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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Draft is active
In: IESG_Evaluation_-_Defer
INTERNET-DRAFT                                             A.Palanivelan
Intended Status: Historic                                  EMC Corporation
Expires: May 20, 2012                                      Nov 17, 2011



       A Record of Discussions of Graceful Restart Extensions for
                 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
                   draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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


Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   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.





A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                  [Page 1]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


Abstract

   This document is a historical record of discussions about extending
   the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol to provide
   additional capabilities to handle Graceful Restart.

   These discussions took place in the context of the IETF's BFD working
   group, and the consensus in that group was that these extensions
   should not be made.

   This document presents a summary of the challenges to BFD in
   surviving a graceful restart, and outlines a potential protocol
   solution that was discussed and rejected within the BFD working
   group.  The purpose of this document is to provide a record of the
   work done so that future effort will not be wasted.  This document
   does not propose or document any extensions to BFD, and there is no
   intention that it should be implemented in its current form.


Table of Contents

   1  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3  Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1  Restarts with control protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2  BFD Co-existing with Broadband configurations . . . . . . .  5
   4. Extensions to BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1 Diagnostic (Diag)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2 State (Sta)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.3 My Restart Interval  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.4 Your Restart Interval  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5. State Machine for BFD with GR Support . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.1. Session Establishment and GR Timer exchange . . . . . . . . 10
     6.2. Remote Neighbor Restart and Recovery  . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9 Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   10  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     10.1  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     10.2  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14









A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                  [Page 2]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


1  Introduction


   The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection protocol [BFD] provides
   mechanism for liveness detection of arbitrary paths between systems.
   It is intended to provide low-overhead, short-duration detection of
   failures in the path between adjacent forwarding engines, including
   the interfaces, data links, and to the extent possible, the
   forwarding engines themselves. It operates independently of media,
   data protocols, and routing protocols. An additional BFD goal is to
   provide a single mechanism that can be used for liveness detection
   over any media, at any protocol layer, with a wide range of detection
   times and overhead, to avoid a proliferation of different methods.

   Graceful Restart (GR) was considered for BFD, but was rejected by the
   BFD Working Group as unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the
   protocol. As a result, the work on BFD GR was not progressed within
   the working group.

   This document presents a summary of the challenges to BFD in
   surviving a graceful restart, and outlines a potential protocol
   solution that was discussed and rejected within the BFD working
   group. The purpose of this document is to provide a record of the
   work done so that future effort will not be wasted.

   This document does not propose or document any extensions to BFD, and
   there is no intention that it should be implemented in its current
   form.


2  Overview

   The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [BFD] specification defines a
   protocol with simple and specific semantics. Its purpose is to verify
   liveliness of the connectivity between a pair of systems, for a
   particular data protocol across a path (which may be of any
   technology, length, or at any protocol 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 works properly without a need for any GR support.  The author is
   aware of BFD implementations that have experienced problems
   maintaining liveliness verification during GR. It is true that
   prioritizing BFD would make sure the other CPU intensive processes do
   not cause BFD to fail, but this may not be possible in some
   implementations as there may be other higher priority processing that
   can't be ignored. For example, perhaps existing subscriber
   connections can't be given a lesser priority.



A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                  [Page 3]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


3  Motivations

   This section of the document discusses the following issues, might be
   seen in BFD deployments:

         * Restarts with control protocols

         * BFD co-existing with Broadband configurations

   The later sections of this document capture ideas about protocol
   extensions that attempted to provide a general GR mechanism for BFD,
   but were rejected by the working group as unnecessary and
   inappropriate. The working group believes that the existing BFD
   design has the capabilities to take care of these challenges.


3.1  Restarts with control protocols

   Section 4.3 of [RFC5882] describes how BFD can interact with the GR
   of control plane protocols.

   Some protocols can signal the intention to perform a restart before
   initiating the restart, and can indicate when the restart has been
   completed. In these cases, [RFC5882] recommends that the restart
   should not be aborted and no topology change should be signalled in
   the control plane if BFD detects a session failure during the
   restart.

   Control protocols that cannot signal a planned restart must treat
   planned and unplanned restarts in the same way. In order to avoid
   treating a BFD failure being triggered by the restart and causing the
   restart to be aborted or the topology modified, such protocols depend
   on the restarting system signalling the existence of the restart
   event before BFD detects the failure (for example, before the BFD
   session times out).

   In most cases, whether the restart is planned or unplanned, it is
   likely that the BFD session timeout will be shorter that the restart
   time up to the point where the Graceful Restart event can be
   signalled. Thus, if there is an interruption to BFD caused by the
   restart, BFD will detect a fault and cause a topology change to be
   signaled. That means there could be an issue in implementations where
   a control plane restart event causes BFD to be disrupted. Such a
   situation could impact non-stop routing and non-stop forwarding
   support using GR-enabled protocols.

   In considering this situation, the BFD working group determined that
   the solution was to implement the system such that a protocol restart



A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                  [Page 4]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


   would not cause disruption to the function of the BFD session. Such
   could easily be achieved by maintaining the BFD session in the
   forwarding hardware. In arriving at this determination, the working
   group realized that any restart event that disrupted the BFD
   processes in the forwarding hardware would also result in a
   disruption to forwarding and it would, therefore, be correct to allow
   BFD to report the failure.


3.2  BFD Co-existing with Broadband configurations


   Assume a Provider-Edge (PE) router may have active DHCP sessions with
   a large number of clients (say 16k). During a planned restart of the
   PE, it is possible that a number of the DHCP clients will request the
   server (restarting router) to renew client IP addresses.  These
   requests will be retried and will reach the router in bulk after it
   has just come up. The router might be implemented to treat them at a
   high priority and respond to them.  When there are thousands of such
   requests to the restarting router,  the router might spend a major
   part of its first second of up time addressing them.

   In this scenario, a control protocol like OSPFv2 that has GR enabled
   [OSPF-GRACE], could withstand the restart for the specified restart
   interval (as it will be in seconds) and it is likely to survive the
   restart, maintaining its forwarding plane.

   In the same scenario, if BFD is enabled for OSPFv2 for an unplanned
   restart, the (BFD) neighbor router will be expecting BFD control
   packets in a milliseconds interval; during the restart process it
   could timeout,  which would also impact the associated OSPFv2
   adjacency and result in loss of traffic.

   The scenario will be the same for BFD with a protocol such as IS-IS
   [IS-IS-GRACE], where the problem would be seen even for a planned
   restart since there is no ability to signal the restart event.

   In its consideration of this scenario, the BFD working group decided
   that the situation would only arise if the PE router implementation
   gave disproportionate resources to other processes in such a way as
   to impact BFD. The working group considered that a sensible
   implementation would not lead to the problems described in this
   section.








A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                  [Page 5]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


4. Extensions to BFD

   The protocol elements described in this section were rejected by the
   BFD working group and should not be implemented. The protocol
   procedures are not complete and the message formats do not form part
   of any BFD specification.

   In discussions of a potential BFD protocol solution to circumvent the
   issues described in Section 3, a proposal was made to introduce a new
   BFD diag value to indicate that the neighbor is restarting, and
   provisions to configure BFD Graceful Restart timers.

   The Generic BFD Control Packet [BFD] format shown below includes two
   additional fields "My Restart Interval" and "Your Restart Interval".

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Vers |  Diag   |Sta|P|F|C|A|D|M|  Detect Mult  |    Length     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       My Discriminator                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Your Discriminator                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Desired Min TX Interval                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Required Min RX Interval                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Required Min Echo RX Interval                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     My Restart Interval                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Your Restart Interval                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

4.1 Diagnostic (Diag)

   A diagnostic code specifying the local system's reason for the last
   change in session state. This field allows remote systems to
   determine the reason that the previous session failed. Values for
   this field are allocated by IANA according to Expert Review
   [RFC5226]. The procedures discussed, rejected and recorded in this
   document include a new diag value to represent "Neighbor Restarting".



A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                  [Page 6]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


4.2 State (Sta)

   The procedures discussed, rejected and recorded in this document
   include a new BFD session state, "NeighborRestart".

   The current session state is signalled in the Sta field [BFD]. This
   is a two-bit field and [BFD] defines all four possible values for the
   field. No mechanism was discussed or agreed upon within the BFD
   working group for how this additional session state would be
   signalled. A proposal to use the value 4 in the two-bit field was
   considered impractical.


4.3 My Restart Interval

   The procedures discussed, rejected and recorded in this document
   include the addition of a My Restart Interval field to the BFD
   message as shown in the figure in Section 4.

   This is the restart interval, in microseconds, of the transmitting
   system advertised to the remote system. In the case of a restart (of
   the transmitting system), the remote system is expected to keep the
   BFD session up for this duration of time.  This field needs to have a
   value greater than the detection time (see section 6.2).  A value of
   0 indicates to the remote system that this system has BFD-GR
   disabled. The Length (L) field in the BFD header that indicates the
   fixed header length, would include the length of this field if this
   field were present.


4.4 Your Restart Interval

   The proposed procedures discussed, rejected and recorded in this
   document include the addition of a Your Restart Interval field to the
   BFD message as shown in the figure in Section 4.

   This is the restart interval, in microseconds, received from the
   corresponding remote system. In the case of a restart (of the remote
   system), the transmitting system is expected to keep the BFD session
   up for this duration of time. This field needs to have a value
   greater than the detection time. The Length (L) field in the BFD
   header that indicates the fixed header length, would include the
   length of this field, if this field were present.



A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                  [Page 7]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


5. State Machine for BFD with GR Support

   The BFD state machine is quite straightforward and explained in
   detail by [BFD]. [BFD] describes different states for BFD as: Down,
   Init, Up, AdminDown.


   Each system communicates its session state in the State (Sta) field
   of the BFD Control packet, and that received state, in combination
   with the local session state, drives the state machine.Please refer
   to [BFD] for state the machine diagram and detailed explanations of
   the state transitions.


   The following diagram provides an overview of the state machine, for
   state transitions for BFD with GR support (where "Your Restart
   Interval" has a non-zero value greater than Detection time). This
   document introduces a new state, "NeighborRestart" to the BFD state
   machine. The use of that new state has not been adopted by the BFD
   working group and should not be included in implementations.


   Furthermore, as noted in Section 4.2, no mechanism exists or has been
   proposed for communicating this additional state to a BFD peer.
   Therefore, it must be recognized that the state machine shown here is
   purely hypothetical and that all procedures described do not form
   part of the BFD specification.


   The "Your Restart Interval" must have a value greater than the
   detection time value.  If this value is zero or less than the
   detection time value, the state transitions should completely follow
   the BFD state machine as defined by [BFD].


   The notation on each arc represents the state of the remote system
   (as received in the State field in the BFD Control packet) or
   indicates the expiration of the Detection Timer.



A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                  [Page 8]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011



                                       +-----+
                                       |     | INIT, UP
                                       |     v
                                +-----------------------------+
                      +-------->|State =  UP, Diag = 0,       |
                      |         |Timer = "Detect Interval"    |<----+
                      |         |                             |     |
                      |         +-----------------------------+     |
                      |           |                 |               |
                      |           |                 |               |
                      |           |          {Neighbor Restart}     |
                      |           |                 |               |
                      |           |                 |               |
                      |INIT,UP    |                 | {Neighbor Restart
                      |           |                 |         complete}
                      |           |                 |               |
                      |           |                 v               |
                   +-------+      | +---------------------------------+
             +-----|       |      | |State = NEIGHBORRESTART,         |
             |     |       |      | |Timer = "Your Restart interval"  |
       DOWN  |     | INIT  |      | +---------------------------------+
             +---->|       |      |                     |
                   +-------+      |ADMIN DOWN,          |
                       |          |DOWN,                |
                       |          |TIMER                |
                       |          v          ADMIN DOWN,|
                       |       +-------+           DOWN,|
                       |       |       |          TIMER |
            ADMIN DOWN,|       | DOWN  |<---------------+
                 TIMER |       |       |
                       +------>|       |
                               +-------+
                                  |   ^
                                  |   | UP, ADMIN DOWN, TIMER
                                  |   |
                                  +---+



   Note1: This state diagram holds only for BFD with GR extension as
   described in this document, which implies that "your Restart
   Interval" has a value greater than the Detection time value of the
   established session. This state machine must not be implemented.

   Note2: The labels of the diagram in braces {} indicate the GR
   Specific events on the remote neighbor (Restart/Restart complete).

   The State Transitions involving the new state, NeighborRestart is
   explained in the next section of this document.



A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                  [Page 9]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


6. Theory of Operation

   This section describes the possible operation of the protocol
   elements and state machine described in the previous sections. The
   processes described here were discussed and rejected by the BFD
   working group. In particular, the processes presented are specific to
   the GR and are not complete. The BFD Working group does not recommend
   these processes for implementation and must not form part of a
   deployed BFD system.


6.1. Session Establishment and GR Timer exchange

   The BFD session establishment follows the procedures as described
   in[BFD]. If the technology described by this document were to be
   implemented,  the BFD control packets would have the following fields
   with the values given below.

   A new section to the BFD control packet format, "My Restart Interval"
   (Section 4.3) needs to have a non-zero value that is greater than the
   detection time.

   A new section to the BFD control packet format, "Your Restart
   Interval" (Section 4.4) needs to have a non-zero value that is
   greater than the detection time.

   The "My Restart Interval" and "Your  Restart Interval" are used in
   exchanging the GR timers information between the systems.


   "My  Restart Interval" is the time interval in microseconds, that
   this system expects its remote system to wait for before bringing
   down its BFD session with that system.


   "Your Restart Interval" is the time interval in microseconds,
   specified by the remote system,  that it expects this system to wait
   for, before bringing down its BFD session with the remote system.


   Once the packet exchanges are complete and the BFD sessions are
   up,every BFD session will have information about the time interval
   its remote system will wait during a Restart, and also the time
   interval this system has to wait when the remote system restarts. The
   "My Restart Interval" and the "Your Restart Interval" values can be
   modified after the session is up, just like the other BFD parameters,
   and in this case the packet exchanges will sync up the restart
   interval times (My and Your) on both the sides appropriately.



A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                 [Page 10]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


   The exchange of GR Specific parameters during BFD session
   establishment is indicated in the diagram below. The diagram shows
   only part of control packets, for the purpose of clarity.


          System A                             System B
              |                                    |
              |                                    |
              |----------------------------------->|
              |  {BFD.MyRestartInterval  = AAAA    |
              |  BFD.YourRestartInterval = 0 }     |
              |                                    |
              |<-----------------------------------|
              |  {BFD.MyRestartInterval  = BBBB    |
              |  BFD.YourRestartInterval= AAAA }   |
              |                                    |
              |----------------------------------->|
              |  {BFD.MyRestartInterval  = AAAA    |
              |  BFD.YourRestartInterval= BBBB }   |
              |                                    |


   The initial BFD packet exchange between local system and remote
   system will have the exchanged values for the "My Restart Interval"
   or 0.  The "Your Restart Interval" will reflect the value received in
   My Restart Interval" from the corresponding remote system,  or be
   Zero if that value is not set (value of 0).


   A value of Zero for "Your Restart Interval" means that the BFD GR is
   disabled at the remote end,  and similarly a value of Zero for "My
   Restart Interval" means that BFD GR is disabled at the transmitting
   system.


6.2. Remote Neighbor Restart and Recovery


   When the BFD neighbors have established their BFD sessions (with
   their BFD GR timer values exchanged as described above), the
   following set of operations take place when the remote neighbor
   attempts a graceful restart (for example, with a GR enabled routing
   protocol like OSPFv2/IS-IS tied with BFD).

   Once the packet exchanges are complete and the BFD sessions are up,
   every BFD session will have information about the time interval its
   remote system will wait during a Restart, and also the time interval
   this system has to wait when the remote system restarts.




A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                 [Page 11]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


   For clarity, let us revisit the BFD timers and BFD detection time as
   described in [BFD].

   The Detection Time (the period of time without receiving BFD packets
   after which the session is determined to have failed) is not carried
   explicitly in the protocol.  Rather, it is calculated independently
   in each direction by the receiving system based on the negotiated
   transmit interval and the detection multiplier.

   This means that a BFD control packet should be received from the
   remote neighbor within the detection time.  When the BFD control
   packet is not received from the remote neighbor within this time, the
   timer expiry should bring the BFD session state to down.

   During a Graceful, we may end up in a situation that the routing
   protocol (like OSPFv2) is in graceful restart mode with the remote
   neighbor restarting, and the system not receiving BFD control packets
   within the detection time, due to other CPU intensive processes in
   the system. The technology described by this document addresses this
   issue.

   If the set of systems had their BFD sessions established, with GR
   support as described in this document, when the remote neighbor
   restarts it will set the BFD diagnostics field to a value to
   indicate "Neighbor Restarting" in the control packet to its neighbor
   (local system).

   When the local system receives a BFD control packet with its diag
   field set to indicate "Neighbor Restarting", the local system will
   update its timer to the previously exchanged value of "Your Restart
   Interval".

   This effectively means that the local system should wait for a BFD
   control packet for "Your Restart Interval" instead of Detection time.
   This will be the case as long as the diag field from the remote
   neighbor indicates Neighbor Restart.  The BFD moves from "Up" to
   "NeighborRestart" state.



7  Security Considerations

   The security implications of the ideas discussed in this document
   have not been examined. It is likely that the security considerations
   discussed in [BFD], [BFD-1HOP] apply to this document.




A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                 [Page 12]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


8  IANA Considerations

   This document is a historical record of the work and the discussions
   on the BFD working group, on a possible solution to Graceful Restart.
   No IANA action is requested.


9 Acknowledgments

   The Author likes to acknowledge caldwel.E and Ramesh.M for their
   early inputs to this document. Thanks to Fred Baker, Dave Ward
   (bfd-wg Chair), Senthil Sivakumar, Nevil Brownlee (RFC-ISE) and
   Adrian Farrel (routing AD) for valuable advice, help and guidance.

   The Author also likes to thank Joel Bion, Karthik, Mridhula, Ramya,
   and members of ISOC fellowship committee for their wholehearted

 support towards the author's IETF activities.


10  References

10.1  Normative References

   [BFD]  Katz, D., and Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding
          Detection",RFC 5880, June, 2010.

   [BFD-1HOP]  Katz, D., and Ward, D., "BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single
               Hop)", RFC 5881, June, 2010.

   [RFC5882]   Katz, D. and Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding
               Detection", RFC 5882, June 2010



10.2  Informative References

     [IS-IS-GRACE]  Shand, M., and Ginsberg, L., "Restart signaling for
                    IS-IS", RFC 5306, October 2008.

     [OSPF-GRACE]   Moy, J., et al, "Graceful OSPF Restart", RFC 3623,
                    November 2003.

     [RFC5226]  T. Narten, H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
                IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC5226, May 2008.





A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                 [Page 13]


INTERNET DRAFT       draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-13         May 08, 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Palanivelan Appanasamy
   Principal Software Engineer,
   Networking/WAN, EMC Corporation,
   Bangalore-560048.
   India.

   EMail: Palanivelan.Appanasamy@emc.com










































A.Palanivelan             Expires May 20, 2012                 [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/