Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications
draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-11
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9468.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Enke Chen , Naiming Shen , Robert Raszuk , Reshad Rahman | ||
| Last updated | 2022-12-15 (Latest revision 2022-11-12) | ||
| Replaces | draft-chen-bfd-unsolicited | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
TSVART IETF Last Call review
by Magnus Westerlund
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Jeffrey Haas | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2022-08-21 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9468 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
(None)
Needs a YES. Needs 7 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | John Scudder | ||
| Send notices to | Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
| IANA expert review state | Expert Reviews OK |
draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-11
Network Working Group E. Chen
Internet-Draft Palo Alto Networks
Updates: 9314 (if approved) N. Shen
Intended status: Standards Track Zededa
Expires: 15 May 2023 R. Raszuk
Arrcus
R. Rahman
Graphiant
11 November 2022
Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications
draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-11
Abstract
For operational simplification of "sessionless" applications using
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD), in this document we present
procedures for "unsolicited BFD" that allow a BFD session to be
initiated by only one side, and established without explicit per-
session configuration or registration by the other side (subject to
certain per-interface or global policies).
We also introduce a new YANG module to configure and manage
"unsolicited BFD". The YANG module in this document is based on YANG
1.1 as defined in RFC 7950 and conforms to the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as described in RFC 8342. This
document updates RFC 9314.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
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 15 May 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Procedures for Unsolicited BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. State Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Unsolicited BFD Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Unsolicited BFD Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. BFD Protocol Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. YANG Module Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The current implementation and deployment practice for BFD ([RFC5880]
and [RFC5881]) usually requires BFD sessions be explicitly configured
or registered on both sides. This requirement is not an issue when
an application like BGP [RFC4271] has the concept of a "session" that
involves both sides for its establishment. However, this requirement
can be operationally challenging when the prerequisite "session" does
not naturally exist between two endpoints in an application.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
Simultaneous configuration and coordination may be required on both
sides for BFD to take effect. For example:
* When BFD is used to keep track of the "liveness" of the nexthop of
static routes. Although only one side may need the BFD
functionality, currently both sides need to be involved in
specific configuration and coordination and in some cases static
routes are created unnecessarily just for BFD.
* When BFD is used to keep track of the "liveness" of the third-pary
nexthop of BGP routes received from the Route Server [RFC7947] at
an Internet Exchange Point (IXP). As the third-party nexthop is
different from the peering address of the Route Server, for BFD to
work, currently two routers peering with the Route Server need to
have routes and nexthops from each other (although indirectly via
the Route Server).
Clearly it is beneficial and desirable to reduce or eliminate
unnecessary configurations and coordination in these "sessionless"
applications using BFD.
In this document we present procedures for "unsolicited BFD" that
allow a BFD session to be initiated by only one side, and established
without explicit per-session configuration or registration by the
other side (subject to certain per-interface or global policies).
Unsolicited BFD impacts only the initiation of BFD sessions. There
is no change to all the other procedures specified in [RFC5880] such
as, but not limited to, the Echo function and Demand mode.
With "unsolicited BFD" there is potential risk for excessive resource
usage by BFD from "unexpected" remote systems. To mitigate such
risks, several mechanisms are recommended in the Security
Considerations section.
The procedure described in this document could be applied to BFD for
Multihop paths [RFC5883]. However, because of security risks, this
document applies only to BFD for single IP hops [RFC5881].
Compared to the "Seamless BFD" [RFC7880], this proposal involves only
minor procedural enhancements to the widely deployed BFD itself.
Thus we believe that this proposal is inherently simpler in the
protocol itself and deployment. As an example, it does not require
the exchange of BFD discriminators over an out-of-band channel before
BFD session bring-up.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
When BGP Add-Path [RFC7911] is deployed at an IXP using a Route
Server, multiple BGP paths (when they exist) can be made available to
the clients of the Route Server as described in [RFC7947]. The
"unsolicited BFD" can be used in BGP route selection by these clients
to eliminate paths with "inaccessible nexthops".
2. Procedures for Unsolicited BFD
With "unsolicited BFD", one side takes the "Active role" and the
other side takes only the "Passive role" as described in [RFC5880],
section 6.1.
Passive unsolicited BFD support MUST be disabled by default, and MUST
require explicit configuration to be enabled. On the passive side,
the desired BFD parameters SHOULD be configurable. The passive side
MAY also choose to use the parameters that the active side uses in
its BFD Control packets. The "My Discriminator", however, MUST be
chosen to allow multiple unsolicited BFD sessions.
The active side starts sending the BFD Control packets as specified
in [RFC5880]. The passive side does not send BFD Control packets
initially, it sends BFD Control packets only after it has received
BFD Control packets from the active side.
When the passive side receives a BFD Control packet from the active
side with 0 as "Your Discriminator" and does not find an existing BFD
session, the passive side MAY create a matching BFD session toward
the active side, if permitted by local configuration and policy.
When the passive side receives an incoming BFD Control packet on a
numbered interfaces, the source address of that packet MUST belong to
the subnet of the interface on which the BFD packet is received. The
source address of the BFD Control packet SHOULD be validated against
expected routing protocol peer addresses on that interface.
The passive side MUST then start sending BFD Control packets and
perform the necessary procedure for bringing up, maintaining and
tearing down the BFD session. If the BFD session fails to get
established within certain specified time, or if an established BFD
session goes down, the passive side SHOULD stop sending BFD Control
packets and MAY delete the BFD session created until BFD Control
packets are initiated by the active side again.
When an Unsolicited BFD session goes down, an implementation MAY
retain the session state for a period of time. Retaining this state
can be useful for operational purposes.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
3. State Variables
This document defines a new state variable called Role.
bfd.Role
The role of the local system during BFD session initialization, as
per [RFC5880], section 6.1. Possible values are Active or Passive.
4. YANG Data Model
This section extends the YANG data model for BFD [RFC9314] to cover
unsolicited BFD. The new module imports [RFC8349] since the "bfd"
container in [RFC9314] is under "control-plane-protocol". The YANG
module in this document conforms to the Network Management Datastore
Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342].
4.1. Unsolicited BFD Hierarchy
Configuration for unsolicited BFD parameters for IP single-hop
sessions can be done at 2 levels:
* Globally, i.e. for all interfaces. This requires support for the
"unsolicited-params-global" feature.
* For specific interfaces. This requires support for the
"unsolicited-params-per-interface" feature.
For operational data, a new "unsolicited" container has been added
for BFD IP single-hop sessions.
The tree diagram below uses the graphical representation of data
models, as defined in [RFC8340].
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
module: ietf-bfd-unsolicited
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh:
+--rw unsolicited {bfd-unsol:unsolicited-params-global}?
+--rw enabled? boolean
+--rw local-multiplier? multiplier
+--rw (interval-config-type)?
+--:(tx-rx-intervals)
| +--rw desired-min-tx-interval? uint32
| +--rw required-min-rx-interval? uint32
+--:(single-interval) {single-minimum-interval}?
+--rw min-interval? uint32
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh
/bfd-ip-sh:interfaces:
+--rw unsolicited {bfd-unsol:unsolicited-params-per-interface}?
+--rw enabled? boolean
+--rw local-multiplier? multiplier
+--rw (interval-config-type)?
+--:(tx-rx-intervals)
| +--rw desired-min-tx-interval? uint32
| +--rw required-min-rx-interval? uint32
+--:(single-interval) {single-minimum-interval}?
+--rw min-interval? uint32
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh
/bfd-ip-sh:sessions/bfd-ip-sh:session:
+--ro role? bfd-unsol:role
4.2. Unsolicited BFD Module
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-bfd-unsolicited@2022-11-11.yang"
module ietf-bfd-unsolicited {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-unsolicited";
prefix "bfd-unsol";
// RFC Ed.: replace occurences of YYYY with actual RFC numbers
// and remove this note
import ietf-bfd-types {
prefix "bfd-types";
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
reference
"RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD)";
}
import ietf-bfd {
prefix "bfd";
reference
"RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD)";
}
import ietf-bfd-ip-sh {
prefix "bfd-ip-sh";
reference
"RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD)";
}
import ietf-routing {
prefix "rt";
reference
"RFC 8349: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
(NMDA version)";
}
organization "IETF BFD Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/>
WG List: <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Editors: Enke Chen (enchen@paloaltonetworks.com),
Naiming Shen (naiming@zededa.com),
Robert Raszuk (robert@raszuk.net),
Reshad Rahman (reshad@yahoo.com)";
description
"This module contains the YANG definition for BFD unsolicited
as per RFC YYYY.
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons
identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC YYYY; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
reference "RFC YYYY";
revision 2022-11-11 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC YYYY: Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications.";
}
/*
* Feature definitions
*/
feature unsolicited-params-global {
description
"This feature indicates that the server supports global
parameters for unsolicited sessions.";
reference
"RFC YYYY: Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications.";
}
feature unsolicited-params-per-interface {
description
"This feature indicates that the server supports per-interface
parameters for unsolicited sessions.";
reference
"RFC YYYY: Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications.";
}
/*
* Type Definitions
*/
typedef role {
type enumeration {
enum active {
description "Active role";
}
enum passive {
description "Passive role";
}
}
description
"System role during BFD session initialization.";
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
reference
"RFC5880: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),
Section 6.1";
}
/*
* Augments
*/
augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
+ "rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh" {
if-feature bfd-unsol:unsolicited-params-global;
description
"Augmentation for BFD unsolicited parameters";
container unsolicited {
description
"BFD unsolicited top level container";
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default false;
description
"BFD unsolicited enabled globally for IP single-hop.";
}
uses bfd-types:base-cfg-parms;
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
+ "rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh/"
+ "bfd-ip-sh:interfaces" {
if-feature bfd-unsol:unsolicited-params-per-interface;
description
"Augmentation for BFD unsolicited on IP single-hop interface";
container unsolicited {
description
"BFD IP single-hop interface unsolicited top level
container";
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default false;
description
"BFD unsolicited enabled on this interface.";
}
uses bfd-types:base-cfg-parms;
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
+ "rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh/"
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
+ "bfd-ip-sh:sessions/bfd-ip-sh:session" {
description
"Augmentation for BFD unsolicited on IP single-hop session";
leaf role {
type bfd-unsol:role;
config false;
description
"Role of local system during BFD session initialization.";
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
5. IANA Considerations
This document registers the following namespace URI in the "IETF XML
Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-unsolicited
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document registers the following YANG module in the "YANG Module
Names" registry [RFC6020]:
Name: ietf-bfd-unsolicited
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-unsolicited
Prefix: bfd-unsol
Reference: RFC YYYY
6. Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Greg Mirsky, Jeffrey Haas,
Raj Chetan, Tom Petch, Henning Rogge, Mahesh Jethanandani, Gyan
Mishra, John Scudder and Dan Romascanu for their review and valuable
input.
7. Security Considerations
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
7.1. BFD Protocol Security Considerations
The same security considerations and protection measures as those
described in [RFC5880] and [RFC5881] apply to this document. In
addition, with "unsolicited BFD" there is potential risk for
excessive resource usage by BFD from "unexpected" remote systems. To
mitigate such risks, the following measures are mandatory:
* Limit the feature to specific interfaces, and to single-hop BFD
with "TTL=255" [RFC5082].
* Apply "policy" to allow BFD packets only from certain subnets or
hosts.
* Deploy the feature only in certain "trustworthy" environment,
e.g., at an IXP, or between a provider and its customers.
* Use BFD authentication, see [RFC5880]. In some environments, e.g.
when using an IXP, BFD authentication can not be used because of
the lack of coordination into the operation of the two endpoints
of the BFD session. In other environments, e.g. when BFD is used
to track the next hop of static routes, it is possible to use BFD
authentication: this comes with the extra cost of configuring
matching key-chains at the two endpoints. If BFD authentication
is used, the Meticulous Keyed SHA1 mechanism SHOULD be used.
7.2. YANG Module Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
[RFC8446].
The NETCONF access control model [RFC8341] provides the means to
restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a
preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol
operations and content.
There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative
effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes
and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
/routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol/bfd/ip-sh
/unsolicited:
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
* data node "enabled" enables creation of unsolicited BFD IP single-
hop sessions globally, i.e. on all interfaces. See Section 7.1.
* data nodes local-multiplier, desired-min-tx-interval, required-
min-rx-interval and min-interval all impact the parameters of the
unsolicited BFD IP single-hop sessions.
/routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol/bfd/ip-sh
/interfaces/interface/unsolicited:
* data node "enabled" enables creation of unsolicited BFD IP single-
hop sessions on a specific interface. See Section 7.1.
* data nodes local-multiplier, desired-min-tx-interval, required-
min-rx-interval and min-interval all impact the parameters of the
unsolicited BFD IP single-hop sessions on the interface.
Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and data
nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
/routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol/bfd/ip-sh
/sessions/session/role: access to this information discloses the role
of the local system in the creation of the unsolicited BFD session.
8. References
8.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
[RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5881, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5881>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8349] Lhotka, L., Lindem, A., and Y. Qu, "A YANG Data Model for
Routing Management (NMDA Version)", RFC 8349,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8349, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8349>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
[RFC9314] Jethanandani, M., Ed., Rahman, R., Ed., Zheng, L., Ed.,
Pallagatti, S., and G. Mirsky, "YANG Data Model for
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 9314,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9314, September 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9314>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC5883] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, DOI 10.17487/RFC5883,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5883>.
[RFC7880] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and S.
Pallagatti, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(S-BFD)", RFC 7880, DOI 10.17487/RFC7880, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>.
[RFC7911] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.
[RFC7947] Jasinska, E., Hilliard, N., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker,
"Internet Exchange BGP Route Server", RFC 7947,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7947, September 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7947>.
[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
Authors' Addresses
Enke Chen
Palo Alto Networks
Email: enchen@paloaltonetworks.com
Naiming Shen
Zededa
Email: naiming@zededa.com
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applicat November 2022
Robert Raszuk
Arrcus
2077 Gateway Place
San Jose, CA 95110
United States of America
Email: robert@raszuk.net
Reshad Rahman
Graphiant
Canada
Email: reshad@yahoo.com
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2023 [Page 15]