Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy
draft-liu-spring-bfd-srv6-policy-encap-03
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Yisong Liu , Weiqiang Cheng , Changwang Lin , Mengxiao Chen , Xiao Min | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-04 | ||
| Replaces | draft-liu-bfd-srv6-policy-encap | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-liu-spring-bfd-srv6-policy-encap-03
Network Working Group Y. Liu
Internet Draft W. Cheng
Intended status: Standards Track China Mobile
Expires: August 31, 2024 C. Lin
M. Chen
New H3C Technologies
X. Min
ZTE
March 4, 2024
Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy
draft-liu-spring-bfd-srv6-policy-encap-03
Abstract
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) mechanisms can be used for
fast detection of failures in the forwarding path of SR Policy. This
document describes the encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy. The BFD
packets may be encapsulated in Insert-mode or Encaps-mode.
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/.
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 August 31, 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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
Liu, et al. Expire August 31, 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
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
1.1. Requirements Language.....................................3
2. Encapsulation of BFD Packet for SRv6 Policy....................3
2.1. Insert-Mode...............................................4
2.2. Encaps-Mode...............................................5
3. Choice of Headend and Tail-end IPv6 Addresses..................7
4. Checksum in UDP Header.........................................7
5. Control of Adding Tail-end IPv6 Address in SRH.................8
6. Example........................................................8
7. Security Considerations.......................................10
8. IANA Considerations...........................................10
9. References....................................................10
9.1. Normative References.....................................10
9.2. Informative References...................................11
Acknowledgements.................................................12
Authors' Addresses...............................................12
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] allows a headend node to steer a
packet flow along any path. Per-path states of Intermediate nodes
are eliminated thanks to source routing. A Segment Routing Policy
(SR Policy) [RFC9256] is an ordered list of segments (i.e.,
instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. The packets
steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of segments
associated with that SR Policy. The SRv6 Policy is the instantiation
of SR Policy for SR over IPv6 (SRv6) data plane.
In order to provide end-to-end protection, the headend node need to
rapidly detect any failures in the forwarding path of SR Policy, so
that it could switch from the active candidate path to another
backup candidate path within the same SR Policy or switch from the
active SR Policy to another backup SR Policy. Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) mechanisms [RFC5880] [RFC7880] can be
used for fast failure detection of P2P SR Policy.
[RFC8562] defines a method of using BFD to monitor and detect
unicast failures between a sender and multipoint receivers, which
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
can be used for fast failure detection of P2MP SRv6 Policy [I-
D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy].
As specified in [I-D.draft-ietf-spring-bfd], the basic element
monitored by the BFD is a segment list that is a constituent of the
candidate path of the particular SR Policy.
An SR Policy may consist of multiple candidate paths, and each
candidate path may consist of multiple segment lists. When the
associated BFD session is failed, a segment list becomes invalid. If
some of the segment lists fail, the forwarding will be weighted
load-balancing among the other segment lists. If all of the segment
lists fail, the candidate path becomes invalid. If the active
candidate path fails, the switchover to another backup candidate
path will be triggered. If all the candidate paths fail, the SR
Policy becomes invalid.
This document describes the encapsulation of BFD [RFC5880] [RFC7880]
[RFC8562] for SRv6 Policy. BFD Demand Mode and BFD Echo Function are
out of the scope of this document.
1.1. 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.
2. Encapsulation of BFD Packet for SRv6 Policy
On SRv6 data plane, a BFD packet for a segment list of an SRv6
Policy carries a Segment Routing Header (SRH) [RFC8754] containing a
list of SRv6 SIDs associated with that segment list.
BFD packets may be encapsulated in Insert-mode or Encaps-mode. In
Insert-mode, an SRH is inserted after the IPv6 header of the BFD
packet. In Encaps-mode, the BFD packet is encapsulated in an outer
IPv6 header with an SRH.
The naming of these two modes comes from SRv6 Policy headend
behaviors, H.Insert [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion] and
H.Encaps [RFC8986]. The encapsulation of BFD packets for an SRv6
Policy can be viewed as if the headend steers it into the SRv6
Policy.
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
Insert-Mode:
+-------------+---------+-------------+------------+
| IPv6 header | SRH | UDP Header | BFD Packet |
+-------------+---------+-------------+------------+
Encaps-Mode:
+-------------+---------+-------------+------------+------------+
| IPv6 header | SRH | IPv6 header | UDP Header | BFD Packet |
+-------------+---------+-------------+------------+------------+
Figure 1: Encapsulation of BFD Packet for SRv6 Policy
How to setup sessions for the segment lists associated with an SRv6
Policy is out of the scope of this document.
2.1. Insert-Mode
In Insert-mode, the encapsulation format of BFD control packet is as
follows:
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
. Source IP Address = Headend IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Segment List[SL] .
. Next-Header = SRH .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| SRH |
. Segment List[0] = Tail-end IPv6 Address, or .
. Last Segment of SRv6 Policy Segment List .
. Segment List[1] .
. Segment List[2] .
. ... .
. Next-Header = UDP .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| BFD Control Packet |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Format of Control Packet in Insert-Mode
In the SRH, the first element of the segment list (Segment List[0])
contains the SRv6 SID or IPv6 address of the tail-end node.
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
If the last segment of the SRv6 Policy segment list does not belong
to the tail-end node, an IPv6 address of tail-end should be added as
Segment List[0], while Segment List[1] contains the last segment of
the SRv6 Policy segment list. The typical scenarios are as follows:
o The last segment of the SRv6 Policy segment list may be an End.X
SID of the penultimate hop. If it is used as Segment List[0], the
final destination for the BFD packet is missing.
o The last segment of the SRv6 Policy segment list may be a Binding
SID, for example, the application of SRv6 Policy for L3VPN
service across multiple domains. If it is used as segment
list[0], according to [RFC8986], the node which instantiates the
BSID will not perform the encapsulation behavior of the
associated SRv6 Policy, but stop processing the SRH and proceed
to process the next header in the packet.
Else, the additional tail-end IPv6 address is not necessary, and it
can be omitted in order to reduce the SRH size.
2.2. Encaps-Mode
In Encaps-mode, the encapsulation format of BFD control packet is as
follows:
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
. Source IP Address = Headend IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Segment List[SL] .
. Next-Header = SRH .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| SRH |
. Segment List[0] = Tail-end IPv6 Address, or .
. Last Segment of SRv6 Policy Segment List .
. Segment List[1] .
. Segment List[2] .
. ... .
. Next-Header = IPv6 .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
. Source IP Address = Headend IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Tail-end IPv6 Address .
. Next-Header = UDP .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| BFD Control Packet |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Format of Control Packet in Encaps-Mode
In the SRH, the first element of the segment list (Segment List[0])
contains the SRv6 SID or IPv6 address of the tail-end node.
If the last segment of the SRv6 Policy segment list does not belong
to the tail-end node and its function does not include decapsulation
of the outer IPv6 header, an IPv6 address of tail-end should be
added as Segment List[0], while Segment List[1] contains the last
segment of the SRv6 Policy segment list. The typical scenarios are
as follows:
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
o The last segment of the SRv6 Policy may be an End.X SID of the
penultimate hop. If it is used as Segment List[0], the
penultimate hop needs to remove the outer IPv6 header with all
SRH, and forwards the inner IPv6 packet to reflector. If the last
segment is with Ultimate Segment Decapsulation (USD) flavor, the
penultimate SR endpoint node will perform such decapsulation as
defined in [RFC8986]. Otherwise, how to process the packet when
the upper-layer header type is IPv6, is not clearly defined in
[RFC8986]. It depends on implementation, and may not work well
for BFD.
o The last segment of the SRv6 Policy may be a Binding SID, which
is the same with the Binding SID case in section 2.1.
Else, the additional tail-end IPv6 address is not necessary, and it
can be omitted in order to reduce the SRH size.
3. Choice of Headend and Tail-end IPv6 Addresses
When traffics are steered into an SRv6 Policy, the headend
encapsulates the received packets in an outer IPv6 header along with
an SRH. The Source Address of the outer IPv6 header is an IPv6
Address of the headend itself which can be routed. It may be a local
interface address of the headend used for all SRv6 Policies. Or,
different source addresses may be allocated per SRv6 Policy by local
configuration.
For the BFD control packet, it is RECOMMENDED to use the headend
IPv6 address associated with the SRv6 Policy as the Source Address
of (outer) IPv6 header.
An SRv6 Policy is identified through the tuple <headend, color,
endpoint>. The endpoint indicates the destination of the policy, and
is usually specified as an IPv6 address of the tail-end node.
For the BFD control packet, the headend is RECOMMENDED to choose the
endpoint of the SRv6 Policy to be the tail-end IPv6 address which
appears in Segment List[0] of SRH or DA of inner IPv6 header,
without additional knowledge of the tail-end. In the cases where the
endpoint of SRv6 Policy is the unspecified address (:: for IPv6),
the tail-end IPv6 Address SHOULD be specified by local configuration
or network controller.
4. Checksum in UDP Header
The computation of Checksum in UDP header includes the Destination
Address of IPv6 header.
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
In the encapsulation of Insert-mode, the IPv6 DA may change along
the SRv6 forwarding path. When computing the UDP Checksum, the
headend should use Segment List[0] in the SRH as the IPv6 DA. It is
consistent with the packet received by the final destination, the
tail-end node. So, when the final destination processes the UDP
header, the verification of Checksum will be passed.
In the encapsulation of Encaps-mode, the computation of UDP Checksum
only involves the inner IPv6 header, which does not change en route.
No additional action needs to be taken.
5. Control of Adding Tail-end IPv6 Address in SRH
In order to make sure the BFD control packet reaches the tail-end,
an implementation MUST add a tail-end IPv6 address as Segment
List[0] in the SRH when it is necessary. Otherwise, it MAY be
omitted to reduce the SRH size.
Since the headend may not be able to make such a judgment, it is
RECOMMENDED that an implementation always adds a tail-end IPv6
address as Segment List[0] in the SRH of the BFD control packet.
6. Example
In the following network, the headend A installs an SRv6 Policy to
tail-end D with one segment list <SID-A1, SID-B1, SID-C1>. SID-A1,
SID-B1, and SID-C1 are all SRv6 End.X SIDs. Assume that A uses S-BFD
to monitor that SRv6 Policy.
A--------------B-------------C-----------D
Figure 4: example network
The S-BFD control packet in Insert-mode is shown in Figure 5.
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
+=================+ +=================+
| IPv6 Header | | IPv6 Header |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| SA=A's Addr | | SA=A's Addr |
| DA=SID-B1 | | DA=D's Addr |
+=================+ +=================+
| SRH | | SRH |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| SL=2 | | SL=0 |
| Seg[0]=D's Addr | | Seg[0]=D's Addr |
| Seg[1]=SID-C1 | | Seg[1]=SID-C1 |
| Seg[2]=SID-B1 | | Seg[2]=SID-B1 |
| Seg[3]=SID-A1 | | Seg[3]=SID-A1 |
+=================+ +=================+
| UDP Header | | UDP Header |
+=================+ +=================+
| BFD Control Pkt | | BFD Control Pkt |
+=================+ +=================+
A------------->B------------>C---------->D
Figure 5: Example of S-BFD Control Packet in Insert-Mode
The S-BFD control packet in Encaps-mode is shown in Figure 6.
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
+=================+ +=================+
| IPv6 Header | | IPv6 Header |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| SA=A's Addr | | SA=A's Addr |
| DA=SID-B1 | | DA=D's Addr |
+=================+ +=================+
| SRH | | SRH |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| SL=2 | | SL=0 |
| Seg[0]=D's Addr | | Seg[0]=D's Addr |
| Seg[1]=SID-C1 | | Seg[1]=SID-C1 |
| Seg[2]=SID-B1 | | Seg[2]=SID-B1 |
| Seg[3]=SID-A1 | | Seg[3]=SID-A1 |
+=================+ +=================+
| IPv6 Header | | IPv6 Header |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| SA=A's Addr | | SA=A's Addr |
| DA=D's Addr | | DA=D's Addr |
+=================+ +=================+
| UDP Header | | UDP Header |
+=================+ +=================+
| BFD Control Pkt | | BFD Control Pkt |
+=================+ +=================+
A------------->B------------>C---------->D
Figure 6: Example of S-BFD Control Packet in Encaps-Mode
7. Security Considerations
TBD.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
9. References
9.1. 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>.
[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>.
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", RFC9256,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/info/rfc9256>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8562] Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky,
Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
Multipoint Networks", RFC 8562, DOI 10.17487/RFC8562,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8562>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986, DOI
0.17487/RFC8986, February 2021, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-bfd] Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I.,
Chen, M., and J. Wenying, " Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS
Dataplane ", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
spring-bfd-08, August 1 2023,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spring-
bfd-08.txt>.
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion] Filsfils, C.,
Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D., Matsushima, S., and
Z. Li, "SRv6 NET-PGM extension: Insertion", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-
pgm-insertion-09, 16 August 2023,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-filsfils-
spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion-09.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R.,
Bidgoli, H., and Z. J. Zhang, "Segment Routing Point-to-
Multipoint Policy", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-07, 11 Ocotober 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-sr-
p2mp-policy-07>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky for his review and
comments of this document.
Authors' Addresses
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
China
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
China
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Mengxiao Chen
New H3C Technologies
China
Email: chen.mengxiao@h3c.com
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy March 2024
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
China
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Liu, et al. Expires August 31, 2024 [Page 13]