[Search] [txt|xml|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01                                                         
IS-IS for IP Internets                                          C. Hopps
Internet-Draft                                               L. Ginsberg
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: May 21, 2008                                  November 18, 2007

                         IS-IS BFD Enabled TLV

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).


   This document describes a TLV for use in the IS-IS routing protocol
   that allows for the proper use of the Bidirectional Forwarding
   Detection protocol (BFD).  There exist certain scenarios in which
   IS-IS will not react appropriately to a BFD detected forwarding plane
   failure without use of either this TLV or some other method.

Hopps & Ginsberg          Expires May 21, 2008                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS BFD Enabled TLV            November 2007

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  The Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.1.  Determining Local Significance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.2.  Adjacency Establishment and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.3.  Advertisement of Topology Specific IS Neighbors . . . . . . 5
   4.  Transition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Graceful Restart  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  The BFD Enabled TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     10.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     10.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 9

Hopps & Ginsberg          Expires May 21, 2008                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS BFD Enabled TLV            November 2007

1.  Introduction

   The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection protocol [I-D.ietf-bfd-base]
   is a protocol that allows for detection of a forwarding plane failure
   between two routers.  A router can use [I-D.ietf-bfd-base] to
   validate that a peer router's forwarding ability is functioning.

   One specific application of BFD as described in
   [I-D.ietf-bfd-generic] is to verify the forwarding ability of an
   IS-IS [RFC1195] router's adjacencies; however, the method described
   in [I-D.ietf-bfd-generic] does not allow for certain failure
   scenarios.  We will define a TLV that will allow for proper response
   to the detection of all forwarding failures where the use of BFD is
   employed with IS-IS.

2.  The Problem

   We observe that to allow for mixed use (i.e., some routers running
   BFD and some not) [I-D.ietf-bfd-generic] does not require a BFD
   session be established prior to the establishment of an IS-IS
   adjacency.  Thus, if a router A has neighbors B and C, and B does not
   support BFD, A would still form adjacencies with B and C, and would
   only establish a BFD session with C.

   The problem with this solution is that it assumes that the
   transmission and receipt of IS-IS IIHs shares fate with forwarded
   data packets.  This is not a fair assumption to make given that the
   primary use of BFD is to protect IPv4 (and IPv6) forwarding and IS-IS
   does not utilize IPv4 or IPv6 for sending or receiving its hellos.

   Thus, if we consider our previous example, and if C is currently
   experiencing an IPv4 forwarding failure that allows for IS-IS IIHs to
   be sent and received, when A first starts (or restarts) A will assume
   that C simply does not support BFD, will form an adjacency with C,
   and may incorrectly forward IPv4 traffic through C.

3.  The Solution

   A simple solution to this problem is for an IS-IS router to advertise
   that it has BFD enabled on a given interface.  It can do this through
   the inclusion of a TLV in its IIHs, and indeed that is our proposal.

   When sending an IIH on a BFD enabled interface, a router which
   supports this extension MUST include the BFD enabled TLV in its IIH.
   The contents of the TLV MUST indicate what protocols have been
   enabled for BFD by including the appropriate NLPID(s).

Hopps & Ginsberg          Expires May 21, 2008                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS BFD Enabled TLV            November 2007

   When sending an IIH on an interface on which BFD is NOT enabled a
   router MUST NOT include the BFD enabled TLV.

3.1.  Determining Local Significance

   When receiving an IIH from a neighbor on an interface with BFD
   enabled, if the IIH contains the BFD enabled TLV the contents of the
   BFD TLV are examined to determine if they are of local significance.
   The logic used to determine local significance is impacted by the
   combination of topologies and NLPIDs supported on each topology by
   the local system.[I-D.ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology].  We introduce the
   following definitions:

   NLPID_LOCAL_BFD - The set of NLPIDs for which BFD has been locally
   enabled on an interface.

   NLPID_LOCAL_TOPO - The set of NLPIDs supported on a given topology.

   NLPID_BFD_TLV - The set of NLPIDs advertised in the BFD TLV in a
   received IIH.

   NLPID_BFD_TOPO - The set of NLPIDs which are common to

   IIH_BFD_LSIG - A boolean which is TRUE when there exists at least one
   topology which is supported by both the local system and the neighbor
   where NLPID_BFD_TOPO is not empty.

   IS-IS_BFD_TOPO_UP - A per topology boolean whose value is TRUE when
   IIH_BFD_LSIG is TRUE, the topology is supported by both the local
   system and the neighbor, and either BFD session state for all NLPIDs
   in the corresponding NLPID_BFD_TOPO set is UP or the NLPID_BFD_TOPO
   set is empty for that topology.

   IS-IS_BFD_UP - A boolean whose value is TRUE when IIH_BFD_LSIG is
   TRUE and there is at least one topology supported by the local system
   and the neighbor which has an IS-IS_BFD_TOPO_UP value which is TRUE.

   If IIH_BFD_LSIG is FALSE then the contents of the corresponding
   received BFD TLV are ignored.  Note that this includes the case where
   BFD is not locally enabled on an interface for any NLPID.

3.2.  Adjacency Establishment and Maintenance

   When IIH_BFD_LSIG is TRUE, the following extensions to the rules for
   adjacency establishment and maintenance MUST apply:

Hopps & Ginsberg          Expires May 21, 2008                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS BFD Enabled TLV            November 2007

   o  IS-IS_BFD_UP state MUST be TRUE before the adjacency can
      transition from INIT to UP state

   o  When the IS-IS adjacency is UP and IS-IS_BFD_UP becomes FALSE the
      IS-IS adjacency MUST transition to DOWN.

   o  On a Point-to-Point circuit whenever IS-IS_BFD_UP is FALSE, the
      Three-Way adjacency state MUST be set to DOWN in the Point-to-
      Point Three Way Adjacency TLV[RFC3373] in all transmitted IIHs.

   o  On a LAN circuit whenever IS-IS_BFD_UP is FALSE, the IS Neighbors
      TLV advertising the MAC address of the neighbor MUST be omitted in
      all transmitted IIHs.

3.3.  Advertisement of Topology Specific IS Neighbors

   When IIH_BFD_LSIG is TRUE for a given neighbor, the advertisement of
   a topology specific IS-neighbor (as well as the use of the neighbor
   in the topology specific decision process) is determined by the value
   of IS-IS_BFD_TOPO_UP for each topology.  If IS-IS_BFD_TOPO_UP is TRUE
   then the topology specific neighbor is advertised.  If IS-
   IS_BFD_TOPO_UP is FALSE then the topology specific neighbor is NOT

4.  Transition

   To allow for a non-disruptive transition to the use of BFD some
   amount of time should be allowed before bringing down an UP adjacency
   on a BFD enabled interface when the value of IIH_BFD_LSIG becomes
   TRUE as a result of the introduction of the BFD TLV or the
   modification (by adding a new supported NLPID) of an existing BFD TLV
   in a neighbor's IIH.  A simple way to do this is to not update the
   adjacency hold-time when receiving such an IIH from a neighbor with
   whom we have an UP adjacency until IS-IS_BFD_UP becomes TRUE.

   If the value of IIH_BFD_LSIG becomes FALSE as a result of the removal
   the BFD TLV or the modification (by removing a supported NLPID) of an
   existing BFD TLV in a neighbor's IIH then BFD session establishment
   is no longer required to maintain the adjacency in or transition the
   adjacency to the UP state.

   If a BFD session is administratively shut down [I-D.ietf-bfd-base]
   and the BFD session state change would impact the value of IS-
   IS_BFD_UP, then IS-IS SHOULD allow time for the corresponding NLPID
   to be removed from the neighbor's BFD TLV by not updating the
   adjacency hold time until IIH_BFD_LSIG becomes FALSE.  Note that
   while this allows a non-disruptive transition, it still enforces

Hopps & Ginsberg          Expires May 21, 2008                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS BFD Enabled TLV            November 2007

   consistency between the administrative state of the BFD session and
   the NLPID(s) advertised in the BFD TLV.  This is necessary to provide
   consistent behavior regardless of whether the BFD AdminDown state is
   introduced before or after an IS-IS adjacency UP state has been

5.  Graceful Restart

   It is worth considering what if anything should be done when IS-IS is
   gracefully restarting [RFC3847].

   In cases where BFD shares fate with the control plane, it can be
   expected that BFD session failure may occur in conjunction with the
   control plane restart.  In such cases premature abort of IS-IS
   graceful restart as a result of BFD session failure is undesirable.
   Therefore, some mechanism to ignore the BFD session failure for a
   limited period of time would be beneficial.  How this is implemented
   is beyond the scope of this document.  Consult [I-D.ietf-bfd-generic]
   for further details.

6.  The BFD Enabled TLV

   The BFD enabled TLV is formatted as shown below.  The TLV SHALL only
   be included in an IS-IS IIH PDU and only when BFD is enabled for one
   or more supported protocols on the interface over which the IIH is
   being sent.  The NLPIDs encoded in the TLV are defined in [ISO9577]

     Type   139 (suggested - to be assigned by IANA)
     Length # of octets in the value field (1 to 255)
     Value  one octet NLPID for each data protocol
            for which BFD support is enabled

                                          No. of octets
                | NLPID                 |     1
                :                       :
                :                       :
                | NLPID                 |     1

Hopps & Ginsberg          Expires May 21, 2008                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS BFD Enabled TLV            November 2007

7.  Security Considerations

   The TLV defined within this document describes an addition to the
   IS-IS Hello protocol and does not impact the security mechanism of
   the IS-IS protocol.

8.  IANA Considerations

   The following IS-IS TLV type is defined by this draft.

   Name                                  Value  IIH   LSP  SNP
   ----------------------                -----  ---   ---  ---
   BFD Enabled TLV                         139   y     n    n

   Please update the IS-IS TLV Codepoint Registry accordingly.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Matthew Jones, Dave Katz, Jonathan Moon,
   Stefano Previdi, Michael Shiplett and David Ward, for various input
   on this document.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [ISO9577]  International Organization for Standardization, "Protocol
              identification in the network layer(ISO/IEC 9577)", ISO/
              IEC 9577:1999, Fourth Edition, Dec 1999.

   [RFC1195]  Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
              dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3373]  Katz, D. and R. Saluja, "Three-Way Handshake for
              Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Point-
              to-Point Adjacencies", RFC 3373, September 2002.

Hopps & Ginsberg          Expires May 21, 2008                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS BFD Enabled TLV            November 2007

10.2.  Informative References

              Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
              Detection", draft-ietf-bfd-base-06 (work in progress),
              March 2007.

              Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Generic Application of BFD",
              draft-ietf-bfd-generic-03 (work in progress), March 2007.

              Katz, D. and D. Ward, "BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single
              Hop)", draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-06 (work in progress),
              March 2007.

              Przygienda, T., "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in
              IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology-12 (work in
              progress), November 2007.

   [RFC3847]  Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for
              Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)",
              RFC 3847, July 2004.

Authors' Addresses

   Christian E. Hopps
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, California  95134

   Email: chopps@cisco.com

   Les Ginsberg
   Cisco Systems
   510 McCarthy Blvd.
   Milpitas, Ca.  95035

   Email: ginsberg@cisco.com

Hopps & Ginsberg          Expires May 21, 2008                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS BFD Enabled TLV            November 2007

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Hopps & Ginsberg          Expires May 21, 2008                  [Page 9]