draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-04.txt   draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-05.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: April, 2006 October, 2005 Expires: December, 2006 June, 2006
BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop) BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)
draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-04.txt draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-05.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the use of the Bidirectional Forwarding This document describes the use of the Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection protocol over IPv4 and IPv6 for single IP hops. It further Detection protocol over IPv4 and IPv6 for single IP hops. Comments
describes the use of BFD with OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and IS-IS. Comments on on this draft should be directed to rtg-bfd@ietf.org.
this draft should be directed to rtg-bfd@ietf.org.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [KEYWORDS]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [KEYWORDS].
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
One very desirable application for BFD [BFD] is to track IPv4 and One very desirable application for BFD [BFD] is to track IPv4 and
IPv6 connectivity between directly-connected systems. This could be IPv6 connectivity between directly-connected systems. This could be
used to supplement the detection mechanisms in IS-IS and OSPF, or to used to supplement the detection mechanisms in routing protocols, or
monitor router-host connectivity, among other applications. to monitor router-host connectivity, among other applications.
This document describes the particulars necessary to use BFD in this This document describes the particulars necessary to use BFD in this
environment, and describes how BFD can be used in conjunction OSPFv2 environment. Interactions between BFD and other protocols and system
[OSPFv2], OSPFv3 [OSPFv3], and IS-IS [ISIS]. functions are described in the BFD Generic Applications document
[BFD-GENERIC].
2. Applications and Limitations 2. Applications and Limitations
This application of BFD can be used by any pair of systems This application of BFD can be used by any pair of systems
communicating via IPv4 and/or IPv6 across a single IP hop that can be communicating via IPv4 and/or IPv6 across a single IP hop that can be
associated with an incoming interface. This includes, but is not associated with an incoming interface. This includes, but is not
limited to, physical media, virtual circuits, and tunnels. limited to, physical media, virtual circuits, and tunnels.
Each BFD session between a pair of systems MUST traverse a separate Each BFD session between a pair of systems MUST traverse a separate
path in both directions. path in both directions.
skipping to change at page 5, line 31 skipping to change at page 5, line 31
address changes, the local system MUST NOT use that address as the address changes, the local system MUST NOT use that address as the
destination in outgoing BFD Control packets; rather it MUST continue destination in outgoing BFD Control packets; rather it MUST continue
to use the address configured at session creation. An implementation to use the address configured at session creation. An implementation
MAY notify the application that the neighbor's source address has MAY notify the application that the neighbor's source address has
changed, so that the application might choose to change the changed, so that the application might choose to change the
destination address or take some other action. Note that the TTL/Hop destination address or take some other action. Note that the TTL/Hop
Count check described in section 5 (or the use of authentication) Count check described in section 5 (or the use of authentication)
precludes the BFD packets from having come from any source other than precludes the BFD packets from having come from any source other than
the immediate neighbor. the immediate neighbor.
7. BFD for use with OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and IS-IS 7. BFD for use with Tunnels
The two versions of OSPF, as well as IS-IS, all suffer from an
architectural limitation, namely that their Hello protocols are
limited in the granularity of their failure detection times. In
particular, OSPF has a minimum detection time of two seconds, and IS-
IS has a minimum detection time of one second.
BFD MAY be used to achieve arbitrarily small detection times for
these protocols by supplementing the Hello protocols used in each
case.
It should be noted that the purpose of using BFD in this context is
not to replace the adjacency timeout mechanism, nor is it to
demonstrate that the network is fully functional for the use of the
routing protocol, but is simply to advise the routing protocol that
there are problems forwarding the data protocol for which the routing
protocol is calculating routes.
7.1. Session Establishment
The mechanism by which a BFD session is established in this
environment is outside the scope of this specification. An obvious
choice would be to use the discovery mechanism inherent in the Hello
protocols in OSPF and IS-IS to bootstrap the establishment of a BFD
session.
Any BFD sessions established to support OSPF and IS-IS across a
single IP hop MUST operate in accordance with the rest of this
document.
If multiple routing protocols wish to establish BFD sessions with the
same remote system for the same data protocol, all MUST share a
single BFD session.
7.2. Session Parameters
The setting of the various timing parameters and modes in this
application are outside the scope of this specification.
Note that all protocols sharing a session will operate using the same
parameters. The mechanism for choosing the parameters among those
desired by the various protocols are outside the scope of this
specification.
7.3. Interactions with OSPF and IS-IS without Graceful Restart
Slightly different mechanisms are used if the routing protocol
supports the routing of multiple data protocols, depending on whether
the routing protocol supports separate topologies for each data
protocol. With a shared topology, if one of the data protocols fails
(as signalled by the associated BFD session), it is necessary to
consider the path to have failed for all data protocols, since there
is otherwise no way for the routing protocol to turn away traffic for
the failed protocol (and such traffic would be black holed
indefinitely.)
With individual routing topologies for each data protocol, only the
failed data protocol needs to be rerouted around the failed path.
Therefore, when a BFD session transitions from Up to Down, action
SHOULD be taken in the routing protocol to signal the lack of
connectivity for the data protocol (IPv4 or IPv6) over which BFD is
running. If only one data protocol is being advertised in the
routing protocol Hello, or if multiple protocols are being advertised
but the protocols must share a common topology, a Hello protocol
timeout SHOULD be emulated for the associated OSPF neighbors and/or
IS-IS adjacencies.
If multiple data protocols are advertised in the routing protocol
Hello, and the routing protocol supports different topologies for
each data protocol, the failing data protocol SHOULD no longer be
advertised in Hello packets in order to signal a lack of connectivity
for that protocol.
Note that it is possible in some failure scenarios for the network to
be in a state such that the IGP comes up, but the BFD session cannot
be established, and, more particularly, data cannot be forwarded. To
avoid this situation, it would be beneficial to not allow the IGP to
establish a neighbor/adjacency. However, this would preclude the
operation of the IGP in an environment in which not all systems
support BFD.
Therefore, if a BFD session is not in Up state (possibly because the
remote system does not support BFD), it is OPTIONAL to preclude the
establishment of an OSPF neighbor or an IS-IS adjacency. The choice
of whether to do so SHOULD be controlled by means outside the scope
of this specification, such as configuration or other mechanisms. If
an OSPF neighbor or IS-IS adjacency is established but the
corresponding BFD session is not in Up state (implying that the
neighbor does not support BFD) implementations MAY raise the BFD
transmit interval beyond the minimum of one second in order to
minimize extraneous traffic.
7.4. Interactions with OSPF and IS-IS with Graceful Restart
The Graceful Restart functions in OSPF [OSPF-GRACE] and IS-IS [ISIS-
GRACE] are predicated on the existence of a separate forwarding plane
that does not necessarily share fate with the control plane in which
the routing protocols operate. In particular, the assumption is that
the forwarding plane can continue to function while the protocols
restart and sort things out.
BFD implementations announce via the Control Plane Independent (C)
bit whether or not BFD shares fate with the control plane. This
information is used to determine the actions to be taken in
conjunction with Graceful Restart.
If BFD does not share its fate with the control plane on either
system, it can be used to determine whether Graceful Restart is NOT
viable (the forwarding plane is not operating.) In this situation,
if a BFD session fails while graceful restart is taking place, and
BFD is independent of the control plane on the local system, and the
remote system has been transmitting BFD Control packets with the C
bit set, the graceful restart SHOULD be aborted and the topology
change made visible to the network as outlined in section 7.3.
If BFD shares its fate with the control plane on either system
(either the local system shares fate with the control plane, or the
remote system is transmitting BFD packets with the C bit set to
zero), it is not useful during graceful restart, as the BFD session
is likely to fail regardless of the state of the forwarding plane.
The action to take in this case depends on the capabilities of the
IGP.
7.4.1. OSPF Graceful Restart With Control Plane Fate Sharing
OSPF has a "planned" restart mechanism, in which the restarting
system notifies its neighbors that it is about to perform a restart.
In this situation, if a BFD session fails while the neighbor is
performing a graceful restart, the graceful restart SHOULD be allowed
to complete and the topology change should not be made visible to the
network as outlined in section 7.3.
For unplanned restarts (in which the neighbor has not notified the
local system of its intention to restart), the OSPF Graceful Restart
specification allows a Graceful Restart to take place if the system
restarts prior to the expiration of the OSPF neighbor relationship.
In this case, the BFD Detection Time is likely to expire prior to the
restart, and the neighbor relationship SHOULD be torn down. In the
unlikely event that the system restarts quickly enough, and the
system chooses to attempt a Graceful Restart, the graceful restart
SHOULD be allowed to complete and the topology change should not be
made visible to the network as outlined in section 7.3.
7.4.2. ISIS Graceful Restart With Control Plane Fate Sharing
ISIS Graceful Restart does not signal a "planned" restart; its
mechanism does not begin until after the system has restarted. If
the BFD session expires prior to the restart of the system, there is
no way for the neighbors to know that a Graceful Restart will take
place.
If a planned restart is about to place, the restarting system MAY
change the BFD timing parameters on a temporary basis in such a way
as to make the Detection Time greater than or equal to the ISIS
adjacency timeout. This will provide the restarting system the same
opportunity to enter Graceful Restart as it would have without BFD.
In this case, the restarted system SHOULD avoid sending any BFD
Control packets until there is a high likelihood that its neighbors
know it is performing a Graceful Restart, since the neighbors will
tear down their BFD sessions when those sessions restart.
In any case, if a BFD session fails while the neighbor is known to be
performing a Graceful Restart, the Graceful Restart SHOULD be allowed
to complete and the topology change should not be made visible to the
network as outlined in section 7.3.
If the BFD session fails, and it is not known whether the neighbor is
performing a Graceful Restart, the BFD session failure SHOULD be made
visible to the network as outlined in section 7.3.
7.5. OSPF Virtual Links
If it is desired to use BFD for failure detction of OSPF Virtual
Links, the mechanism described in [BFD-MULTI] MUST be used, since
OSPF Virtual Links may traverse an arbitrary number of hops. BFD
Authentication SHOULD be used and is strongly encouraged.
8. BFD for use with Tunnels
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-04.txt, October, 2005. draft-ietf-bfd-base-05.txt, June, 2006.
[BFD-MULTI] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "BFD for Multihop Paths", draft- [BFD-GENERIC] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "Generic Application of BFD",
ietf-bfd-multihop-03.txt, July, 2005. draft-ietf-bfd-generic-02.txt, June, 2006.
[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
environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[ISIS-GRACE] Shand, M., and Ginsberg, L., "Restart signaling for IS-
IS", RFC 3847, July 2004.
[KEYWORD] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [KEYWORD] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[OSPFv2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPFv3] Coltun, R., et al, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 2740, December 1999.
[OSPF-GRACE] Moy, J., et al, "Graceful OSPF Restart", RFC 3623,
November 2003.
Security Considerations Security Considerations
In this application, the use of TTL=255 on transmit and receive is In this application, the use of TTL=255 on transmit and receive is
viewed as supplying equivalent security characteristics to other viewed as supplying equivalent security characteristics to other
protocols used in the infrastructure, as it is not trivially protocols used in the infrastructure, as it is not trivially
spoofable. The security implications of this mechanism are further spoofable. The security implications of this mechanism are further
discussed in [GTSM]. discussed in [GTSM].
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].
skipping to change at page 11, line 23 skipping to change at page 7, line 23
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
Text was added to point out that implementations may raise the BFD Application-specific information was moved to the Generic draft. All
transmit interval above the minimum if it appears that the neighbor other changes are purely editorial in nature.
does not support BFD. All other changes are editorial in nature.
IPR Disclaimer IPR Disclaimer
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 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 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
skipping to change at page 12, line 8 skipping to change at page 8, line 7
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
Full Copyright Notice Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. 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 April, 2006. This document expires in December, 2006.
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
211 lines changed or deleted 17 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.32. The latest version is available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/