From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: WG Review: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd)
The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd) working group in the Routing
Area of the IETF is undergoing rechartering. The IESG has not made any
determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is
provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to
the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-12-07.
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Active WG
Chairs:
Nobo Akiya <nobo@cisco.com>
Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Technical advisors:
Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
Assigned Area Director:
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Mailing list
Address: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
To Subscribe: rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/
Charter:
The BFD Working Group is chartered to standardize and support the
bidirectional forwarding detection protocol (BFD) and its extensions. A
core goal of the working group is to standardize BFD in the context of IP
routing, or protocols such as MPLS that are based on IP routing, in a way
that will encourage multiple, inter-operable vendor implementations. The
Working Group will also provide advice and guidance on BFD to other
working
groups or standards bodies as requested.
BFD is a protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path
between two forwarding engines, including physical interfaces,
subinterfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding
engines themselves, with potentially very low latency. It operates
independently of media, data protocols, and routing protocols. An
additional goal is to provide a single mechanism that can be used for
liveness detection over any media, at any protocol layer, with
a wide range of detection times and overhead, to avoid a proliferation
of different methods.
Important characteristics of BFD include:
- Simple, fixed-field encoding to facilitate implementations in hardware.
- Independence of the data protocol being forwarded between two systems.
BFD packets are carried as the payload of whatever encapsulating
protocol
is appropriate for the medium and network.
- Path independence: BFD can provide failure detection on any kind of
path
between systems, including direct physical links, virtual circuits,
tunnels, MPLS LSPs, multihop routed paths, and unidirectional links (so
long as there is some return path, of course).
- Ability to be bootstrapped by any other protocol that automatically
forms
peer, neighbor or adjacency relationships to seed BFD endpoint
discovery.
The working group is chartered to complete the following work items:
1. Develop the MIB module for BFD and submit it to the IESG for
publication
as a Proposed Standard.
2a. Provide a generic keying-based cryptographic authentication mechanism
for
the BFD protocol in discussion with the KARP working group. This
mechanism
will support authentication through a key identifier for the BFD
session's
Security Association rather than specifying new authentication
extensions.
2b. Provide extensions to the BFD MIB in support of the generic
keying-based
cryptographic authentication mechanism.
2c. Specify cryptographic authentication procedures for the BFD protocol
using HMAC-SHA-256 (possibly truncated to a smaller integrity check
value)
using the generic keying-based cryptographic authentication mechanism.
3. Provide an extension to the BFD core protocol in support of point-to-
multipoint links and networks.
4. Assist the MPLS working group in the standardization of the BFD
protocol
for MPLS-TP. The preferred solution will be interoperable with the
current
BFD specification.
5. Provide one or more mechanisms to run BFD over Link Aggregation Group
Interfaces.
6. Provide an informational document to recommend standardized timers and
timer operations for BFD when used in different applications.
The working group will maintain a relationship with the KARP and MPLS
working groups, and will communicate with the IEEE with respect to BFD
over LAGs.
Milestones:
WG action announcement
WG Action Announcement
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: WG Action: Rechartered Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd)
The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd) working group in the Routing
Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information please
contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Active WG
Chairs:
Nobo Akiya <nobo@cisco.com>
Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Technical advisors:
Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
Assigned Area Director:
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Mailing list
Address: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
To Subscribe: rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/
Charter:
The BFD Working Group is chartered to standardize and support the
bidirectional forwarding detection protocol (BFD) and its extensions. A
core goal of the working group is to standardize BFD in the context of
IP routing, or protocols such as MPLS that are based on IP routing, in a
way that will encourage multiple, inter-operable vendor implementations.
The Working Group will also provide advice and guidance on BFD to other
working groups or standards bodies as requested.
BFD is a protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path
between two forwarding engines, including physical interfaces,
subinterfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding
engines themselves, with potentially very low latency. It operates
independently of media, data protocols, and routing protocols. An
additional goal is to provide a single mechanism that can be used for
liveness detection over any media, at any protocol layer, with
a wide range of detection times and overhead, to avoid a proliferation
of different methods.
Important characteristics of BFD include:
- Simple, fixed-field encoding to facilitate implementations in
hardware.
- Independence of the data protocol being forwarded between two systems.
BFD packets are carried as the payload of whatever encapsulating
protocol is appropriate for the medium and network.
- Path independence: BFD can provide failure detection on any kind of
path between systems, including direct physical links, virtual
circuits, tunnels, MPLS LSPs, multihop routed paths, and
unidirectional links (so long as there is some return path, of
course).
- Ability to be bootstrapped by any other protocol that automatically
forms peer, neighbor or adjacency relationships to seed BFD endpoint
discovery.
The working group is currently chartered to complete the following work
items:
1. Develop further MIB modules for BFD and submit them to the IESG for
publication as Proposed Standards.
2a. Provide a generic keying-based cryptographic authentication
mechanism for the BFD protocol developing the work of the KARP
working group. This mechanism will support authentication through
a key identifier for the BFD session's Security Association rather
than specifying new authentication extensions.
2b. Provide extensions to the BFD MIB in support of the generic keying-
based cryptographic authentication mechanism.
2c. Specify cryptographic authentication procedures for the BFD protocol
using HMAC-SHA-256 (possibly truncated to a smaller integrity check
value but not beyond commonly accepted lengths to ensure security) using
the generic keying-based cryptographic authentication mechanism.
3. Provide an extension to the BFD core protocol in support of point-to-
multipoint links and networks.
4. Provide an informational document to recommend standardized timers
and timer operations for BFD when used in different applications.
5. Define a mechanism to perform single-ended path (i.e. continuity)
verification based on the BFD specification. Allow such a mechanism to
work both proactively and on-demand, without prominent initial delay.
Allow the mechanism to maintain multiple sessions to a target entity and
between the same pair of network entities. In doing this work, the WG
will work closely with at least the following other WGs: ISIS, OSPF,
SPRING.
The working group will maintain a relationship with the MPLS working
group.
Milestones:
Done - Submit the base protocol specification to the IESG to be
considered as a Proposed Standard
Done - Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for single-hop
IPv4 and IPv6 adjacencies to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed
Standard
Done - Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for MPLS LSPs to
the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard
Done - Submit BFD encapsulation and usage profile for multi-hop
IPv4 and IPv6 adjacencies to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed
Standard
Done - Submit the BFD MIB to the IESG to be considered as a
Proposed Standard
Done - Submit the BFD over LAG mechanism to the IESG to be
considered as a Proposed Standard
Jun 2014 - Submit the the document on BFD point-to-multipoint support
to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard
Nov 2014 - Submit the BFD MPLS extension MIB to the IESG to be
considered as a Proposed Standard
Jan 2015 - Submit the generic keying based cryptographic authentication
mechanism to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard
Jan 2015 - Submit a BFD MIB extension in support of the generic keying
document to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard
Jan 2015 - Submit the cryptographic authentication procedures for BFD
to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard
Jan 2015 - Submit the BFD Common Intervals document to the IESG to be
considered as an Informational RFC
Ballot announcement
Ballot Announcement
Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
Review, on what date was the request posted?
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'
RFC Editor Note
(Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section)
IRTF Note
(Insert IRTF Note here or remove section)
IESG Note
(Insert IESG Note here or remove section)
IANA Note
(Insert IANA Note here or remove section)