draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-02.txt   draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-03.txt 
Network Working Group D. Katz Network Working Group D. Katz
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Internet Draft Juniper Networks
D. Ward D. Ward
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Expires: September, 2005 March, 2005 Expires: January, 2006 July, 2005
BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop) BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)
draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-02.txt draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
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."
skipping to change at page 9, line 33 skipping to change at page 9, line 33
A number of mechanisms are available to tunnel IPv4 and IPv6 over A number of mechanisms are available to tunnel IPv4 and IPv6 over
arbitrary topologies. If the tunnel mechanism does not decrement the arbitrary topologies. If the tunnel mechanism does not decrement the
TTL or hop count of the network protocol carried within, the TTL or hop count of the network protocol carried within, the
mechanism described in this document may be used to provide liveness mechanism described in this document may be used to provide liveness
detection for the tunnel. The BFD Authentication mechanism SHOULD be detection for the tunnel. The BFD Authentication mechanism SHOULD be
used and is strongly encouraged. used and is strongly encouraged.
Normative References Normative References
[BFD] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection", [BFD] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection",
draft-ietf-bfd-base-02.txt, March, 2005. draft-ietf-bfd-base-03.txt, July, 2005.
[BFD-MULTI] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "BFD for Multihop Paths", draft- [BFD-MULTI] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "BFD for Multihop Paths", draft-
ietf-bfd-multihop-02.txt, March, 2005. ietf-bfd-multihop-03.txt, July, 2005.
[GTSM] Gill, V., et al, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism [GTSM] Gill, V., et al, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 3682, February 2004. (GTSM)", RFC 3682, February 2004.
[ISIS] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual [ISIS] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual
environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[ISIS-GRACE] Shand, M., and Ginsberg, L., "Restart signaling for IS- [ISIS-GRACE] Shand, M., and Ginsberg, L., "Restart signaling for IS-
IS", RFC 3847, July 2004. IS", RFC 3847, July 2004.
skipping to change at page 10, line 31 skipping to change at page 10, line 31
The security implications of the use of BFD Authentication are The security implications of the use of BFD Authentication are
discussed in [BFD]. discussed in [BFD].
The use of the TTL=255 check simultaneously with BFD Authentication The use of the TTL=255 check simultaneously with BFD Authentication
provides a low overhead mechanism for discarding a class of provides a low overhead mechanism for discarding a class of
unauthorized packets and may be useful in implementations in which unauthorized packets and may be useful in implementations in which
cryptographic checksum use is susceptable to denial of service cryptographic checksum use is susceptable to denial of service
attacks. The use or non-use of this mechanism does not impact attacks. The use or non-use of this mechanism does not impact
interoperability. interoperability.
IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dave Katz Dave Katz
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, California 94089-1206 USA Sunnyvale, California 94089-1206 USA
Phone: +1-408-745-2000 Phone: +1-408-745-2000
Email: dkatz@juniper.net Email: dkatz@juniper.net
Dave Ward Dave Ward
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Dr. 170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 USA San Jose, CA 95134 USA
Phone: +1-408-526-4000 Phone: +1-408-526-4000
Email: dward@cisco.com Email: dward@cisco.com
Changes from the previous draft Changes from the previous draft
The only substantive changes are to allow the TTL=255 check to be All changes are editorial in nature.
optional when authentication is in use, and to specify that the
destination address in BFD Control packets does not change even if
the source address of the neighbor's packets changes (which is
allowed on unnumbered links.)
Explicatory language on the issues of interaction with multiprotocol IPR Disclaimer
routing protocols was added.
All other changes are editorial. The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Full Copyright Notice Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
This document expires in September, 2005. This document expires in January, 2006.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.25, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/