draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-06.txt   draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-07.txt 
Network Working Group S. Aldrin Network Working Group S. Aldrin
Internet-Draft Google, Inc Internet-Draft Google, Inc
Intended status: Informational C. Pignataro Intended status: Informational C. Pignataro
Expires: October 24, 2016 Cisco Expires: November 5, 2016 Cisco
G. Mirsky G. Mirsky
Ericsson Ericsson
N. Kumar N. Kumar
Cisco Cisco
April 22, 2016 May 4, 2016
Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Use Cases Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Use Cases
draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-06 draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-07
Abstract Abstract
This document describes various use cases for a Seamless This document describes various use cases for a Seamless
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD), and provides requirements Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD), and provides requirements
such that protocol mechanisms allow for a simplified detection of such that protocol mechanisms allow for a simplified detection of
forwarding failures. forwarding failures.
These use cases support S-BFD, as a simplified mechanism to use These use cases support S-BFD, as a simplified mechanism to use
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with large portions of
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 24, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 5, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 9, line 37 skipping to change at page 9, line 37
through the network, if Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) is used. In through the network, if Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) is used. In
addition, the longer it takes from BFD session failure to starting addition, the longer it takes from BFD session failure to starting
fault isolation, the more likely that the fault will not be able to fault isolation, the more likely that the fault will not be able to
be isolated (e.g., a fault can get corrected or routed around). If be isolated (e.g., a fault can get corrected or routed around). If
BFD had built-in fault isolation capability, fault isolation can get BFD had built-in fault isolation capability, fault isolation can get
triggered at the earliest sign of fault detection. This embedded triggered at the earliest sign of fault detection. This embedded
fault isolation will be more effective when those BFD fault isolation fault isolation will be more effective when those BFD fault isolation
packets are load balanced in the same way as the BFD packets that packets are load balanced in the same way as the BFD packets that
were dropped, detecting the fault. were dropped, detecting the fault.
This use case describes S-BFD fault isolation capabilities using This use case describes S-BFD fault isolation capabilities, utilizing
status indicating fields. a TTL field (e.g., as in Section 5.1.1 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-ip])
or using status indicating fields.
3.8. Multiple BFD Sessions to the Same Target Node 3.8. Multiple BFD Sessions to the Same Target Node
BFD is capable of providing very fast failure detection, as relevant BFD is capable of providing very fast failure detection, as relevant
network nodes continuously transmit BFD packets at the negotiated network nodes continuously transmit BFD packets at the negotiated
rate. If BFD packet transmission is interrupted, even for a very rate. If BFD packet transmission is interrupted, even for a very
short period of time, BFD can declare a failure irrespective of path short period of time, BFD can declare a failure irrespective of path
liveliness. It is possible, on a system where BFD is running, for liveliness. It is possible, on a system where BFD is running, for
certain events (intentionally or unintentionally) to cause a short certain events (intentionally or unintentionally) to cause a short
interruption of BFD packet transmissions. With distributed interruption of BFD packet transmissions. With distributed
skipping to change at page 12, line 10 skipping to change at page 12, line 10
REQ#10: S-BFD MUST incorporate robust security protections against REQ#10: S-BFD MUST incorporate robust security protections against
impersonators, malicions actors, and various attacks. The impersonators, malicions actors, and various attacks. The
simple and accelerated establishment of an S-BFD session simple and accelerated establishment of an S-BFD session
should not negatively affect security. should not negatively affect security.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document details the use cases and identifies various associated This document details the use cases and identifies various associated
requirements. Some of these requirements are security related. The requirements. Some of these requirements are security related. The
use cases herein described do not expose a system to abuse or to use cases herein described do not expose a system to abuse or to
additional security risks. The proposed new protocols, extensions, additional security risks. Since some negotiation aspects are
and enhancements for a Seamless BFD supporting these use cases and eliminated, a misconfiguration can result in S-BFD packets being sent
realizing these requirements will address the associated security to an incorrect node. If this receiving node runs S-BFD, the packet
considerations. A Seamless BFD should not have reduced security will be discarted because of the discriminator mismatch. If the node
capabilities as compared to traditional BFD. does not run S-BFD, the packet will be naturally discarded.
The proposed new protocols, extensions, and enhancements for a
Seamless BFD supporting these use cases and realizing these
requirements will address the associated security considerations. A
Seamless BFD should not have reduced security capabilities as
compared to traditional BFD.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations introduced by this document. There are no IANA considerations introduced by this document.
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Tobias Gondrom and Eric Gray, for The authors would like to thank Tobias Gondrom and Eric Gray, for
their insightful and useful comments. The authors appreciate the their insightful and useful comments. The authors appreciate the
thorough review and comments provided by Dale R. Worley. thorough review and comments provided by Dale R. Worley.
skipping to change at page 13, line 41 skipping to change at page 13, line 45
progress), April 2016. progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-ip] [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-ip]
Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., and D. Ward, "Seamless Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., and D. Ward, "Seamless
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6
and MPLS", draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04 (work in and MPLS", draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04 (work in
progress), April 2016. progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase] [I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase]
Geib, R., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., and N. Kumar, "A Geib, R., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., and N. Kumar, "A
scalable and topology aware MPLS data plane monitoring Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Dataplane Monitoring
system", draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-02 (work in System", draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-03 (work in
progress), April 2016. progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf- and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
spring-segment-routing-07 (work in progress), December spring-segment-routing-07 (work in progress), December
2015. 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement] [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement]
Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Geib, R., Mirsky, G., Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Geib, R., Mirsky, G.,
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/