Network Working Group D. Katz
Internet Draft Juniper Networks
D. Ward
Cisco Systems
Expires: January, 2005 July, 2004
BFD for Multihop Paths
draft-ietf-bfd-multihop-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Katz, Ward [Page 1]
Internet Draft BFD for Multihop Paths July, 2004
Abstract
This document describes the use of the Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection protocol (BFD) over multihop paths, including
unidirectional links.
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 (BFD) protocol [BFD] defines a
method for liveness detection of arbitrary paths between systems.
The BFD one-hop specification [BFD-1HOP] describes how to use BFD
across single hops of IPv4 and IPv6.
BFD can also be useful on arbitrary paths between systems, which may
span multiple network hops and follow unpredictable paths.
Furthermore, a pair of systems may have multiple paths between them
that may overlap. This document describes methods for using BFD in
such scenarios.
2. Issues
There are two primary issues in the use of BFD for multihop paths.
The first is security and spoofing; the one-hop spec describes a
lightweight method of avoiding spoofing by requiring a TTL/hop limit
of 255 on both transmit and receive, but this obviously does not work
across multiple hops. The utilization of BFD authentication
addresses this issue.
The more subtle issue is that of demultiplexing multiple BFD sessions
between the same pair of systems to the proper BFD session. In
particular, the first BFD packet received for a session may carry a
Your Discriminator value of zero, resulting in ambiguity as to which
session the packet should be associated. Once the discriminator
values have been exchanged, all further packets are demultiplexed to
the proper BFD session solely by the contents of the Your
Discriminator field.
Katz, Ward [Page 2]
Internet Draft BFD for Multihop Paths July, 2004
The one-hop specification addresses this by requiring that multiple
sessions traverse independent physical or logical links--the first
packet is demultiplexed based on the link over which it was received.
In the more general case, this scheme cannot work, as two paths over
which BFD is running may overlap to an arbitrary degree (including
the first and/or last hop.)
3. Demultiplexing Packets
There are a number of possibilities for addressing the demultiplexing
issue which may be used, depending on the application.
3.1. Totally Arbitrary Paths
It may be desired to use BFD for liveness detection over paths for
which no part of the route is known (or if known, may not be stable.)
A straightforward approach to this problem is to limit BFD deployment
to a single session between a source/destination address pair.
Multiple sessions between the same pair of systems must have at least
one endpoint address distinct from one another.
In this scenario, the initial packet is demultiplexed to the
appropriate BFD session based on the source/destination address pair
when Your Discriminator is set to zero.
This approach is appropriate for general connectivity detection
between systems over routed paths, and is also useful for OSPF
Virtual Links [OSPFv2] [OSPFv3].
3.2. Out-of-band Discriminator Signalling
Another approach to the demultiplexing problem is to signal the
discriminator values in each direction through an out-of-band
mechanism prior to establishing the BFD session. Once learned, the
discriminators are sent as usual in the BFD Control packets; no
packets with Your Discriminator set to zero are ever sent. This
method is used by the BFD MPLS specification [BFD-MPLS].
This approach is advantageous because it allows BFD to be directed by
other system components that have knowledge of the paths in use, and
from BFD's perspective it is very simple.
The disadvantage is that it requires at least some level of BFD-
specific knowledge in parts of the system outside of BFD.
Katz, Ward [Page 3]
Internet Draft BFD for Multihop Paths July, 2004
3.3. Unidirectional Links
Unidirectional links are classified as multihop paths because the
return path (which must exist at some level in order to make the link
useful) may be arbitrary, and the return paths for BFD sessions
protecting parallel unidirectional links may overlap or even be
identical. (If two unidirection links, one in each direction, are to
carry a single BFD session, this can be done using the single-hop
approach.)
Either of the two methods outlined earlier may be used in the
Unidirectional link case (as an MPLS LSP is in fact a unidirectional
link), but a more general solution can be done strictly within BFD
and without addressing limitations.
The approach is similar to the one-hop specification, since the
unidirectional link is a single hop. Let's define the two systems as
the Unidirectional Sender and the Unidirectional Receiver. In this
approach the Unidirectional Sender MUST operate in the Active role
(as defined in the base BFD specification), and the Unidirectional
Receiver MUST operate in the Passive role.
In the Passive role, by definition, the Unidirectional Receiver does
not transmit any BFD Control packets until it learns the
discriminator value in use by the other system (upon receipt of the
first BFD Control packet.) The Unidirectional Receiver demultiplexes
the first packet to the proper BFD session based on the physical or
logical link over which was received. This allows the receiver to
learn the remote discriminator value, which it then echoes back to
the sender in its own (arbitrarily routed) BFD Control packet, after
which time all packets are demultiplexed solely by discriminator.
4. Authentication
By their nature, multihop paths expose BFD to spoofing.
Implementations of BFD SHOULD utilize authentication over multihop
paths to help mitigate denial-of-service attacks.
Katz, Ward [Page 4]
Internet Draft BFD for Multihop Paths July, 2004
Normative References
[BFD] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection",
draft-ietf-bfd-base-00.txt, July, 2004.
[BFD-1HOP] Katz, D., and Ward, D., "BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single
Hop)", draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-00.txt, July, 2004.
[BFD-MPLS] Aggarwal, R., and Kompella, K., "BFD for MPLS LSPs",
draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-00.txt, July, 2004.
[GTSM] Gill, V., et al, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 3682, February 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.
Security Considerations
No additional security issues are raised in this document beyond
those that exist in the referenced BFD documents.
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
Katz, Ward [Page 5]
Internet Draft BFD for Multihop Paths July, 2004
Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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."
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Katz, Ward [Page 6]
