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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06                                          
Internet Engineering Task Force                                  T. Tsou
Internet-Draft                                 Huawei Technologies (USA)
Intended status: Informational                                     B. Li
Expires: August 17, 2014                                         C. Zhou
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                        J. Schoenwaelder
                                                Jacobs University Bremen
                                                                R. Penno
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                            M. Boucadair
                                                          France Telecom
                                                       February 13, 2014


                 DS-Lite Failure Detection and Failover
                   draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite-06

Abstract

   In DS-Lite, the tunnel is stateless, not associated with any state
   information, and the CGN function at the AFTR is stateful.
   Currently, there is no failure detection and failover mechanism for
   both stateless tunnel and stateful CGN function, which makes it
   difficult to manage and diagnose if there is a problem.  This draft
   analyzes the applicability of some of the possible solutions.

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 http://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 17, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Tsou, et al.             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   DS-Lite Failure Detection and Failover    February 2014


   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
   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Failover Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1.  Anycast Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  VRRP Approach  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.1.  Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) . . . . . . . . .  4
       4.1.1.  DS-Lite Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       4.1.2.  Parameters for BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       4.1.3.  Elements of Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       4.1.4.  BFD for NAT failure detection  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       4.1.5.  Implementation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Port Control Protocol (PCP)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.3.  ICMP Echo Request / Echo Reply (PING)  . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.4.  Comparison of Different Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  State Synchronization and Session Re-establishment . . . . . .  8
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10















Tsou, et al.             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   DS-Lite Failure Detection and Failover    February 2014


1.  Introduction

   In DS-Lite [RFC6333], the IPv4-in-IPv6 DS-Lite tunnel is stateless,
   no status information about the tunnel is available, and no keep-
   alive mechanism is available.  It is difficult to know whether the
   tunnel is up or down; and if there is a link problem, the Basic
   Bridging BroadBand (B4) element can not automatically switch to
   another Address Family Transition Router (AFTR) so as to continue the
   network service automatically, without the involvement of operators.
   Besides, In DS-Lite [RFC6333], the CGN function at the AFTR is
   stateful and there is no mechanism to detect whether the NAT44 CGN is
   functioning in the AFTR.  These will create problems for network
   operation and maintenance.

   Possible solutions for failure detection include the usage of
   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD), the Port Control Protocol
   (PCP), and ICMP Echo Request / Echo Reply (PING).  The properties of
   these solutions are discussed in this document and guidelines are
   provided how to implement failure detection and automatic failover.

   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 [RFC2119].


2.  Terminology

   AFTR:     Address Family Transition Router.

   B4:       Basic Bridging BroadBand.

   BBF:      BroadBand Forum.

   BFD:      Bidirectional Forwarding Detection.

   CPE:      Customer Premise Equipment (i.e., the DS-Lite B4).

   FQDN      Fully Qualified Domain Name.

   PCP       Port Control Protocol.


3.  Failover Mechanisms

   The FQDN of the AFTR is sent to the B4 element via a DHCP option, as
   defined in [RFC6334].  Multiple IP addresses can be configured for
   the FQDN of an AFTR on the DNS server.  If a B4 element detects a
   failure on the link to the AFTR, the B4 element MUST terminate the



Tsou, et al.             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   DS-Lite Failure Detection and Failover    February 2014


   current DS-Lite tunnel, choose another AFTR address in the list, and
   create a tunnel to the new AFTR.  If necessary, the B4 element SHOULD
   re-configure the connectivity test tool accordingly and restart the
   test procedures.

3.1.  Anycast Approach

   Anycasts may also be used for failover.  But there is an ICMP-error-
   message problem with anycast, that is, when a packet is sent from the
   AFTR to a B4 element, if one of the routers along the path generates
   an ICMP error message, e.g., Packet Too Big (PTB), then the error
   message may not be sent back to the source AFTR but to another AFTR.

   There's also a problem with anycast for stateful CGN/AFTR.  If there
   is an asymmetric path though the CGNs, then return path traffic will
   be dropped as there is no corresponding state table entry in the
   AFTR.

3.2.  VRRP Approach

   For active/passive HA in NAT gateways, it's quite common to have a
   single virtual address offered by VRRP (or a proprietary equivalent)
   that the upstream routers will use as their next hop.  In the event
   that the master CGN fails, the standby takes over the virtual L3
   address.  If a VRRP based virtual address is used as the tunnel
   endpoint, then the clients wouldn't need to be aware of the failover.


4.  Solutions

4.1.  Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)

   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880] (BFD) is a mechanism
   intended to detect faults in a bidirectional path.  It is usually
   used in conjunction with applications like OSPF, IS-IS, for fast
   fault recovery and fast re-route [RFC5882].  BFD is being made
   mandatory for keep-alive for subscriber sessions, including DS-Lite,
   by the BroadBand Forum (BBF) [WT-146].

   BFD can be used in DS-Lite, by creating a BFD session between the B4
   element and the AFTR to provide tunnel status information.  If a
   fault is detected, the B4 element can try to create a DS-Lite tunnel
   with another AFTR and terminate the existing one, so as to continue
   network service.  BFD could also be used to detect the CGN state at
   the AFTR, but the detection should be based on per-user.

   [I-D.vinokour-bfd-dhcp] proposes using a DHCP option to distribute
   BFD parameters to B4 elements.  But in case of DS-Lite, some of the



Tsou, et al.             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   DS-Lite Failure Detection and Failover    February 2014


   key BFD parameters are already available (e.g., peer IP address), and
   other parameters can be negotiated by BFD signaling or statically
   configured, so that no extra DHCP option(s) need to be defined.

4.1.1.  DS-Lite Scenario

   In DS-Lite [RFC6333], the BFD packet SHOULD be sent through an IPv4-
   in-IPv6 tunnel, as shown in Figure 1.  The IPv4 addresses of the B4
   element and the AFTR SHOULD be the endpoints of a BFD session.

                    +--------------+                  +--------------+
       +------+     |              |     +------+     |              |
       |      |-----+--------------+-----|      |     |              |
       | CPE  |       IPv6 Tunnel        | AFTR |-----| IPv4 Network |
       | (B4) |-----+--------------+-----|      |     |              |
       +------+     | IPv6 Network |     +------+     |              |
      192.0.0.2     +--------------+    192.0.0.1     +--------------+

                        Figure 1: DS-Lite Scenario

4.1.2.  Parameters for BFD

   In order to set up a BFD session, the following parameters are
   needed, as shown in Section 4.1 of [RFC5880]:

   o  Peer IP address

   o  My Discriminator

   o  Your Discriminator

   o  Desired Min TX Interval

   o  Required Min RX Interval

   o  Required Min Echo RX Interval

   B4's WAN-side IPv4 address is the well-known address 192.0.0.2, and
   the AFTR's well-known IPv4 address is 192.0.0.1, as defined in
   section 5.7 of [RFC6333].  The B4 element needs to create an IPv6
   tunnel to an AFTR so as to get network connectivity to the AFTR, and
   send IPv4 BFD packets through the tunnel to manage it.

   The other parameters listed above can be negotiated by BFD signaling,
   and initial values can be configured on B4 elements and AFTRs.






Tsou, et al.             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   DS-Lite Failure Detection and Failover    February 2014


4.1.3.  Elements of Procedure

   When a B4 element gets online, it will be assigned an IPv6 prefix or
   address, and also the FQDN of the AFTR, as defined in [RFC6334].  The
   B4 element will create an IPv6 tunnel to the AFTR with which the B4
   element can initiate a BFD session to the AFTR.  BFD packets will be
   sent through the DS-Lite tunnel.  As defined in section 4 of
   [RFC5881], BFD control packets MUST be sent in UDP packets with
   destination port 3784, and BFD echo packets MUST be sent in UDP
   packets with destination port 3785.

   When sending out the first BFD packet, the B4 element can generate a
   unique local discriminator, and set the remote discriminator to zero.
   When the AFTR receives the first BFD packet from a B4 element, the
   AFTR will also generate a corresponding local discriminator, and put
   it in the response packet to the B4 element.  This will finish the
   discriminator negotiation in the B4 to AFTR direction, without any
   manual configuration.

   When an AFTR receives the first packet from a B4 element, the AFTR
   will get the IPv6 address and discriminator of the B4 element, so
   that the AFTR can initiate the BFD session in the other direction and
   a similar discriminator negotiation can be carried out.

4.1.4.  BFD for NAT failure detection

   B4 creates PCP mapping.  BFD at AFTR uses an external public
   interface (or another external mapping) to send a BFD packet to the
   public PCP mapping created by B4.  In this case, the AFTR BFD packet
   will have a public source IP of interface, which will go through the
   NAT, therefore exercising the NAT function.  B4 will reply to the
   AFTR external interface.

4.1.5.  Implementation Considerations

   BFD is usually used for quick fault detection, at a very small time
   scale, e.g. milliseconds.  But in DS-Lite, it may not be necessary to
   detect faults in such a short time.  On the other hand, an AFTR may
   need to support tens of thousands of B4 elements, which means an AFTR
   will need to support the same number of BFD sessions.  In order to
   meet performance requirements on an AFTR, it may be necessary to
   extend the time period between BFD packet transmissions to a longer
   time, e.g., 10s or 30s.

   Compared to other solutions, BFD has a simple and fixed packet
   format, which is easy to implement by logic devices (e.g., ASIC,
   FPGA).  Complicated protocols are usually processed by software which
   is relatively slow.  An AFTR may need to support 10000-20000 users,



Tsou, et al.             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   DS-Lite Failure Detection and Failover    February 2014


   and if the protocol is handled by software, it will bring extra load
   to the AFTR.

4.2.  Port Control Protocol (PCP)

   [RFC6887]PCP is a NAT traversal tool.  It can also be used for
   network connectivity test if PCP is supported in the network.  A
   common use case of PCP is to create a pinhole so that external users
   can visit the servers located behind a NAT.  The lifetime of the
   pinhole mapping is usually long, e.g., hours, and the lifetime will
   be refreshed periodically by the client before it is expired.  For
   the purpose of network connectivity tests, a B4 element can create a
   mapping in the CGN via PCP, with a short life time, e.g., 10s of
   seconds, and keep on refreshing the mapping before it expires.  If
   any refresh requests fail, the B4 element knows that something is
   wrong with the link or the PCP server or the CGN.

   In order to detect the network connectivity of the DS-Lite tunnel,
   the encapsulation mode MUST be used for PCP: PCP packets are sent
   through the DS-Lite tunnel.

   PCP can detect the failure of more components of the DS-Lite system.
   Besides failures of the link and the routing, it also covers NAT
   functions.

4.3.  ICMP Echo Request / Echo Reply (PING)

   PING is commonly implemented using the Echo Request and Echo Response
   messages of the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) [RFC0792]
   [RFC4443].  In case of DS-Lite, a B4 element can send Echo Request
   packets to the AFTR periodically.  If the B4 element does not receive
   Echo Response packets for a certain number (e.g., 3) of Echo Request
   packets, then the B4 element decides that a fault has been detected.

   In order to test the connectivity of DS-Lite tunnel, Echo Request
   packets MUST be sent using ICMPv4, rather than ICMPv6.

   Since ICMP is an integral part of any IP implementation, the usage of
   PING to detect tunnel failures does not require any special
   implementation efforts on the B4 elements.  However, on AFTRs that
   process ICMP messages in software rather than in hardware, the usage
   of PING might lead to scalability issues.









Tsou, et al.             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   DS-Lite Failure Detection and Failover    February 2014


4.4.  Comparison of Different Solutions


     +--------+-------------+------+-------------------+-------------+
     |        |             |Packet|Additional         |Configuration|
     |        |Availablility|format|functionality      |/provisioning|
     |        |             |      |ontop of keepalives|   overheads |
     +--------+-------------+------+-------------------+-------------+
     |  BFD   |Widely used/ |      |                   |             |
     |        |network side,|Simple|Bidirectional      |             |
     |        |less used/   |fixed |status             |             |
     |        |terminal side|      |synchronization    |             |
     +--------+-------------+------+-------------------+ Similar     |
     | PCP    |Less than    |      |No bidirectional   |             |
     |        |BFD/ICMP     |Vari- |     detection     |             |
     +--------+-------------+able  +-------------------+             |
     | ICMP   |Ubiquitous   |      |Network/CGN        |             |
     |        |             |      |initiated detection|             |
     +--------+-------------+------+-------------------+-------------+

                Figure 2: Comparison of different solutions

   Figure 2 gives a direct comparison among different solutions.
   Compared to other solutions, BFD has a simple and fixed packet
   format, which is easy to implement by logic devices (e.g., ASIC,
   FPGA).  Complicated protocols are usually processed by software which
   is relatively slow.  ICMP is widely used than PCP/BFD, while BFD is
   more widely used in the router and CGN side than in the terminal
   side.  However, from the aspect of failure detection, BFD has
   explicit capability of bidirectional status synchronization to
   guarantee the consistency of the failure status of both sides.  ICMP
   could actively initiate status detection from the network side or CGN
   side, while PCP could not.  PCP has no capability of bidirectional
   detection.  Considering the configuration/provisioning overheads,
   since there is normally TR-069 server at the network management side.
   So it is similar for each approach.

   From the above comparison, BFD is selected as the failure detection
   approach in this document.


5.  State Synchronization and Session Re-establishment

   There should be a state sync mechanism between active AFTR and backup
   AFTR, to synchronize the state of each user between the two AFTRs.
   This mechanism is to guarantee that the traffic returning to the B4
   is from the backup AFTR, if the service is shifted to that AFTR.  The
   BFD link for both active AFTR and backup AFTR should be set up in the



Tsou, et al.             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   DS-Lite Failure Detection and Failover    February 2014


   initial state.  When the active AFTR is detected in failure, the
   service will be shifted to the backup AFTR.  If the backup AFTR is
   detected in failure, it will notify the network management server to
   fix the failure.

   In the hot-standby case, the master AFTR and the backup AFTR will
   synchronize and backup the session.  So there is no need to re-
   establish the TCP session in the event of an AFTR failure.  But in
   the cold-standby case, if there is an active TCP session through the
   CGN function of an AFTR, and this AFTR fails, then the TCP session
   will need to be re-established by the client because only the
   capability is reserved but the session is not backup.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.


7.  Security Considerations

   In the DS-Lite [RFC6333] application, the B4 element may not be
   directly connected to the AFTR; there may be other routers between
   them.  In such a deployment, there are potential spoofing problems,
   as described in [RFC5883].  Hence cryptographic authentication SHOULD
   be used with BFD as described in [RFC5880] if security is concerned.


8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Ian Farrer for his valuable comments.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, September 1981.

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

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
              Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
              Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection



Tsou, et al.             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   DS-Lite Failure Detection and Failover    February 2014


              (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.

   [RFC5881]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881,
              June 2010.

   [RFC5882]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Generic Application of
              Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5882,
              June 2010.

   [RFC5883]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, June 2010.

   [RFC6333]  Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
              Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
              Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.

   [RFC6334]  Hankins, D. and T. Mrugalski, "Dynamic Host Configuration
              Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Option for Dual-Stack Lite",
              RFC 6334, August 2011.

   [RFC6887]  Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
              Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
              April 2013.

   [WT-146]   Kavanagh, A., Klamm, F., Boucadair, W., and R. Dec, "WT-
              146 Subscriber Sessions (work in progress)", Apr 2012.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.vinokour-bfd-dhcp]
              Vinokour, V., "Configuring BFD with DHCP and Other
              Musings", May 2008.


Authors' Addresses

   Tina Tsou
   Huawei Technologies (USA)
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara  CA  95050
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 330 4424
   Email: tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com






Tsou, et al.             Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   DS-Lite Failure Detection and Failover    February 2014


   Brandon Li
   Huawei Technologies
   M6, No. 156, Beiqing Road, Haidian District
   Beijing  100094
   China

   Phone:
   Email: brandon.lijian@huawei.com


   Cathy Zhou
   Huawei Technologies
   China

   Phone:
   Email: cathy.zhou@huawei.com


   Juergen Schoenwaelder
   Jacobs University Bremen
   Campus Ring 1
   Bremen  28759
   Germany

   Phone:
   Email: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de


   Reinaldo Penno
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drivee
   San Jose, California  95134
   USA

   Phone:
   Email: repenno@cisco.com


   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes,35000
   France

   Phone:
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com






Tsou, et al.             Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 11]