BFD for Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multi-Point MPLS LSP

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 3 September 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 (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

[RFC8562] defines a method of using Bidirectional Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] to monitor and detect unicast failures between the sender (head) and one or more receivers (tails) in multipoint or multicast networks.¶

[RFC8562] added two BFD session types - MultipointHead and MultipointTail. Throughout this document, MultipointHead and MultipointTail refer to the value to which the bfd.SessionType is set on a BFD endpoint.¶

This document describes procedures for using such modes of BFD protocol to detect data plane failures in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) point-to-multipoint (p2mp) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and Segment Routing (SR) point-to-multipoint policies with SR-MPLS data plane¶

The document also describes the applicability of out-band solutions to bootstrap a BFD session in this environment.¶

Furthermore, this document also updates [RFC8562] and recommends the use of an IPv6 loopback address (:::1/128) and discourages the use of an IPv4 loopback address mapped to IPv6.¶

It also describes the behavior of the active tail for head notification.¶

3. Multipoint BFD Encapsulation

[RFC8562] uses BFD in the Demand mode from the very start of a point-to-multipoint (p2mp) BFD session. Because the head doesn't receive any BFD Control packet from a tail, the head of the p2mp BFD session transmits all BFD Control packets with the value of Your Discriminator field set to zero. As a result, a tail cannot demultiplex BFD sessions using Your Discriminator, as defined in [RFC5880]. [RFC8562] requires that to demultiplex BFD sessions, the tail uses the source IP address, My Discriminator, and the identity of the multipoint tree from which the BFD Control packet was received. If the BFD Control packet is encapsulated in IP/UDP, then the source IP address MUST be used to demultiplex the received BFD Control packet as described in Section 3.1. The non-IP encapsulation case is described in Section 3.2.¶

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               LSP Label               |  TC |S|       TTL     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  GAL                  |  TC |1|       TTL     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 0 0 1|Version|   Reserved    |      Channel Type = TBA1      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                        BFD Control Message                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type=0    |    Reserved   |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Reserved (16 bits)       |    Address Family (16 bits)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                            Address                            ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

4. Bootstrapping Multipoint BFD

5. Operation of Multipoint BFD with Active Tail over P2MP MPLS LSP

[RFC8562] defined how the BFD Demand mode can be used in multipoint networks. When applied in MPLS, procedures specified in [RFC8562] allow an egress LSR to detect a failure of the part of the MPLS p2mp LSP from the ingress LSR. The ingress LSR is not aware of the state of the p2mp LSP. [RFC8563], using mechanisms defined in [RFC8562], defined an "active tail" behavior. An active tail might notify the head of the detected failure and responds to a poll sequence initiated by the head. The first method, referred to as Head Notification without Polling, is mentioned in Section 5.2.1 [RFC8563], is the simplest of all described in [RFC8563]. The use of this method in BFD over MPLS p2mp LSP is discussed in this document. Analysis of other methods of a head learning of the state of an MPLS p2mp LSP is outside the scope of this document.¶

As specified in [RFC8563] for the active tail mode, BFD variables MUST be as follows:¶

On an ingress LSR:¶

• bfd.SessionType is MultipointHead;¶
• bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval is set to nonzero, allowing egress LSRs to send BFD Control packets.¶

On an egress LSR:¶

• bfd.SessionType is MultipointTail;¶
• bfd.SilentTail is set to zero.¶

In Section 5.2.1 [RFC8563] is noted that "the tail sends unsolicited BFD packets in response to the detection of a multipoint path failure" but without the specifics on the information in the packet and frequency of transmissions. This document defines below the procedure of an active tail with unsolicited notifications for p2mp MPLS LSP.¶

Upon detecting the failure of the p2mp MPLS LSP, an egress LSR sends BFD Control packet with the following settings:¶

• the Poll (P) bit is set;¶
• the Status (Sta) field set to Down value;¶
• the Diagnostic (Diag) field set to Control Detection Time Expired value;¶
• the value of the Your Discriminator field is set to the value the egress LSR has been using to demultiplex that BFD multipoint session;¶
• BFD Control packet MAY be encapsulated in IP/UDP with the destination IP address of the ingress LSR and the UDP destination port number set to 4784 per [RFC5883]. If non-IP encapsulation is used, then a BFD Control packet is encapsulated using PW-ACH encapsulation (without IP/UDP Headers) with Channel Type 0x0007 [RFC5885];¶
• these BFD Control packets are transmitted at the rate of one per second until either it receives a control packet valid for this BFD session with the Final (F) bit set from the ingress LSR or the defect condition clears. However, to improve the likelihood of notifying the ingress LSR of the failure of the p2mp MPLS LSP, the egress LSR SHOULD initially transmit three BFD Control packets defined above in short succession. The actual transmission of the periodic BFD Control message MUST be jittered by up to 25% within one-second intervals. Thus, the interval MUST be reduced by a random value of 0 to 25%, to reduce the possibility of congestion on the ingress LSR's data and control planes.¶

As described above, an ingress LSR that has received the BFD Control packet sends the unicast IP/UDP encapsulated BFD Control packet with the Final (F) bit set to the egress LSR. In some scenarios, e.g., when a p2mp LSP is broken close to its root, and the number of egress LSRs is significantly large, the root might receive a large number of notifications. The notifications from leaves to the root will not use DetNet resources and, as a result, will not congest DetNet flows, although they may negatively affect other flows. However, the control plane of the ingress LSR might be congested by the BFD Control packets transmitted by egress LSRs and the process of generating unicast BFD Control packets, as noted above. To mitigate that, a BFD implementation that supports this specification is RECOMMENDED to use a rate limiter of received BFD Control packets passed to the ingress LSR’s control plane for processing.¶

6. Security Considerations

This document does not introduce new security considerations but inherits all security considerations from [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC7726], [RFC8562], [RFC8029], and [RFC6425].¶

Also, BFD for p2mp MPLS LSP MUST follow the requirements listed in section 4.1 [RFC4687] to avoid congestion in the control plane or the data plane caused by the rate of generating BFD Control packets. An operator SHOULD consider the amount of extra traffic generated by p2mp BFD when selecting the interval at which the MultipointHead will transmit BFD Control packets. The operator MAY consider the size of the packet the MultipointHead transmits periodically as using IP/UDP encapsulation, which adds up to 28 octets, more than 50% of the BFD Control packet length, comparing to G-ACh encapsulation.¶

7. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to allocate value (TBA1) from its MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types registry.¶

8. Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely appreciate the comments received from Andrew Malis, Italo Busi, Shraddha Hegde, and thought stimulating questions from Carlos Pignataro.¶

Authors' Addresses