From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: WG Review: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd)
The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd) WG 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@ietf.org) by 2024-10-24.
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current status: Active WG
Chairs:
Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>
Assigned Area Director:
John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Routing Area Directors:
John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Jim Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
Gunter Van de Velde <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>
Technical advisors:
Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
Mailing list:
Address: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd
Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/
Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/bfd/
Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bfd/
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.
6. Extend BFD to allow it to detect whether a path between two systems
is capable of carrying a payload of a particular size.
7. Define a use of the BFD Echo where the local system supports BFD but
the adjacent system does not support BFD.
8. Provide an optimization to BFD authentication to reduce computational
demand while still providing desirable security properties.
9. Provide a Meticulous Keyed mode for BFD authentication.
10. Define experimental extensions to measure BFD stability.
The working group will maintain a relationship with the MPLS working group.
Milestones:
WG action announcement
WG Action Announcement
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>,
bfd-chairs@ietf.org,
rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: WG Action: Rechartered Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd)
The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd) WG 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:
Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>
Assigned Area Director:
John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Routing Area Directors:
John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Jim Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
Gunter Van de Velde <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>
Technical advisors:
Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
Mailing list:
Address: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd
Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/
Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/bfd/
Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bfd/
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. 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.
2. Extend BFD to allow it to detect whether a path between two systems
is capable of carrying a payload of a particular size.
3. Define a use of the BFD Echo where the local system supports BFD but
the adjacent system does not support BFD.
4. Provide an optimization to BFD authentication to reduce computational
demand while still providing desirable security properties.
5. Provide a Meticulous Keyed mode for BFD authentication.
6. Define experimental extensions to measure BFD stability.
The working group will maintain a relationship with the MPLS working group.
Milestones:
Dec 2024 - Extend BFD to allow it to detect whether a path between two
systems is capable of carrying a payload of a particular size.
Dec 2024 - Define a use of the BFD Echo where the local system supports BFD
but the adjacent system does not support BFD.
Jun 2025 - Provide an optimization to BFD authentication to reduce
computational demand while still providing desirable security properties.
Jun 2025 - Provide a Meticulous Keyed mode for BFD authentication.
Jun 2025 - Define experimental extensions to measure BFD stability.
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)