Internet Engineering Task Force. Intended status: Standards Track. June 7, 2014

Similar documents
Internet Engineering Task Force. Intended status: Standards Track. February 23, 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7881 Category: Standards Track. Big Switch Networks July 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force. Intended status: Standards Track. July 04, 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 5885 Category: Standards Track July 2016 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force

Internet Engineering Task Force

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Cisco Systems, Inc. April 2015

Expires: April 19, 2019 October 16, 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7189 Category: Standards Track March 2014 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7880 Updates: 5880 Category: Standards Track

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7330 Category: Standards Track. Cisco Systems August 2014

Expires: April 19, 2019 October 16, 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7537 Updates: 4379, L. Andersson S. Aldrin Huawei Technologies May 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force

Updates: 4448 (if approved) Intended status: Standards Track Expires: January 3, 2019 July 02, 2018

Intended status: Standards Track Expires: April 26, 2012 Y. Ma Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications October 24, 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force. Updates: 4379,6790 (if approved) Intended status: Standards Track Expires: April 24, 2014 October 21, 2013

Network Working Group. Intended status: Informational. H. Deng. China Mobile. July 4, 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: April 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. R. Asati Cisco January 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6441 BCP: 171 November 2011 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN:

Intended status: Standards Track. May 21, Assigned BGP extended communities draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. M. Conn D. Pacella L. Tomotaki Verizon January 2016

Intended status: Standards Track. Cisco Systems, Inc. October 17, 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Vigoureux, Ed. Alcatel-Lucent X. Dai, Ed. ZTE Corporation November 2011

Open Shortest Path First IGP. Intended status: Standards Track

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track

Intended status: Informational Expires: March 7, 2019 Huawei Technologies N. Leymann Deutsche Telekom G. Swallow Independent September 3, 2018

Request for Comments: 5498 Category: Standards Track March IANA Allocations for Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Protocols

Expires: April 11, 2019 October 8, 2018

P. van der Stok. Intended status: Informational Expires: October 10, April 8, 2014

Network Working Group. Expires: February 3, 2019 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. S. Ratliff VT idirect August 2, 2018

Intended status: Standards Track. March 2, 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. S. Aldrin Google Inc. March 2018

Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track Expires: January 1, 2019 June 30, 2018

Intended status: Standards Track. K. Patel Cisco J. Haas Juniper Networks June 30, 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: July 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. Cisco May 2012

Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. Intended status: Informational July 16, 2012 Expires: January 17, 2013

Intended status: Informational. Intel Corporation P. Seite. France Telecom - Orange. February 14, 2013

Intended status: Standards Track. S. Pallagatti Juniper Networks M. Jethanandani. Cisco Systems. G. Mirsky Ericsson August 19, 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. January 2010

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4558 Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems D. Papadimitriou Alcatel June 2006

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: October 2011

Intended status: Informational Expires: March 17, 2014 University of Napoli September 13, 2013

Storage Maintenance (StorM) Working Group. Intended status: Standards Track. December 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track April 2013 ISSN: Formally Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Message Types

Intended status: Standards Track Expires: April 27, 2015 Q. Zhao Huawei Technology D. King Old Dog Consulting J. Hardwick Metaswitch October 24, 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6034 Category: Standards Track October 2010 ISSN:

M. Wang, Ed. Intended status: Informational Expires: January 4, China Mobile July 3, 2017

MIP4 Working Group. Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv4 draft-ietf-mip4-generic-notification-message-16

Intended status: Standards Track Expires: July 1, 2018 P. Sarkar J. Tantsura Individual December 28, 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 2474 August 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) ISSN: A. Malis Huawei Technologies S. Aldrin Google November 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. S. Aldrin Google, Inc. L. Ginsberg Cisco Systems November 2018

Intended status: Standards Track March 9, 2015 Expires: September 10, 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: May 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8035 Updates: 5761 November 2016 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Hypertext Transfer Protocol: Access Control List draft-zhao-http-acl-00

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 5451 March 2012 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Intended status: Standards Track. Cisco Systems October 22, 2018

Expires: January 4, 2018 July 3, 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7213 Category: Standards Track. M. Bocci Alcatel-Lucent June 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track ISSN: February 2012

Intended status: Informational Expires: January 7, 2016 July 6, 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Deutsche Telekom January 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track May 2011 ISSN:

Cisco Systems June 2009

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Experimental February 2014 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Informational. R. White. D. McPherson Verisign, Inc.

Mobile Ad hoc Networking (MANET) Updates: RFC6130, OLSRv2. Intended status: Standards Track July 31, 2013 Expires: February 1, 2014

February Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

Intended status: Standards Track. B. Wen Comcast October 3, 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6028 Category: Experimental ISSN: October 2010

Expiration Date: August 2003 February Access Control Prefix Router Advertisement Option for IPv6 draft-bellovin-ipv6-accessprefix-01.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: November 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Kumar Cisco Systems, Inc. July A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane Monitoring System

Binary Encodings for JavaScript Object Notation: JSON-B, JSON-C, JSON-D

Internet Engineering Task Force. Intended Status: Informational. Additional Reserved Top Level Domains draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-00

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track <draft-aboba-radius-iana-03.txt> 30 March 2003 Updates: RFC IANA Considerations for RADIUS

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Orange R. Shakir Google March 2018

Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge. Intended status: Standards Track. May 10, 2011

Intended Status: Experimental Expires: October 04, 2018 P. Wang L. Tian T. Duan NDSC P.R. China April 04, 2018

Intended status: Standards Track July 21, 2014 Expires: January 22, 2015

Univ. of Sci. and Tech. Beijing. Intended status: Standards Track. T. Watteyne Analog Devices March 30, 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: June 2010

Network Working Group Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track Expires: August 27, Huawei R. Rahman S. Raghavan. Cisco.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6002 Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202, 4203, ISSN: October 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: March 2012

Expires: October 9, 2005 April 7, 2005

Network Working Group. Category: Experimental April 2009

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: January 2010

Network Working Group. Intended status: Standards Track October 17, 2016 Expires: April 14, 2017

Updates: 6126 May 2015 Category: Experimental ISSN: Extension Mechanism for the Babel Routing Protocol

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: August 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6658 Category: Standards Track. A. Malis Verizon Communications July 2012

Intended status: Standards Track

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7024 Category: Standards Track

D. Crocker, Ed. Updates: RFC4871 June 10, 2009 (if approved) Intended status: Standards Track Expires: December 12, 2009

Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems D. Tappan Consultant October 2009

Transcription:

Internet Engineering Task Force Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track Expires: December 9, 2014 N. Akiya C. Pignataro D. Ward June 7, 2014 Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for IP draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-ip-02 Abstract Note: this document needs to be updated to align with changes in the S-BFD base document. This specification defines procedures to use Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) in IP and IP signalled MPLS environments. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 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 http://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 December 9, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Akiya, et al. Expires December 9, 2014 [Page 1]

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust s Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction........................ 2 2. BFD Target Identifier Type................. 2 3. Reserved BFD Discriminators................. 3 4. BFD Target Identifier Table................. 3 5. Full Reachability Validations................ 3 5.1. Initiator Behavior................... 4 5.2. Responder Behavior................... 4 6. Partial Reachability Validations.............. 4 7. MPLS Label Verifications.................. 4 8. Provisioning Active IP Sessions............... 4 9. Security Considerations................... 5 10. IANA Considerations..................... 5 11. Acknowledgements...................... 5 12. Contributing Authors.................... 5 13. Normative References.................... 5 Authors Addresses....................... 6 1. Introduction One application for Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) [I-D.akiya-bfd-seamless-base] is to perform full and partial reachability validations on IP and IP signalled MPLS environments. This specification defines procedures to use Seamless BFD in IP and IP signalled MPLS environments. 2. BFD Target Identifier Type BFD target identifier type of value 1 is used for IPv4 addresses and router IDs. This identifier type will cover Seamless BFD in following scenarios: o BFD control packets IPv4 routed. o BFD control packets IPv6 routed. Akiya, et al. Expires December 9, 2014 [Page 2]

o BFD control packets label switched in IPv4 signaled LSP. o BFD control packets label switched in IPv6 signaled LSP. Not all IPv6 aspects are covered by this specification, and details are clarified in Section 3. 3. Reserved BFD Discriminators With IPv4 based BFD, BFD target identifier type 1 is used. IPv4 addresses are used as BFD discriminators. BFD discriminator values corresponding to all or subset of local IPv4 addresses are to be allocated from the discriminator pool for Seamless BFD. Example: o BFD Target Identifier Type 1: IPv4 address 3.3.2.1 maps to BFD discriminator 0x03030201. With IPv6 based BFD, BFD target identifier type 1 is used. Router IDs are used as BFD discriminators. BFD discriminator values corresponding to all or subset of local router IDs are to be allocated from the discriminator pool for Seamless BFD. IDs which are larger than 32 bits (ex: ISIS system ID) are not included as part of this identifier type, and is outside the scope of this document. Example: o BFD Target Identifier Type 1: Router-ID 3.3.4.5 maps to BFD discriminator 0x03030405. Note that it is acceptable for an IPv4 address and a router-id to collide, mapping into a same BFD discriminator value. There will not be an issue as long as colliding BFD discriminator value is reserved for the Seamless BFD purpose. 4. BFD Target Identifier Table With IP identifier type, only locally reserved BFD discriminators and corresponding information are to be in this table. No inter-node communications are needed to exchange BFD discriminator and BFD target identifier mappings. 5. Full Reachability Validations Akiya, et al. Expires December 9, 2014 [Page 3]

5.1. Initiator Behavior Any IP network node can attempt to perform a full reachability validation to any BFD target identifier of type 1 (IPv4 address or router-id) on other network nodes, as long as destination BFD target identifier is provisioned to use this mechanism. Transmitted BFD control packet by the initiator is to have "your discriminator" corresponding to destination IPv4 address or router ID. Initiator is to use following procedures to construct BFD control packets to perform IP full reachability validations on BFD packets that are IP routed: o MUST set "your discriminator" to target IPv4 address or target router-id. o If packet is to be explicitly label switched, then explicit label switching packet format described in [I-D.akiya-bfd-seamless-base] MUST be used. Otherwise IP routing packet format described in [I-D.akiya-bfd-seamless-base] MUST be used. 5.2. Responder Behavior To respond to received BFD control packet which was targeted to local BFD target identifier of type 1 (IP address or router-id), response BFD control packet is targeted to IP address taken from received "source IP address". Responder MUST validate obtained IP address is in valid format (ex: not Martian address). Responder MUST consult local routing table to ensure obtained IP address is reachable. 6. Partial Reachability Validations Procedures described in [I-D.akiya-bfd-seamless-base] applies. 7. MPLS Label Verifications MPLS label verification mechanism is applicable to those IP based BFD which use explicit label switching techniques. However, details of what responder embeds in the lower 23 bits of localhost address, and how initiator determines correctness of label programming is outside the scope of this document. 8. Provisioning Active IP Sessions Active IP BFD sessions, single-hop, multi-hop or MPLS can be instantiated on any network node to any IPv4 target addresses and OSPFv3 router IDs using this mechanism. This style of usage is particularly useful only if one side is required to perform full reachability validations (ex: static route, uni-directional tunnel). Akiya, et al. Expires December 9, 2014 [Page 4]

This style of usage is also particularly useful to perform validations and verifications on just subset of LSPs (ex: inter-as, injection of partial BFD reachability validation packet on IPv4 RSVP LSP nodes). 9. Security Considerations Security considerations for BFD are discussed in [RFC5880] and security considerations for S-BFD are discussed in [I-D.akiya-bfd-seamless-base]. 10. IANA Considerations None 11. Acknowledgements Authors would like to thank Marc Binderberger from for providing valuable comments. 12. Contributing Authors Tarek Saad Email: tsaad@cisco.com Siva Sivabalan Email: msiva@cisco.com Nagendra Kumar Email: naikumar@cisco.com 13. Normative References [I-D.akiya-bfd-seamless-base] Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Bhatia, M., and J. Networks, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)", draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base-03 (work in progress), April 2014. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010. Akiya, et al. Expires December 9, 2014 [Page 5]

Authors Addresses Nobo Akiya Email: nobo@cisco.com Carlos Pignataro Email: cpignata@cisco.com Dave Ward Email: wardd@cisco.com Akiya, et al. Expires December 9, 2014 [Page 6]