Network Working Group D. Katz
Internet Draft Juniper Networks
D. Ward
Cisco Systems
Expires: September, 2007 March, 2007
Generic Application of BFD
draft-ietf-bfd-generic-03.txt
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-Drafts.
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
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Abstract
This document describes the generic application of the Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol. Comments on this draft should
be directed to rtg-bfd@ietf.org.
Katz, Ward [Page 1]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [KEYWORDS].
1. Introduction
The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection protocol [BFD] provides a
liveness detection mechanism that can be utilized by other network
components for which their integral liveness mechanisms are either
too slow, inappropriate, or nonexistent. Other drafts have detailed
the use of BFD with specific encapsulations ([BFD-1HOP], [BFD-MULTI],
[BFD-MPLS]). As the utility of BFD has become understood, there have
been calls to specify BFD interactions with a growing list of network
functions. Rather than producing a long series of short documents on
the application of BFD, it seemed worthwhile to describe the
interactions between BFD and other network functions in a broad way.
This document describes the generic application of BFD. Specific
protocol applications are provided for illustrative purposes.
2. Overview
The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) specification defines a
protocol with simple and specific semantics. Its sole purpose is to
verify connectivity between a pair of systems, for a particular data
protocol across a path (which may be of any technology, length, or
OSI layer). The promptness of the detection of a path failure can be
controlled by trading off protocol overhead and system load with
detection times.
BFD is *not* intended to directly provide control protocol liveness
information; those protocols have their own means and vagaries.
Rather, control protocols can use the services provided by BFD to
inform their operation. BFD can be viewed as a service provided by
the layer in which it is running.
The service interface with BFD is straightforward. The application
supplies session parameters (neighbor address, time parameters,
protocol options), and BFD provides the session state, of which the
most interesting transitions are to and from the Up state. The
application is expected to bootstrap the BFD session, as BFD has no
discovery mechanism.
Katz, Ward [Page 2]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
An implementation SHOULD establish only a single BFD session per data
protocol path, regardless of the number of applications that wish to
utilize it. There is no additional value in having multiple BFD
sessions to the same endpoints. If multiple applications request
different session parameters, it is a local issue as to how to
resolve the parameter conflicts. BFD in turn will notify all
applications bound to a session when a session state change occurs.
BFD should be viewed as having an advisory role to the protocol or
protocols or other network functions with which it is interacting,
which will then use their own mechanisms to effect any state
transitions. The interaction is very much at arm's length, which
keeps things simple and decoupled. In particular, BFD explicitly
does not carry application-specific information, partly for
architectural reasons, and partly because BFD may have curious and
unpredictable latency characteristics and as such makes a poor
transport mechanism.
It is important to remember that the interaction between BFD and its
client applications has essentially no interoperability issues,
because BFD is acting in an advisory nature (similar to hardware
signaling the loss of light on a fiber optic circuit, for example)
and existing mechanisms in the client applications are used in
reaction to BFD events. In fact, BFD may interact with only one of a
pair of systems for a particular client application without any ill
effect.
3. Control Protocol Interactions
Very common client applications of BFD are control protocols, such as
routing protocols. The object when BFD interacts with a control
protocol is to advise the control protocol of the connectivity of the
data protocol. In the case of routing protocols, for example, this
allows the connectivity failure to trigger the rerouting of traffic
around the failed path more quickly than the native detection
mechanisms.
3.1. Session Establishment
If the session state on either the local or remote system (if known)
is AdminDown, BFD has been administratively disabled, and the
establishment of a control protocol adjacency MUST be allowed.
BFD sessions are typically bootstrapped by the control protocol,
using the mechanism (discovery, configuration) used by the control
Katz, Ward [Page 3]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
protocol to find neighbors. Note that it is possible in some failure
scenarios for the network to be in a state such that the control
protocol is capable of coming up, but the BFD session cannot be
established, and, more particularly, data cannot be forwarded. To
avoid this situation, it would be beneficial to not allow the control
protocol to establish a neighbor adjacency. However, this would
preclude the operation of the control protocol in an environment in
which not all systems support BFD.
Therefore, if the control protocol carries signaling that indicates
the that both systems are willing to establish a BFD session, or it
is known that the remote system is BFD-capable (either by out-of-band
means or by the knowledge that the remote system previously sent BFD
Control packets), and the BFD session on the local system is in state
Down or Init, and the BFD session on the remote system is not
AdminDown, the fact that the BFD session is not in Up state SHOULD be
used to block establishment of a control protocol adjacency.
If it appears that the neighboring system does not support BFD (no
BFD Control packets have been received from the neighbor), the
establishment of a control protocol adjacency SHOULD NOT be blocked.
Furthermore, a system MAY increase the interval between transmitted
BFD Control packets beyond the minimum specified in [BFD]. This will
have negligible impact on BFD session establishment if the neighbor
decides to run BFD after all, since BFD Control packets will be sent
on an event-driven basis once the first packet is seen from the
neighbor.
The setting of BFD's various timing parameters and modes are not
subject to standardization. Note that all protocols sharing a
session will operate using the same parameters. The mechanism for
choosing the parameters among those desired by the various protocols
are outside the scope of this specification. It is generally useful
to choose the parameters resulting in the shortest detection time; a
particular client application can always apply hysteresis to the
notifications from BFD if it desires longer detection times.
3.2. Reaction to BFD Session State Changes
If a BFD session transitions from state Up to AdminDown, or the
session transitions from Up to Down because the remote system is
indicating that the session is in state AdminDown, clients SHOULD NOT
take any control protocol action.
Otherwise, the mechanism by which the control protocol reacts to a
path failure signaled by BFD depends on the capabilities of the
protocol.
Katz, Ward [Page 4]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
3.2.1. Control Protocols with a Single Data Protocol
A control protocol that is tightly bound to a single failing data
protocol SHOULD take action to ensure that data traffic is no longer
directed to the failing path. Note that this should not be
interpreted as BFD replacing the control protocol liveness mechanism,
if any, as the control protocol may rely on mechanisms not verified
by BFD (multicast, for instance) so BFD most likely cannot detect all
failures that would impact the control protocol. However, a control
protocol MAY choose to use BFD session state information to more
rapidly detect an impending control protocol failure, particularly if
the control protocol operates in-band (over the data protocol.)
Therefore, when a BFD session transitions from Up to Down, action
SHOULD be taken in the control protocol to signal the lack of
connectivity for the data protocol over which BFD is running. If the
control protocol has an explicit mechanism for announcing path state,
a system SHOULD use that mechanism rather than impacting the
connectivity of the control protocol, particularly if the control
protocol operates out-of-band from the failed data protocol.
However, if such a mechanism is not available, a control protocol
timeout SHOULD be emulated for the associated neighbor.
3.2.2. Control Protocols with Multiple Data Protocols
Slightly different mechanisms are used if the control protocol
supports the routing of multiple data protocols, depending on whether
the control protocol supports separate topologies for each data
protocol.
3.2.2.1. Shared Topologies
With a shared topology, if one of the data protocols fails (as
signaled by the associated BFD session), it is necessary to consider
the path to have failed for all data protocols. Otherwise, there is
no way for the control protocol to turn away traffic for the failed
data protocol (and such traffic would be black-holed indefinitely.)
Therefore, when a BFD session transitions from Up to Down, action
SHOULD be taken in the control protocol to signal the lack of
connectivity for all data protocols sharing the topology. If this
cannot be signaled otherwise, a control protocol timeout SHOULD be
emulated for the associated neighbor.
Katz, Ward [Page 5]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
3.2.2.2. Independent Topologies
With individual routing topologies for each data protocol, only the
failed data protocol needs to be rerouted around the failed path.
Therefore, when a BFD session transitions from Up to Down, action
SHOULD be taken in the control protocol to signal the lack of
connectivity for the data protocol over which BFD is running.
Generally this can be done without impacting the connectivity of
other data protocols (since otherwise it is very difficult to support
separate topologies for multiple data protocols.)
3.3. Interactions with Graceful Restart Mechanisms
A number of control protocols support Graceful Restart mechanisms.
These mechanisms are designed to allow a control protocol to restart
without perturbing network connectivity state (lest it appear that
the system and/or all of its links had failed.) They are predicated
on the existence of a separate forwarding plane that does not
necessarily share fate with the control plane in which the routing
protocols operate. In particular, the assumption is that the
forwarding plane can continue to function while the protocols restart
and sort things out.
BFD implementations announce via the Control Plane Independent (C)
bit whether or not BFD shares fate with the control plane. This
information is used to determine the actions to be taken in
conjunction with Graceful Restart. If BFD does not share its fate
with the control plane on either system, it can be used to determine
whether Graceful Restart in a control protocol is NOT viable (the
forwarding plane is not operating.)
If the control protocol has a Graceful Restart mechanism, BFD may be
used in conjunction with this mechanism. The interaction between BFD
and the control protocol depends on the capabilities of the control
protocol, and whether or not BFD shares fate with the control plane.
In particular, it may be desirable for a BFD session failure to abort
the Graceful Restart process and allow the failure to be visible to
the network.
3.3.1. BFD Fate Independent of the Control Plane
If BFD is implemented in the forwarding plane and does not share fate
with the control plane on either system (the "C" bit is set in the
BFD Control packets in both directions), control protocol restarts
should not affect the BFD Session. In this case, a BFD session
Katz, Ward [Page 6]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
failure implies that data can no longer be forwarded, so any Graceful
Restart in progress at the time of the BFD session failure SHOULD be
aborted in order to avoid black holes, and a topology change SHOULD
be signaled in the control protocol.
3.3.2. BFD Shares Fate with the Control Plane
If BFD shares fate with the control plane on either system (the "C"
bit is clear in either direction), a BFD session failure cannot be
disentangled from other events taking place in the control plane. In
many cases, the BFD session will fail as a side effect of the restart
taking place. As such, it would be best to avoid aborting any
Graceful Restart taking place, if possible (since otherwise BFD and
Graceful Restart cannot coexist.)
There is some risk in doing so, since a simultaneous failure or
restart of the forwarding plane will not be detected, but this is
always an issue when BFD shares fate with the control plane.
3.3.2.1. Control Protocols with Planned Restart Signaling
Some control protocols can signal a planned restart prior to the
restart taking place. In this case, if a BFD session failure occurs
during the restart, such a planned restart SHOULD NOT be aborted and
the session failure SHOULD NOT result in a topology change being
signaled in the control protocol.
3.3.2.2. Control Protocols Without Planned Restart Signaling
Control protocols that cannot signal a planned restart depend on the
recently restarted system to signal the Graceful Restart prior to the
control protocol adjacency timeout. In most cases, whether the
restart is planned or unplanned, it is likely that the BFD session
will time out prior to the onset of Graceful Restart, in which case a
topology change SHOULD be signaled in the control protocol as
specified in section 3.2.
However, if the restart is in fact planned, an implementation MAY
adjust the BFD session timing parameters prior to restarting in such
a way that the detection time in each direction is longer than the
restart period of the control protocol, providing the restarting
system the same opportunity to enter Graceful Restart as it would
have without BFD. The restarting system SHOULD NOT send any BFD
Control packets until there is a high likelihood that its neighbors
know a Graceful Restart is taking place, as the first BFD Control
Katz, Ward [Page 7]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
packet will cause the BFD session to fail.
3.4. Interactions with Multiple Control Protocols
If multiple control protocols wish to establish BFD sessions with the
same remote system for the same data protocol, all MUST share a
single BFD session.
If hierarchical or dependent layers of control protocols are in use
(say, OSPF and IBGP), it may not be useful for more than one of them
to interact with BFD. In this example, because IBGP is dependent on
OSPF for its routing information, the faster failure detection
relayed to IBGP may actually be detrimental. The cost of a peer
state transition is high in BGP, and OSPF will naturally heal the
path through the network if it were to receive the failure detection.
In general, it is best for the protocol at the lowest point in the
hierarchy to interact with BFD, and then to use existing interactions
between the control protocols to effect changes as necessary. This
will provide the fastest possible failure detection and recovery in a
network.
4. Interactions With Non-Protocol Functions
BFD session status may be used to affect other system functions that
are not protocol-based (for example, static routes.) If the path to
a remote system fails, it may be desirable to avoid passing traffic
to that remote system, so the local system may wish to take internal
measures to accomplish this (such as withdrawing a static route and
withdrawing that route from routing protocols.)
If either the local session state or the remote session state (if
known) of a BFD session is AdminDown, the local system MUST NOT take
any action in the non-protocol function (such as withdrawing a static
route), since the session is being administratively disabled and the
liveness of the forwarding path is unknown.
If it is known that the remote system is BFD-capable (either by out-
of-band means or by the knowledge that the remote system previously
sent BFD Control packets), and the BFD session on the local system is
in state Down or Init, and the BFD session on the remote system is
not AdminDown, the fact that the BFD session is not in Up state
SHOULD be used to take appropriate action (such as withdrawing a
static route.)
Katz, Ward [Page 8]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
If it appears that the neighboring system does not support BFD (no
BFD Control packets have been received from the neighbor), action
such as withdrawing a static route SHOULD NOT be taken. Furthermore,
a system MAY increase the interval between transmitted BFD Control
packets beyond the minimum specified in [BFD]. This will have
negligible impact on BFD session establishment if the neighbor
decides to run BFD after all, since BFD Control packets will be sent
on an event-driven basis once the first packet is seen from the
neighbor.
Bootstrapping of the BFD session in the non-protocol case is likely
to be derived from configuration information.
There is no need to exchange endpoints or discriminator values via
any mechanism other than configuration (via Operational Support
Systems or any other means) as the endpoints must be known and
configured by the same means.
5. Data Protocols and Demultiplexing
BFD is intended to protect a single "data protocol" and is
encapsulated within that protocol. A pair of systems may have
multiple BFD sessions over the same topology if they support (and are
encapsulated by) different protocols. For example, if two systems
have IPv4 and IPv6 running across the same link between them, these
are considered two separate paths and require two separate BFD
sessions.
This same technique is used for more fine-grained paths. For
example, if multiple differentiated services [DIFFSERV] are being
operated on over IPv4, an independent BFD session may be run for each
service level. The BFD Control packets must be marked in the same
way as the data packets, partly to ensure as much fate sharing as
possible between BFD and data traffic, and also to demultiplex the
initial packet if the discriminator values have not been exchanged.
Katz, Ward [Page 9]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
6. Other Application Issues
BFD can provide liveness detection for OAM-like functions in
tunneling and pseudowire protocols. Running BFD inside the tunnel is
recommended, as it exercises more aspects of the path. One way to
accommodate this is to address BFD packets based on the tunnel
endpoints, assuming that they are numbered.
If a planned outage is to take place on a path over which BFD is run,
it is preferable to take down the BFD session by going into AdminDown
state prior to the outage.
7. Interoperability Issues
The BFD protocol itself is designed so that it will always
interoperate at a basic level; asynchronous mode is mandatory and is
always available, and other modes and functions are negotiated at run
time. Since the service provided by BFD is identical regardless of
the variants used, the particular choice of BFD options has no
bearing on interoperability.
The interaction between BFD and other protocols and control functions
is very loosely coupled. The actions taken are based on existing
mechanisms in those protocols and functions, so interoperability
problems are very unlikely unless BFD is applied in contradictory
ways (such as a BFD session failure causing one implementation to go
down and another implementation to come up.) In fact, BFD may be
advising one system for a particular control function but not the
other; the only impact of this would be potentially asymmetric
control protocol failure detection.
8. Specific Protocol Interactions (Non-Normative)
As noted above, there are no interoperability concerns regarding
interactions between BFD and control protocols. However, there is
enough concern and confusion in this area so that it is worthwhile to
provide examples of interactions with specific protocols.
Since the interactions do not affect interoperability, they are non-
normative.
Katz, Ward [Page 10]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
8.1. BFD Interactions with OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and IS-IS
The two versions of OSPF ([OSPFv2] and [OSPFv3]), as well as IS-IS
[ISIS], all suffer from an architectural limitation, namely that
their Hello protocols are limited in the granularity of their failure
detection times. In particular, OSPF has a minimum detection time of
two seconds, and IS-IS has a minimum detection time of one second.
BFD may be used to achieve arbitrarily small detection times for
these protocols by supplementing the Hello protocols used in each
case.
8.1.1. Session Establishment
The most obvious choice for triggering BFD session establishment with
these protocols would be to use the discovery mechanism inherent in
the Hello protocols in OSPF and IS-IS to bootstrap the establishment
of the BFD session. Any BFD sessions established to support OSPF and
IS-IS across a single IP hop must operate in accordance with
[BFD-1HOP].
8.1.2. Reaction to BFD State Changes
The basic mechanisms are covered in section 3 above. At this time,
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 carry routing information for a single data
protocol (IPv4 and IPv6, respectively) so when it is desired to
signal a topology change after a BFD session failure, this should be
done by tearing down the corresponding OSPF neighbor.
ISIS may be used to support only one data protocol, or multiple data
protocols. [ISIS] specifies a common topology for multiple data
protocols, but work is underway to support multiple topologies. If
multiple data protocols are advertised in the ISIS Hello, and
independent topologies are in use, the failing data protocol should
no longer be advertised in ISIS Hello packets in order to signal a
lack of connectivity for that protocol. Otherwise, a failing BFD
session should be signaled by simulating an ISIS adjacency failure.
OSPF has a planned restart signaling mechanism, whereas ISIS does
not. The appropriate mechanisms outlined in section 3.3 should be
used.
Katz, Ward [Page 11]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
8.1.3. OSPF Virtual Links
If it is desired to use BFD for failure detction of OSPF Virtual
Links, the mechanism described in [BFD-MULTI] MUST be used, since
OSPF Virtual Links may traverse an arbitrary number of hops. BFD
Authentication SHOULD be used and is strongly encouraged.
8.2. Interactions with BGP
BFD may be useful with EBGP sessions [BGP] in order to more rapidly
trigger topology changes in the face of path failure. As noted in
section 3.4, it is generally unwise for IBGP sessions to interact
with BFD if the underlying IGP is already doing so.
EBGP sessions being advised by BFD may establish either a one hop
[BFD-1HOP] or a multihop [BFD-MULTIHOP] session, depending on whether
the neighbor is immediately adjacent or not. The BFD session should
be established to the BGP neighbor (as opposed to any other Next Hop
advertised in BGP.)
[BGP-GRACE] describes a Graceful Restart mechanism for BGP. If
Graceful Restart is not taking place on an EBGP session, and the
corresponding BFD session fails, the EBGP session should be torn down
in accordance with section 3.2. If Graceful Restart is taking place,
the basic procedures in section 3.3 applies. BGP Graceful Restart
does not signal planned restarts, so section 3.3.2.2 applies. If
Graceful Restart is aborted due to the rules described in section
3.3, the "receiving speaker" should act as if the "restart timer"
expired (as described in [BGP-GRACE].)
8.3. Interactions with RIP
The RIP protocol [RIP] is somewhat unique in that, at least as
specified, neighbor adjacency state is not stored per se. Rather,
installed routes contain a next hop address, which in most cases is
the address of the advertising neighbor (but may not be.)
In the case of RIP, when the BFD session associated with a neighbor
fails, an expiration of the "timeout" timer for each route installed
from the neighbor (for which the neighbor is the next hop) should be
simulated.
Note that if a BFD session fails, and a route is received from that
neighbor with a next hop address that is not the address of the
neighbor itself, the route will linger until it naturally times out
(after 180 seconds.) However, if an implementation keeps track of
Katz, Ward [Page 12]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
all of the routes received from each neighbor, all of the routes from
the neighbor corresponding to the failed BFD session should be timed
out, regardless of the next hop specified therein, and thereby
avoiding the lingering route problem.
Normative References
[BFD] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection",
draft-ietf-bfd-base-06.txt, March, 2007.
[BFD-1HOP] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single
Hop)", draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-06.txt, March, 2007.
[BFD-MPLS] Aggarwal, R., and Kompella, K., "BFD for MPLS LSPs",
draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-04.txt, March, 2007.
[BFD-MULTI] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "BFD for Multihop Paths", draft-
ietf-bfd-multihop-05.txt, March, 2007.
[BGP] Rekhter, Y., Li, T. et al, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
(BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January, 2006.
[BGP-GRACE] Sangli, S., Chen, E., et al, "Graceful Restart Mechanism
for BGP", RFC 4724, January, 2007.
[DIFFSERV] Nichols, K. et al, "Definition of the Differentiated
Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC
2474, December, 1998.
[ISIS] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual
environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[ISIS-GRACE] Shand, M., and Ginsberg, L., "Restart signaling for IS-
IS", RFC 3847, July 2004.
[KEYWORD] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[OSPFv2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPFv3] Coltun, R., et al, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 2740, December 1999.
[OSPF-GRACE] Moy, J., et al, "Graceful OSPF Restart", RFC 3623,
November 2003.
[RIP] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", RFC 2453, November, 1998.
Katz, Ward [Page 13]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
Security Considerations
This specification does not raise any additional security issues
beyond those of the specifications referred to in the list of
normative references.
IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Authors' Addresses
Dave Katz
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, California 94089-1206 USA
Phone: +1-408-745-2000
Email: dkatz@juniper.net
Dave Ward
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 USA
Phone: +1-408-526-4000
Email: dward@cisco.com
Changes from the previous draft
The only significant change to this draft was to add specific text
regarding the difference between Down and AdminDown states. Some
redundant text was removed or merged.
All other changes were purely editorial in nature.
Katz, Ward [Page 14]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
IPR Disclaimer
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
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
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 ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Full Copyright Notice
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
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Katz, Ward [Page 15]
Internet Draft Generic Application of BFD March, 2007
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
This document expires in September, 2007.
Katz, Ward [Page 16]