RFC5880],
[RFC5881], [RFC8562], and [RFC8775] apply to this document.
5. Acknowledgments
The authors cannot say enough to express their appreciation of the
comments and suggestions we received from Stig Venaas. The authors
greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions by Alvaro Retana that
improved the clarity of this document.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
Mirsky & Xiaoli Expires 12 June 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BFD P2MP Use in PIM-SM December 2021
[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>.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
[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>.
[RFC8562] Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky,
Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
Multipoint Networks", RFC 8562, DOI 10.17487/RFC8562,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8562>.
[RFC8775] Cai, Y., Ou, H., Vallepalli, S., Mishra, M., Venaas, S.,
and A. Green, "PIM Designated Router Load Balancing",
RFC 8775, DOI 10.17487/RFC8775, April 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8775>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC5883] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, DOI 10.17487/RFC5883,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5883>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Ji Xiaoli
ZTE Corporation
No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing,
China
Email: ji.xiaoli@zte.com.cn
Mirsky & Xiaoli Expires 12 June 2022 [Page 7]
