draft-ietf-spring-bfd-01.txt   draft-ietf-spring-bfd-02.txt 
SPRING Working Group G. Mirsky SPRING Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura
Expires: 23 September 2021 Juniper Networks Expires: 27 March 2022 Juniper Networks
I. Varlashkin I. Varlashkin
Google Google
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
J. Wenying J. Wenying
CMCC CMCC
22 March 2021 23 September 2021
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks
Using MPLS Dataplane Using MPLS Dataplane
draft-ietf-spring-bfd-01 draft-ietf-spring-bfd-02
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of source Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of source
routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. A segment is (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. A segment is
encoded as an MPLS label, and an ordered list of segments is encoded encoded as an MPLS label, and an ordered list of segments is encoded
as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is
expected to monitor any existing path between systems. This document expected to monitor any existing path between systems. This document
defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 23 September 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 March 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 4, line 28 skipping to change at page 4, line 28
detection message, i.e., BFD Control message, and the Forwarding detection message, i.e., BFD Control message, and the Forwarding
Equivalency Class (FEC) of a single label stack LSP in case of Equivalency Class (FEC) of a single label stack LSP in case of
Penultimate Hop Popping or when the egress LER distributes the Penultimate Hop Popping or when the egress LER distributes the
Explicit NULL label to the penultimate hop router. The Explicit NULL Explicit NULL label to the penultimate hop router. The Explicit NULL
label is not advertised as a Segment Identifier (SID) by an SR node label is not advertised as a Segment Identifier (SID) by an SR node
but, as demonstrated in section 3.1 [RFC8660] if the operation at the but, as demonstrated in section 3.1 [RFC8660] if the operation at the
penultimate hop is NEXT; then the egress SR node will receive an IP penultimate hop is NEXT; then the egress SR node will receive an IP
encapsulated packet. Thus the conclusion is that LSP Ping MUST be encapsulated packet. Thus the conclusion is that LSP Ping MUST be
used to bootstrap a BFD session in an SR-MPLS domain if there are no used to bootstrap a BFD session in an SR-MPLS domain if there are no
other means to bootstrap the BFD session, e.g., using an extension to other means to bootstrap the BFD session, e.g., using an extension to
a dynamic routing protocol as described in a dynamic routing protocol as described in [RFC9026] and
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover] and
[I-D.ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case]. [I-D.ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case].
As demonstrated in [RFC8287], the introduction of Segment Routing As demonstrated in [RFC8287], the introduction of Segment Routing
network domains with an MPLS data plane requires three new sub-TLVs network domains with an MPLS data plane requires three new sub-TLVs
that MAY be used with Target FEC TLV. Section 6.1 addresses the use that MAY be used with Target FEC TLV. Section 6.1 addresses the use
of the new sub-TLVs in Target FEC TLV in LSP ping and LSP traceroute. of the new sub-TLVs in Target FEC TLV in LSP ping and LSP traceroute.
For the case of LSP ping, the [RFC8287] states that: For the case of LSP ping, the [RFC8287] states that:
The initiator, i.e., ingress LER, MUST include FEC(s) The initiator, i.e., ingress LER, MUST include FEC(s)
corresponding to the destination segment. corresponding to the destination segment.
skipping to change at page 12, line 21 skipping to change at page 12, line 21
information about the implementation of this specification. information about the implementation of this specification.
14. References 14. References
14.1. Normative References 14.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed] [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed]
Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen, Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return
Path for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", Work in Path for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-17, Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-18,
16 February 2021, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- 20 August 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
mpls-bfd-directed-17>. draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-18>.
[I-D.mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand] [I-D.mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand]
Mirsky, G., "BFD in Demand Mode over Point-to-Point MPLS Mirsky, G., "BFD in Demand Mode over Point-to-Point MPLS
LSP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-bfd- LSP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-bfd-
mpls-demand-08, 9 September 2020, mpls-demand-09, 30 March 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-bfd-
08>. mpls-demand-09>.
[I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy] [I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy]
Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z. Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z.
Zhang, "SR Replication Policy for P2MP Service Delivery", Zhang, "SR Replication Policy for P2MP Service Delivery",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-voyer-spring-sr- Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-voyer-spring-sr-
p2mp-policy-03, 2 July 2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/ p2mp-policy-03, 2 July 2019,
draft-voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-03>. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-voyer-spring-
sr-p2mp-policy-03>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
skipping to change at page 14, line 18 skipping to change at page 14, line 23
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8563>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8563>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
14.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover]
Morin, T., Kebler, R., and G. Mirsky, "Multicast VPN Fast
Upstream Failover", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-15, 21 January 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-
failover-15>.
[I-D.ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case] [I-D.ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case]
Mirsky, G. and J. Xiaoli, "Bidirectional Forwarding Mirsky, G. and J. Xiaoli, "Fast Failover in Protocol
Detection (BFD) for Multi-point Networks and Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Using
Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Use Case", Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multipoint
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp- Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
use-case-05, 30 November 2020, pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-07, 10 September 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-bfd-
case-05>. p2mp-use-case-07>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments] [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments]
Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., and M. Horneffer, "Anycast Segments in MPLS Decraene, B., and M. Horneffer, "Anycast Segments in MPLS
based Segment Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, based Segment Routing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-03, 27 April 2020, draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-03, 27 April 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-mpls- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
anycast-segments-03>. mpls-anycast-segments-03>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
Authors' Addresses [RFC9026] Morin, T., Ed., Kebler, R., Ed., and G. Mirsky, Ed.,
"Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover", RFC 9026,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9026, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9026>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp. Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com, gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Ilya Varlashkin Ilya Varlashkin
Google Google
Email: Ilya@nobulus.com Email: Ilya@nobulus.com
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
34 lines changed or deleted 32 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/