[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

IDR WorkGroup                                                   M. Zheng
Internet-Draft                                                 A. Lindem
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: September 12, 2019                               March 11, 2019


                          BGP BFD Strict-Mode
             draft-merciaz-ietf-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-01

Abstract

   This document specifies extensions to RFC4271 BGP-4 that enable a BGP
   speaker to signal additional Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
   extensions using an optional parameter BFD capability.  This BFD
   capability enables a BGP speaker to prevent a BGP session from being
   established until a BFD session is established.  It is referred to as
   BGP BFD "strict-mode".  BGP BFD strict-mode will be supported when
   both the local speaker and its remote peer are BFD strict-mode
   capable, Otherwise, a BGP speaker and its peer should not require a
   BFD session for BGP session establishment.

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 September 12, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (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



Zheng & Lindem         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             BGP BFD Strict-Mode                March 2019


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  BGP BFD Capability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection BFD [RFC5882] enables routers to
   monitor data plane connectivity and to detect faults in the
   bidirectional forwarding path between them.  This capability is
   leveraged by routing protocols such as BGP [RFC4271] to rapidly react
   to topology changes in the face of path failures.

   The BFD interaction with BGP is specified in Section 10.2 of
   [RFC5882].  When BFD is enabled for a BGP neighbor, faults in the
   bidirectional forwarding detected by BFD result in session
   termination.  It is possible in some failure scenarios for the
   network to be in a state such that a BGP session may be established
   but a BFD session cannot be established.  In some other scenarios, it
   may be possible to establish a BGP session, but a degraded or poor-
   quality link may result in the corresponding BFD session going up and
   down frequently.

   To avoid situations which result in routing churn and to minimize the
   impact of network interruptions, it will be beneficial to disallow
   BGP to establish a neighbor session until BFD session is successfully
   established and has stabilized.  We refer to this mode of operation
   as BGP BFD "strict-mode".  However, always using strict-mode" would
   preclude BGP operation in an environment where not all routers
   support BFD strict-mode or have BFD enabled.  This document defines
   BGP "strict-mode" operation as preventing BGP session establishment
   until both the local and remove speakers have a stable BFD session.
   The document also specifies the BGP protocol extensions for BGP
   capability [RFC5492] for announcing BFD parameters including a BGP




Zheng & Lindem         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             BGP BFD Strict-Mode                March 2019


   speaker's support for "strict-mode", i.e., requiring a BFD session
   for BGP session establishment.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  BGP BFD Capability

   The BGP Capability [RFC5492] for BFD parameters will allow a BGP
   speaker's BFD capabilities including its support for BFD strict-mode.
   This capability is defined as follows:

   Capability code: TBD

   Capability length: 1 octet

   Capability value: Consists of 1 octet BFD flags as follows:

            +--------------------------------------------------+
            | BFD Flags (8 bits)                               |
            +--------------------------------------------------+




   The use and meaning of the fields are as follows:

   BFD Flags: This field contains bit flags relating to BFD.

                    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   |S| Reserved    |
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



   The most significant bit is defined as state of Strict-Mode ("Strict-
   Mode", or "S") bit, which can be used by a BGP speaker to signal its
   support for BFD Strict-mode.  When set (value 1), this bit indicates
   that the BGP speaker has the BFD "Strict-mode" enabled.  If both
   local BGP speaker and its peer are enabled with BFD strict-mode, then
   BGP session establishment will be disallowed until a BFD session is




Zheng & Lindem         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             BGP BFD Strict-Mode                March 2019


   established.  A BGP speaker with BFD strict-mode enabled MUST
   advertise the BFD capability with "S" bit value 1.

   The remaining bits are reserved and SHOULD be set to zero by the
   sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

4.  Operation

   A BGP speaker that supports capabilities advertisement sends an OPEN
   message to its BGP peer, the message MAY include an Optional
   Parameter, called Capabilities.  The parameter lists the capabilities
   supported by the speaker.  By following BGP capabilities
   advertisement procedures defined in [RFC5492], BFD capability
   advertisement for strict-mode is advertised to BGP peers.

   A BGP speaker which supports capabilities advertisement and has BFD
   strict-mode enabled MUST include the BGP BFD capability with the "S"
   Bit set in the BGP capabilities it advertises.

   A BGP speaker which supports BFD capability advertisement, examines
   the list of capabilities present in the Capabilities BFD Parameter
   that the speaker receives from its peer.  If both the local and
   remote BGP speakers BFD strict-mode enabled, then BGP session
   establishment will be prevented until a BFD session is up.  If either
   peer has not advertised the BFD Capability with strict-mode enabled,
   then a BFD session SHOULD NOT be required prior to BGP session
   establishment.  This does not preclude usage of BFD after BGP session
   establishment [RFC5882].

   A BGP speaker which does not support or recognize BFD capability
   should ignore the BFD capability.  If a BGP speaker advertising the
   capability receives the Unsupported Capability NOTIFICATION message,
   it MUST NOT be result in BGP session termination.

5.  Backward Compatibility

   The new BFD capability will introduce any backward compatibility if
   the procedures defined in this document are followed.  A BGP speaker
   which does not support BFD capability MUST ignore this capability.
   The Unsupported Capability NOTIFICATION message MUST NOT result in
   session termination by the BGP speaker advertising the capability.

6.  Security Considerations

   This specification doesn't change the basic security model inherent
   in [RFC4271].  To the extent [RFC4271] might be said to help defend
   against denials of service by making the control plane more
   resilient, this extension may modestly increase that resilience;



Zheng & Lindem         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             BGP BFD Strict-Mode                March 2019


   however, there are enough confounding and deployment-specific factors
   that no general claims can be made.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new BGP capability - BFD Capability.  The
   Capability Code for BFD Capability is TBD.

   IANA is requested to establish a "BGP BFD Capability Flags" registry
   within the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" grouping.  The
   Registration Procedure should be Standards Action, the initial values
   as follows:


         +--------------+---------------+------------+---------------+
         | Bit Position |      Name     | Short Name |   Reference   |
         +--------------+---------------+------------+---------------+
         |      0       | Strict-Mode   |     S      | this document |
         |      1-7     | Unassigned    |            | this document |
         +--------------+---------------+------------+---------------+




8.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to acknowledge the review and inputs from
   Shyam Sethuram and Mohammed Mirza.

9.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC5492]  Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
              with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.







Zheng & Lindem         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             BGP BFD Strict-Mode                March 2019


   [RFC5882]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Generic Application of
              Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5882,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5882, June 2010, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc5882>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Authors' Addresses

   Mercia Zheng
   Cisco Systems
   821 Alder Drive,
   MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035
   UNITED STATES

   Email: merciaz@cisco.com


   Acee Lindem
   Cisco Systems
   821 Alder Drive,
   MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035
   UNITED STATES

   Email: acee@cisco.com
























Zheng & Lindem         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/