One document matched: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-03.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
     which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), 
     please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
     (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space 
     (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->


<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-03" updates="5884" ipr="trust200902">
  <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
     ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
     you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" 
     they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

  <front>
    <title abbrev="Clarifications to RFC 5884">
	Clarifications to RFC 5884
    </title>

    <!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->
    <!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->

    <author fullname="Vengada Prasad Govindan" initials="V."
            surname="Govindan">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <email>venggovi@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Kalyani Rajaraman" initials="K."
            surname="Rajaraman">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <email>kalyanir@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Gregory Mirsky" initials="G."
            surname="Mirsky">
      <organization>Ericsson</organization>
      <address>
        <email>gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Nobo Akiya" initials="N."
            surname="Akiya">
      <organization>Big Switch Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <email>nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
 
    <author fullname="Sam Aldrin" initials="S."
            surname="Aldrin">
      <organization>Google</organization>
      <address>
        <email>aldrin.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
     <date year="2015" />

    <area>BFD Working Group</area>
    <workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>

    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
    IETF is fine for individual submissions.  
	If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
    which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

    <keyword>RFC5884</keyword>
    <keyword>MPLS</keyword>
    <keyword>LSP Ping</keyword>
    <keyword>BFD</keyword>

    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
         files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
         output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
         keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

    <abstract>

      <t>This document clarifies the procedures for establishing, maintaining and removing multiple, concurrent BFD sessions for a given <MPLS LSP, FEC> described in RFC5884.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>

    <section title="Background">
    <t><xref target="RFC5884" /> defines the procedures to bootstrap and maintain BFD sessions for a <MPLS FEC, LSP> using LSP ping. While Section 4 of <xref target="RFC5884"/> specifies that multiple BFD sessions can be established for a <MPLS FEC, LSP> tuple, the procedures to bootstrap and maintain multiple BFD sessions concurrently over a <MPLS FEC, LSP> are not clearly specified. Additionally, the procedures of removing BFD sessions bootstrapped on the egress LSR are unclear. This document provides those clarifications without deviating from the principles outlined in <xref target="RFC5884"/>.
    </t>

    <t> The ability for an ingress LSR to establish multiple BFD sessions for a <MPLS FEC, LSP> tuple is useful in scenarios such as Segment Routing based LSPs or LSPs having Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP).  The process used by the ingress LSR to determine the number of BFD session(s) to be bootstrapped for a <MPLS FEC, LSP> tuple and the mechanism of constructing those session(s) are outside the scope of this document.  </t>

    <section title="Requirements Language">
    <t> 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 <xref target="RFC2119"></xref>.  </t>
    </section>


    </section>

    <section title="Theory of Operation">

    <section title="Procedures for establishment of multiple BFD sessions ">
    <t>Section 4 of <xref target="RFC5884" /> specifies the procedure for bootstrapping BFD sessions using LSP ping. It further states that "a BFD session SHOULD be established for each alternate path that is discovered". This requirement has been the source of some ambiguity as the procedures of establishing concurrent, multiple sessions have not been explicitly specified. This ambiguity can also be attributed in part to the text in Section 7 of <xref target="RFC5884" /> forbidding either end to change local discriminator values in BFD control packets after the session reaches the UP state. The following procedures are described to clarify the ambiguity based on the interpretation of the authors's reading of the referenced sections: 
    </t>
    <t>
    At the ingress LSR:
    <list>
    <t>MPLS LSP ping can be used to bootstrap multiple BFD sessions for a given <MPLS FEC, LSP>. Each LSP ping MUST carry a different discriminator value in the BFD discriminator TLV <xref target="RFC4379" />.</t>
    </list>
    The egress LSR needs to perform the following:
    <list>
    <t>If the validation of the FEC in the MPLS Echo request message succeeds, check the discriminator specified in the BFD discriminator TLV of the MPLS Echo request. If there is no local session that corresponds to the (remote) discriminator received in the MPLS Echo request, a new session is bootstrapped and a local discriminator is allocated. The validation of a FEC is a necessary condition to be satisfied to create a new BFD session at the egress LSR. However, the policy or procedure if any, to be applied by the egress LSR before allowing a new BFD session to be created is outside the scope of this document. Such policies or procedures could consider availability of system resources before allowing a session to be created. When the egress LSR disallows the creation of a BFD session due to policy, it MUST drop the MPLS Echo request message.</t>
    <t> Ensure the uniqueness of the <MPLS FEC, LSP, Remote Discriminiator> tuple.</t>
    <t>Except for the clarification mentioned above, the remaining procedures ofBFD session establishment are as specified in Sections 4-6 of <xref target="RFC5884" />.</t>
    </list></t>
    </section>
    
    <section title="Procedures for maintenance of multiple BFD sessions ">
    <t>Both the ingress LSR and egress LSR use the YourDiscriminator of the received BFD packet to demultiplex BFD sessions.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Procedures for removing BFD sessions at the egress LSR">
    <t> <xref target="RFC5884" /> does not specify an explicit procedure for deleting BFD sessions. The procedure for removing a BFD session established by an out-of-band discriminator exchange using the MPLS LSP ping can improve resource management (like memory etc.) especially in scenarios involving thousands or more of such sessions. A few observations are made here:
    <list>
    <t>The BFD session MAY be removed in the egress LSR if the BFD session transitions from UP to DOWN. This can be done after the expiry of a configurable timer started after the BFD session state transitions from UP to DOWN at the egress LSR. </t>

    <t>The BFD session on the egress LSR MAY be removed by the ingress LSR by using the BFD diagnostic code AdminDown(7) as specified in <xref target="RFC5880" />. When the ingress LSR wants to remove a session without triggering any state change at the egress, it MAY transmit BFD packets indicating the State as Down(1), diagnostic code AdminDown(7) detectMultiplier number of times. Upon receiving such a packet, the egress LSR MAY remove the BFD session, without triggering a change of state. </t>
    <t>The procedures to be followed at the egress LSR when BFD session(s) remain in the DOWN state for a significant amount of time is a local matter. Such procedures are outside the scope of this document. </t>
    <t> All BFD sessions established with the FEC MUST be removed automatically if the FEC is removed.</t>
    <t>
     The egress MUST use the discriminators exchanged when the session was brought UP, to indicate any session state change to the ingress. The egress SHOULD reset this to zero after transmitting bfd.detectMult number of packets if the BFD session transitions to DOWN state.
    </t>
    </list>
    </t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changing discriminators for a BFD session">
    <t>The discriminators of a BFD session established over an MPLS LSP cannot be changed when it is in UP state. The BFD session could be removed after a graceful transition to AdminDown state using the BFD diagnostic code AdminDown. A new session could be established with a different discriminator. The initiation of the transition from the Up to Down state can be done either by the ingress LSR or the egress LSR.</t>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Backwards Compatibility">

<t> The procedures clarified by this document are fully backward compatible with an existing implementation of <xref target="RFC5884" />. While the capability to bootstrap and maintain multiple BFD sessions may not be present in current implementations, the procedures outlined by this document can be implemented as a software upgrade without affecting existing sessions. In particular, the egress LSR needs to support multiple BFD sessions per <MPLS FEC, LSP> before the ingress LSR is upgraded. </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">

      <t>This document clarifies the mechanism to bootstrap multiple BFD sessions per <MPLS FEC, LSP>. BFD sessions, naturally, use system and network resources. More BFD sessions means more resources will be used. It is highly important to ensure only minimum number of BFD sessions are provisioned per FEC, and bootstrapped BFD sessions are properly deleted when no longer required. Additionally security measures described in <xref target="RFC4379" /> and <xref target="RFC5884" /> are to be followed.</t>

    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
    <t>This document does not make any requests to IANA. </t>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The authors would like to thank Marc Binderberger for performing thorough reviews and providing valuable suggestions.</t> 
      <t>The authors would like to thank Mudigonda Mallik, Rajaguru Veluchamy and Carlos Pignataro of Cisco Systems for their review comments.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4379"?>
	  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5884"?>
	  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5880"?>
    </references>

    <!-- Change Log
v00-a 2014-08-28 GVP: Initial version
    -->
  </back>
</rfc>