| Rfc | 7880 |
|---|
| Title | Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) |
|---|
| Author | C. Pignataro,
D. Ward, N. Akiya, M. Bhatia, S. Pallagatti |
|---|
| Date | July 2016 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Updates | RFC5880 |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|---|
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Pignataro
Request for Comments: 7880 D. Ward
Updates: 5880 Cisco
Category: Standards Track N. Akiya
ISSN: 2070-1721 Big Switch Networks
M. Bhatia
Ionos Networks
S. Pallagatti
July 2016
Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)
Abstract
This document defines Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(S-BFD), a simplified mechanism for using BFD with a large proportion
of negotiation aspects eliminated, thus providing benefits such as
quick provisioning, as well as improved control and flexibility for
network nodes initiating path monitoring.
This document updates RFC 5880.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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 ....................................................4
2. Terminology .....................................................4
3. Seamless BFD Overview ...........................................6
4. S-BFD Discriminators ............................................7
4.1. S-BFD Discriminator Uniqueness .............................7
4.2. Discriminator Pools ........................................7
5. Reflector BFD Session ...........................................8
6. State Variables .................................................9
6.1. New State Variables ........................................9
6.2. State Variable Initialization and Maintenance ..............9
7. S-BFD Procedures ...............................................10
7.1. Demultiplexing of S-BFD Control Packet ....................10
7.2. Responder Procedures ......................................11
7.2.1. Responder Demultiplexing ...........................11
7.2.2. Transmission of S-BFD Control Packet by
SBFDReflector ......................................11
7.2.3. Additional SBFDReflector Behaviors .................12
7.3. Initiator Procedures ......................................13
7.3.1. SBFDInitiator State Machine ........................14
7.3.2. Transmission of S-BFD Control Packet by
SBFDInitiator ......................................15
7.3.3. Additional SBFDInitiator Behaviors .................15
7.4. Diagnostic Values .........................................16
7.5. The Poll Sequence .........................................16
8. Operational Considerations .....................................16
8.1. Scaling Aspect ............................................17
8.2. Congestion Considerations .................................17
9. Co-existence with Classical BFD Sessions .......................17
10. S-BFD Echo Function ...........................................18
11. Security Considerations .......................................19
12. References ....................................................20
12.1. Normative References .....................................20
12.2. Informative References ...................................20
Appendix A. Loop Problem and Solution .............................22
Acknowledgements ..................................................23
Contributors ......................................................23
Authors' Addresses ................................................24
1. Introduction
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD), as described in [RFC5880]
and related documents, has efficiently generalized the failure
detection mechanism for multiple protocols and applications. There
are some improvements that can be made to better fit existing
technologies. There is a possibility of evolving BFD to better fit
new technologies. This document focuses on several aspects of BFD in
order to further improve efficiency, expand failure detection
coverage, and allow BFD usage for wider scenarios. Additional use
cases are listed in [RFC7882].
Specifically, this document defines Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (S-BFD), a simplified mechanism for using BFD with a large
proportion of negotiation aspects eliminated, thus providing benefits
such as quick provisioning, as well as improved control and
flexibility for network nodes initiating path monitoring. S-BFD
enables cases benefiting from the use of core BFD technologies in a
fashion that leverages existing implementations and protocol
machinery while providing a rather simplified and largely stateless
infrastructure for continuity testing.
One key aspect of the mechanism described in this document eliminates
the time between a network node wanting to perform a continuity test
and completing the continuity test. In traditional BFD terms, the
initial state changes from DOWN to UP are virtually nonexistent.
Removal of this "seam" (i.e., time delay) in BFD provides a smooth
and continuous operational experience for applications. Therefore,
"Seamless BFD" (S-BFD) has been chosen as the name for this
mechanism.
2. Terminology
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].
The reader is expected to be familiar with the BFD [RFC5880], IP
[RFC791] [RFC2460], and MPLS [RFC3031] terms and protocol constructs.
The remainder of this section describes several new terms introduced
by S-BFD.
o Classical BFD - BFD session types based on [RFC5880].
o S-BFD - Seamless BFD.
o S-BFD Control packet - a BFD Control packet for the S-BFD
mechanism.
o S-BFD Echo packet - a BFD Echo packet for the S-BFD mechanism.
o S-BFD packet - a BFD Control packet or a BFD Echo packet.
o Entity - a function on a network node to which the S-BFD mechanism
allows remote network nodes to perform continuity tests. An
entity can be abstract (e.g., reachability) or specific (e.g., IP
addresses, Router-IDs, functions).
o SBFDInitiator - an S-BFD session on a network node that performs a
continuity test to a remote entity by sending S-BFD packets.
o SBFDReflector - an S-BFD session on a network node that listens
for incoming S-BFD Control packets to local entities and generates
response S-BFD Control packets.
o Reflector BFD session - synonymous with SBFDReflector.
o S-BFD Discriminator - a BFD Discriminator allocated for a local
entity. An SBFDReflector listens for S-BFD Discriminators.
o BFD Discriminator - a BFD Discriminator allocated for an
SBFDInitiator.
o Initiator - a network node hosting an SBFDInitiator.
o Responder - a network node hosting an SBFDReflector.
Figure 1 describes the relationship between S-BFD terms.
+---------------------+ +------------------------+
| Initiator | | Responder |
| +-----------------+ | | +-----------------+ |
| | SBFDInitiator |---S-BFD Ctrl pkt----->| SBFDReflector | |
| | +-------------+ |<--S-BFD Ctrl pkt------| +-------------+ | |
| | | BFD Discrim | | | | | |S-BFD Discrim| | |
| | | | |---S-BFD Echo pkt---+ | | | | |
| | +-------------+ | | | | | +----------^--+ | |
| +-----------------+<-------------------+ +------------|----+ |
| | | | |
| | | +---v----+ |
| | | | Entity | |
| | | +--------+ |
+---------------------+ +------------------------+
Figure 1: S-BFD Terminology Relationship
3. Seamless BFD Overview
An S-BFD module on each network node allocates one or more S-BFD
Discriminators for local entities and creates a Reflector BFD
session. Allocated S-BFD Discriminators may be advertised by
applications (e.g., OSPF/IS-IS). The required result is that
applications on other network nodes will know about the S-BFD
Discriminators allocated by a remote node to remote entities. The
Reflector BFD session, upon receiving an S-BFD Control packet
targeted to one of the local S-BFD Discriminator values, is to
transmit a response S-BFD Control packet back to the initiator.
Once the above setup is complete, any network node that knows about
the S-BFD Discriminator allocated by a remote node to a remote entity
or entities can quickly perform a continuity test to the remote
entity by simply sending S-BFD Control packets with a corresponding
S-BFD Discriminator value in the Your Discriminator field.
This is exemplified in Figure 2.
<------- IS-IS Network ------->
+---------+
| |
A---------B---------C---------D
^ ^
| |
System-ID System-ID
xxx yyy
BFD Discrim BFD Discrim
123 456
Figure 2: S-BFD for IS-IS Network
An S-BFD module in a system with IS-IS System-ID xxx (Node A)
allocates an S-BFD Discriminator 123, and IS-IS advertises the S-BFD
Discriminator 123 in an IS-IS TLV. An S-BFD module in a system with
IS-IS System-ID yyy (Node D) allocates an S-BFD Discriminator 456,
and IS-IS advertises the S-BFD Discriminator 456 in an IS-IS TLV. A
Reflector BFD session is created on both network nodes (Node A and
Node D). When Node A wants to check the reachability of Node D,
Node A can send an S-BFD Control packet destined to Node D with the
Your Discriminator field set to 456. When the Reflector BFD session
on Node D receives this S-BFD Control packet, then a response S-BFD
Control packet is sent back to Node A, which allows Node A to
complete the continuity test.
When a node allocates multiple S-BFD Discriminators, how remote nodes
determine which of the discriminators is associated with a specific
entity is currently unspecified. The use of multiple S-BFD
Discriminators by a single network node is therefore discouraged
until a means of learning the mapping is defined.
4. S-BFD Discriminators
4.1. S-BFD Discriminator Uniqueness
One important characteristic of an S-BFD Discriminator is that it
MUST be unique within an administrative domain. If multiple network
nodes allocate the same S-BFD Discriminator value, then S-BFD Control
packets falsely terminating on a wrong network node can result in a
Reflector BFD session generating a response back because of a
matching Your Discriminator value. This is clearly not desirable.
4.2. Discriminator Pools
This subsection describes a discriminator pool implementation
technique to minimize S-BFD Discriminator collisions. This technique
will allow an implementation to better satisfy the S-BFD
Discriminator uniqueness requirement defined in Section 4.1.
o An SBFDInitiator is to allocate a discriminator from the BFD
Discriminator pool. If the system also supports classical BFD
(i.e., implements [RFC5880]), then the BFD Discriminator pool
SHOULD be shared by SBFDInitiator sessions and classical BFD
sessions.
o An SBFDReflector is to allocate a discriminator from the S-BFD
Discriminator pool. The S-BFD Discriminator pool SHOULD be a
separate pool from the BFD Discriminator pool.
The remainder of this subsection describes the reasons for the
suggestions above.
Locally allocated S-BFD Discriminator values for entities that
SBFDReflector sessions are listening for may be arbitrarily allocated
or derived from values provided by applications. These values may be
protocol IDs (e.g., System-ID, Router-ID) or network targets (e.g.,
IP address). To avoid derived S-BFD Discriminator values already
being assigned to other BFD sessions (i.e., SBFDInitiator sessions
and classical BFD sessions), it is RECOMMENDED that the discriminator
pool for SBFDReflector sessions be separate from other BFD sessions.
Even when following the "separate discriminator pool" approach, a
collision is still possible between different S-BFD applications that
may be using different values and algorithms to derive S-BFD
Discriminator values. If two applications are using S-BFD for the
same purpose (e.g., network reachability), then the colliding S-BFD
Discriminator value can be shared. If the two applications are using
S-BFD for a different purpose, then the collision must be addressed.
The use of multiple S-BFD Discriminators by a single network node,
however, is discouraged (see Section 3).
5. Reflector BFD Session
Each network node creates one or more Reflector BFD sessions. This
Reflector BFD session is a session that transmits S-BFD Control
packets in response to received S-BFD Control packets with the
Your Discriminator field having S-BFD Discriminators allocated for
local entities. Specifically, this Reflector BFD session has the
following characteristics:
o MUST NOT transmit any S-BFD packets based on local timer expiry.
o MUST transmit an S-BFD Control packet in response to a received
S-BFD Control packet having a valid S-BFD Discriminator in the
Your Discriminator field, unless prohibited by local policies
(e.g., administrative, security, rate-limiter).
o MUST be capable of sending only two states: UP and AdminDown.
One Reflector BFD session may be responsible for handling received
S-BFD Control packets targeted to all locally allocated S-BFD
Discriminators, or a few Reflector BFD sessions may each be
responsible for a subset of locally allocated S-BFD Discriminators.
This policy is a local matter and is outside the scope of this
document.
Note that incoming S-BFD Control packets may be based on IPv4, IPv6,
or MPLS [RFC7881]. Note also that other options are possible and may
be defined in future documents. How such S-BFD Control packets reach
an appropriate Reflector BFD session is also a local matter and is
outside the scope of this document.
6. State Variables
S-BFD introduces new state variables and modifies the usage of
existing ones.
6.1. New State Variables
A new state variable is added to the base specification in support
of S-BFD.
o bfd.SessionType: This is a new state variable that describes
the type of a particular session. Allowable values for S-BFD
sessions are:
* SBFDInitiator - an S-BFD session on a network node that
performs a continuity test to a target entity by sending S-BFD
packets.
* SBFDReflector - an S-BFD session on a network node that listens
for incoming S-BFD Control packets to local entities and
generates response S-BFD Control packets.
The bfd.SessionType variable MUST be initialized to the appropriate
type when an S-BFD session is created.
6.2. State Variable Initialization and Maintenance
State variables (defined in Section 6.8.1 of [RFC5880]) need to
be initialized or manipulated differently, depending on the
session type.
o bfd.DemandMode: This variable MUST be initialized to 1 for session
type SBFDInitiator and MUST be initialized to 0 for session type
SBFDReflector. This is done to prevent loops (see Appendix A).
7. S-BFD Procedures
7.1. Demultiplexing of S-BFD Control Packet
An S-BFD packet MUST be demultiplexed with lower-layer information
(e.g., dedicated destination UDP port [RFC7881], associated Channel
Type [RFC7885]). The following procedure SHOULD be executed on both
initiator and reflector:
If the packet is an S-BFD packet
If the S-BFD packet is for an SBFDReflector
The packet MUST be looked up to locate a corresponding
SBFDReflector session based on the value from the
Your Discriminator field in the table describing S-BFD
Discriminators.
Else
The packet MUST be looked up to locate a corresponding
SBFDInitiator session or classical BFD session based on the
value from the Your Discriminator field in the table
describing BFD Discriminators. If no match, then the
received packet MUST be discarded.
If the session is an SBFDInitiator session
The destination of the packet (i.e., the destination IP
address) SHOULD be verified as being for itself.
Else
The packet MUST be discarded.
Else
The procedure described in Section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880] MUST be
applied.
More details on S-BFD Control packet demultiplexing are provided in
relevant S-BFD data-plane documents.
7.2. Responder Procedures
A network node that receives S-BFD Control packets transmitted by an
initiator is referred to as the responder. The responder, upon
reception of S-BFD Control packets, is to verify the validity of the
packets, as described in [RFC5880].
7.2.1. Responder Demultiplexing
An S-BFD packet MUST be demultiplexed with lower-layer information.
The following procedure SHOULD be executed by the responder:
If the Your Discriminator field is not one of the entries
allocated for local entities
The packet MUST be discarded.
Else
The packet is determined to be handled by a Reflector BFD
session responsible for that S-BFD Discriminator.
If allowable per local policy (e.g., administrative, security,
rate-limiter)
The chosen Reflector BFD session SHOULD transmit a response
BFD Control packet using the procedures described in
Section 7.2.2.
7.2.2. Transmission of S-BFD Control Packet by SBFDReflector
The contents of S-BFD Control packets sent by an SBFDReflector MUST
be set as per Section 6.8.7 of [RFC5880]. There are a few fields
that need to be set differently from [RFC5880], as follows:
State (Sta)
Set to bfd.SessionState (either UP or AdminDown only).
Clarification of Reflector BFD session state is described in
Section 7.2.3.
Demand (D)
Set to 0, to indicate that the S-BFD packet is sent by the
SBFDReflector.
Detect Mult
Value to be copied from the Detection Multiplier field of the
received BFD packet.
My Discriminator
Value to be copied from the Your Discriminator field of the
received BFD packet.
Your Discriminator
Value to be copied from the My Discriminator field of the
received BFD packet.
Desired Min TX Interval
Value to be copied from the Desired Min TX Interval field of
the received BFD packet.
Required Min RX Interval
Set to bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval. Value indicating the minimum
interval, in microseconds, between received S-BFD Control
packets. Further details are provided in Section 7.2.3.
Required Min Echo RX Interval
If the device supports looping back S-BFD Echo packets
Set to the minimum required S-BFD Echo packet receive
interval for this session.
Else
Set to 0.
7.2.3. Additional SBFDReflector Behaviors
o S-BFD Control packets transmitted by the SBFDReflector MUST have
Required Min RX Interval set to a value that expresses, in
microseconds, the minimum interval between incoming S-BFD Control
packets that this SBFDReflector can handle. The SBFDReflector can
control how fast SBFDInitiators will be sending S-BFD Control
packets to themselves by ensuring that Required Min RX Interval
indicates a value based on the current load.
o When the SBFDReflector receives an S-BFD Control packet from an
SBFDInitiator, then the SBFDReflector needs to determine what
"state" to send in the response S-BFD Control packet. If the
monitored local entity is in service, then the state MUST be set
to UP. If the monitored local entity is "temporarily out of
service", then the state SHOULD be set to AdminDown.
o If an SBFDReflector receives an S-BFD Control packet with the
Demand (D) bit cleared, the packet MUST be discarded (see
Appendix A).
7.3. Initiator Procedures
S-BFD Control packets transmitted by an SBFDInitiator MUST set the
Your Discriminator field to an S-BFD Discriminator corresponding to
the remote entity.
Every SBFDInitiator MUST have a locally unique My Discriminator value
allocated from the BFD Discriminator pool.
Figure 3 describes the high-level concept of continuity testing using
S-BFD. R2 allocates XX as the S-BFD Discriminator for network
reachability purposes and advertises XX to neighbors. Figure 3 shows
R1 and R4 performing a continuity test to R2.
+--- md=50/yd=XX (ping) ----+
| |
|+-- md=XX/yd=50 (pong) --+ |
|| | |
|v | v
R1 ==================== R2[*] ========= R3 ========= R4
| ^ |^
| | ||
| +-- md=60/yd=XX (ping) --+|
| |
+---- md=XX/yd=60 (pong) ---+
[*] Reflector BFD session on R2.
=== Links connecting network nodes.
--- S-BFD Control packet traversal.
Figure 3: S-BFD Continuity Test
7.3.1. SBFDInitiator State Machine
An SBFDInitiator may be a "persistent" session on the initiator with
a timer for S-BFD Control packet transmissions (stateful
SBFDInitiator). An SBFDInitiator may also be a module, a script, or
a tool on the initiator that transmits one or more S-BFD Control
packets "when needed" (stateless SBFDInitiator). For stateless
SBFDInitiators, a complete BFD state machine may not be applicable.
For stateful SBFDInitiators, the states and the state machine
described in [RFC5880] will not function due to the SBFDReflector
session only sending the UP and AdminDown states (i.e., the
SBFDReflector session does not send the INIT state). The following
diagram provides the RECOMMENDED state machine for stateful
SBFDInitiators. The notation on each arc represents the state of the
SBFDInitiator (as received in the State field in the S-BFD Control
packet) or indicates the expiration of the Detection Timer. See
Figure 4.
+--+
ADMIN DOWN, | |
TIMER | V
+------+ UP +------+
| |-------------------->| |----+
| DOWN | | UP | | UP
| |<--------------------| |<---+
+------+ ADMIN DOWN, +------+
TIMER
Figure 4: SBFDInitiator Finite State Machine
Note that the above state machine is different from the base BFD
specification [RFC5880]. This is because the INIT state is no longer
applicable for the SBFDInitiator. Another important difference is
the transition of the state machine from the DOWN state to the UP
state when a packet with an UP state setting is received by the
SBFDInitiator. The definitions of the states and events have the
same meanings as those defined in the base BFD specification
[RFC5880].
7.3.2. Transmission of S-BFD Control Packet by SBFDInitiator
The contents of S-BFD Control packets sent by an SBFDInitiator MUST
be set as per Section 6.8.7 of [RFC5880]. There are a few fields
that need to be set differently from [RFC5880], as follows:
Demand (D)
Used to indicate that the S-BFD packet originated from the
SBFDInitiator. Always set to 1.
Your Discriminator
Set to bfd.RemoteDiscr. bfd.RemoteDiscr is set to the
Discriminator value of the remote entity. It MAY be learnt
from routing protocols or configured locally.
Required Min RX Interval
Set to 0.
Required Min Echo RX Interval
Set to 0.
7.3.3. Additional SBFDInitiator Behaviors
o If the SBFDInitiator receives a valid S-BFD Control packet in
response to a transmitted S-BFD Control packet to a remote entity,
then the SBFDInitiator SHOULD conclude that the S-BFD Control
packet reached the intended remote entity.
o When an SBFDInitiator receives a response S-BFD Control packet, if
the state specified is AdminDown, the SBFDInitiator MUST NOT
conclude that the reachability of the corresponding remote entity
is lost and MUST back off the packet transmission interval for the
remote entity to an interval no faster than 1 second.
o When a sufficient number of S-BFD packets have not arrived as they
should, the SBFDInitiator SHOULD declare loss of reachability to
the remote entity. The criteria for declaring loss of
reachability and the action that would be triggered as a result
are outside the scope of this document; the action MAY include
logging an error.
o Regarding the third bullet item, it is critical for an
implementation to understand the latency to/from the Reflector BFD
session on the responder. In other words, for the very first
S-BFD packet transmitted by the SBFDInitiator, an implementation
MUST NOT expect a response S-BFD packet to be received for a time
equivalent to the sum of the latencies: initiator to responder and
responder back to initiator.
o If the SBFDInitiator receives an S-BFD Control packet with the
Demand (D) bit set, the packet MUST be discarded (see Appendix A).
7.4. Diagnostic Values
The diagnostic value in both directions MAY be set to a certain
value, to attempt to communicate further information to both ends.
Implementations MAY use the already-existing diagnostic values
defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC5880]. However, details regarding this
topic are outside the scope of this specification.
7.5. The Poll Sequence
The Poll Sequence MAY be used in both directions. The Poll Sequence
MUST operate in accordance with [RFC5880]. An SBFDReflector MAY use
the Poll Sequence to slow down the rate at which S-BFD Control
packets are generated from an SBFDInitiator. This is done by the
SBFDReflector, using the procedures described in Section 7.2.3 and
setting the Poll (P) bit in the reflected S-BFD Control packet. The
SBFDInitiator is to then send the next S-BFD Control packet with the
Final (F) bit set. If an SBFDReflector receives an S-BFD Control
packet with the P bit set, then the SBFDReflector MUST respond with
an S-BFD Control packet with the P bit cleared and the F bit set.
8. Operational Considerations
S-BFD provides a smooth and continuous (i.e., seamless) operational
experience as an Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
mechanism for connectivity checking and connection verification.
This is achieved by providing a simplified mechanism with a large
proportion of negotiation aspects eliminated, resulting in faster and
simpler provisioning.
Because of this simplified mechanism, due to a misconfiguration an
SBFDInitiator could send S-BFD Control packets to a target that does
not exist or that is outside the S-BFD administrative domain. As
explained in Section 7.3.1, an SBFDInitiator can be a persistent
initiator or a "when needed" one. When an S-BFD persistent
SBFDInitiator is used, a deployment SHOULD ensure that S-BFD Control
packets do not propagate for an extended period of time outside of
the administrative domain that uses it. Further, operational
measures SHOULD be taken to determine if responses to S-BFD packets
are not sent for an extended period of time and then remediate the
situation. These potential concerns are largely mitigated by dynamic
advertisement mechanisms for S-BFD and with automation checks before
applying configurations.
8.1. Scaling Aspect
This mechanism brings forth one noticeable difference in terms of the
scaling aspect: the number of SBFDReflectors. This specification
eliminates the need for egress nodes to have fully active BFD
sessions when only one side desires to perform continuity tests.
With the introduction of the Reflector BFD concept, egress is no
longer required to create any active BFD sessions on a per-path/LSP/
function basis. Because of this, the total number of BFD sessions in
a network is reduced.
8.2. Congestion Considerations
When S-BFD performs failure detection, it consumes resources,
including bandwidth and CPU processing. To avoid congestion, it is
therefore imperative that operators correctly provision the rates at
which S-BFD packets are transmitted. When BFD is used across
multiple hops, a congestion control mechanism MUST be implemented,
and when congestion is detected, the BFD implementation MUST reduce
the amount of traffic it generates. The exact mechanism used to
detect congestion is outside the scope of this specification but may
include the detection of lost BFD Control packets or other means.
The SBFDReflector can limit the rate at which SBFDInitiators will be
sending S-BFD Control packets by utilizing Required Min RX Interval,
but at the expense of detection time (i.e., detection time will
increase).
9. Co-existence with Classical BFD Sessions
Demultiplexing requirements for the initial packet are described in
Section 7.1. Because of this, the S-BFD mechanism can co-exist with
classical BFD sessions.
10. S-BFD Echo Function
The concept of the S-BFD Echo function is similar to the BFD Echo
function described in [RFC5880]. S-BFD Echo packets have the
destination of "self"; thus, S-BFD Echo packets are self-generated
and self-terminated after traversing a link/path. S-BFD Echo packets
are expected to U-turn on the target node in the data plane and
MUST NOT be processed by any Reflector BFD sessions on the
target node.
When using the S-BFD Echo function, it is RECOMMENDED that:
o Both S-BFD Control packets and S-BFD Echo packets be sent.
o Both S-BFD Control packets and S-BFD Echo packets have the same
semantics in the forward direction to reach the target node.
In other words, it is not preferable to send just S-BFD Echo packets
without also sending S-BFD Control packets. There are two reasons
behind this suggestion:
o S-BFD Control packets can verify the reachability of the intended
target node; this allows one to have confidence that S-BFD Echo
packets are U-turning on the expected target node.
o S-BFD Control packets can detect when the target node is going out
of service (i.e., by receiving AdminDown state).
S-BFD Echo packets can be spoofed and can U-turn in a transit node
before reaching the expected target node. When the S-BFD Echo
function is used, it is RECOMMENDED in this specification that both
S-BFD Control packets and S-BFD Echo packets be sent. While the
additional use of S-BFD Control packets alleviates these two
concerns, some form of authentication MAY still be included.
The usage of the Required Min Echo RX Interval field is described in
Sections 7.2.2 and 7.3.2. Because of the stateless nature of
SBFDReflector sessions, a value specified in the Required Min Echo RX
Interval field is not very meaningful to the SBFDReflector. Thus, it
is RECOMMENDED that the Required Min Echo RX Interval field simply be
set to zero by the SBFDInitiator. The SBFDReflector MAY set the
Required Min Echo RX Interval field to an appropriate value to
control the rate at which it wants to receive S-BFD Echo packets.
The following aspects of S-BFD Echo functions are left as
implementation details and are outside the scope of this document:
o Format of the S-BFD Echo packet (e.g., data beyond UDP header).
o Procedures on when and how to use the S-BFD Echo function.
11. Security Considerations
The same security considerations as those described in [RFC5880]
apply to this document. Additionally, implementing the following
measures will strengthen security aspects of the mechanism described
by this document:
o The SBFDInitiator MAY pick a sequence number to be set in
"sequence number" in the Authentication Section, based on the
configured authentication mode.
o The SBFDReflector MUST NOT use the crypto sequence number to make
a decision about accepting the packet. This is because the
SBFDReflector does not maintain S-BFD peer state and because the
SBFDReflector can receive S-BFD packets from multiple
SBFDInitiators. Consequently, BFD authentication can be used, but
not the sequence number.
o The SBFDReflector MAY use the Auth Key ID in the incoming packet
to verify the Authentication Data.
o The SBFDReflector MUST accept the packet if authentication is
successful.
o The SBFDReflector MUST compute the Authentication Data and MUST
use the same sequence number that it received in the S-BFD Control
packet to which it is responding.
o The SBFDInitiator SHOULD accept an S-BFD Control packet with a
sequence number within the permissible range. One potential
approach is the procedure explained in [BFD-GEN-AUTH].
Using the above method,
o SBFDReflectors continue to remain stateless, despite using
security.
o SBFDReflectors are not susceptible to replay attacks, as they
always respond to S-BFD Control packets irrespective of the
sequence number carried.
o An attacker cannot impersonate the responder, since the
SBFDInitiator will only accept S-BFD Control packets that come
with the sequence number that it had originally used when sending
the S-BFD Control packet.
Additionally, the use of strong forms of authentication is strongly
encouraged for S-BFD. The use of Simple Password authentication
[RFC5880] potentially puts other services at risk if S-BFD packets
can be intercepted and those password values are reused for other
services.
Considerations related to loop problems are covered in Appendix A.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
12.2. Informative References
[BFD-GEN-AUTH]
Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Zhang, D., and M. Jethanandani,
"BFD Generic Cryptographic Authentication", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-bfd-generic-crypto-auth-06,
April 2014.
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC791, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC7881] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., and N. Akiya, "Seamless
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6,
and MPLS", RFC 7881, DOI 10.17487/RFC7881, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7881>.
[RFC7882] Aldrin, S., Pignataro, C., Mirsky, G., and N. Kumar,
"Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Use
Cases", RFC 7882, DOI 10.17487/RFC7882, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7882>.
[RFC7885] Govindan, V. and C. Pignataro, "Seamless Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 7885,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7885, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7885>.
Appendix A. Loop Problem and Solution
Consider a scenario where we have two nodes and both are S-BFD
capable.
Node A (IP 2001:db8::1) ----------------- Node B (IP 2001:db8::2)
|
|
Man in the Middle (MITM)
Assume that Node A reserved a discriminator 0x01010101 for target
identifier 2001:db8::1 and has a reflector session in listening mode.
Similarly, Node B reserved a discriminator 0x02020202 for its target
identifier 2001:db8::2 and also has a reflector session in
listening mode.
Suppose that a MITM sends a spoofed packet with My Discriminator =
0x01010101, Your Discriminator = 0x02020202, source IP as
2001:db8::1, and destination IP as 2001:db8::2. When this packet
reaches Node B, the reflector session on Node B will swap the
discriminators and IP addresses of the received packet and reflect it
back, since the Your Discriminator value of the received packet
matches the reserved discriminator of Node B. The reflected packet
that reached Node A will have My Discriminator = 0x02020202 and
Your Discriminator = 0x01010101. Since the Your Discriminator value
of the received packet matches the reserved discriminator of Node A,
Node A will swap the discriminators and reflect the packet back to
Node B. Since the reflectors must set the TTL of the reflected
packets to 255, the above scenario will result in an infinite loop
because of just one malicious packet injected from the MITM.
The solution is to avoid the loop problem by using the D bit (Demand
mode bit). The initiator always sets the D bit, and the reflector
always clears it. This way, we can determine if a received packet
was a reflected packet and avoid reflecting it back.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jeffrey Haas, Greg Mirsky, Marc
Binderberger, and Alvaro Retana for performing thorough reviews and
providing a number of suggestions. The authors would also like to
thank Girija Raghavendra Rao, Les Ginsberg, Srihari Raghavan, Vanitha
Neelamegam, and Vengada Prasad Govindan from Cisco Systems for
providing valuable comments. Finally, the authors would also like to
thank John E. Drake and Pablo Frank for providing comments and
suggestions.
Contributors
The following are key contributors to this document:
Tarek Saad, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Siva Sivabalan, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Nagendra Kumar, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Mallik Mudigonda, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Sam Aldrin, Google
Authors' Addresses
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Dave Ward
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: wardd@cisco.com
Nobo Akiya
Big Switch Networks
Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com
Manav Bhatia
Ionos Networks
Email: manav@ionosnetworks.com
Santosh Pallagatti
Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com