Internet-Draft Unaffiliated BFD Echo December 2024
Cheng, et al. Expires 13 June 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
BFD Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-14
Updates:
5880 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
W. Cheng
China Mobile
R. Wang
China Mobile
X. Min, Ed.
ZTE Corp.
R. Rahman
Equinix
R. Boddireddy
Juniper Networks

Unaffiliated Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Echo

Abstract

This document specifies an extension to the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol that enables the use of the BFD Echo function without the need for an associated BFD control session. This "Unaffiliated BFD Echo" mechanism allows rapid detection of forwarding path failures in networks where establishing BFD control sessions is impractical or undesirable. By decoupling the Echo function from the control plane, network devices can utilize BFD's fast failure detection capabilities in a simplified manner, enhancing network resiliency and operational efficiency.

This document updates RFC 5880 by defining a new Unaffiliated BFD Echo mechanism.

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 13 June 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

To minimize the impact of device and link faults on services and to improve network availability in single-hop scenarios, a network device needs the capability to quickly detect communication faults with adjacent devices. Prompt detection allows for timely remedial actions to ensure service continuity.

BFD [RFC5880] provides a low-overhead, short-interval method for detecting faults on the communication path between adjacent forwarding engines, which may include interfaces, data links, and the forwarding engines themselves. BFD offers a unified mechanism to monitor any media and protocol layers in real time.

BFD defines two primary modes-Asynchronous mode and Demand mode-to accommodate various deployment scenarios. Additionally, it supports an Echo function that reduces the level of BFD support required in device implementations, as described in Section 3.2 of [RFC5880]. When the Echo function is activated, the local system sends BFD Echo packets, and the remote system loops back the received Echo packets through the forwarding path, as described in Section 5 of [RFC5880] and Section 4 of [RFC5881]. If several consecutive BFD Echo packets are not received by the local system, the BFD session is declared Down.

There are two typical scenarios when using the BFD Echo function:

This document specifies the Unaffiliated BFD Echo scenario.

Section 5 of [RFC5880] indicates that the payload of an Affiliated BFD Echo packet is a local matter and, therefore, its contents are outside the scope of that specification. This document, however, specifies the contents of the Unaffiliated BFD Echo packet and the procedures for handling them. While this may appear to contravene Section 5 of [RFC5880], the core behavior in that RFC states that the contents of BFD Echo packets are a local matter; this document is defining that "local matter". Regarding the selection of IP addresses, the rules stated in Section 4 of [RFC5881] are applicable to the encapsulation of an Unaffiliated BFD Echo packet.

Section 6.2.2 of [BBF-TR-146] describes a use case for the Unaffiliated BFD Echo.

This document updates [RFC5880] by defining a new method of BFD Echo-only operation which only impacts the BFD Echo packets sender without requiring an implementation to support the BFD protocol at the loop-back device, such that any IP forwarder can loop-back the BFD Echo packets. It specifies the use of the Unaffiliated BFD Echo over IPv4 and IPv6 for a single IP hop. The reason why it cannot be used for multihop paths is that the Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets would be looped back by the first hop. A full description of the updates to [RFC5880] is provided in Section 3.

1.1. Conventions Used in This Document

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.

2. Unaffiliated BFD Echo Procedures

This section specifies the Unaffiliated BFD Echo procedures.

Device A Device B Unaffiliated BFD Echo Session Unaffiliated BFD Echo BFD | packets looped BFD supported BFD not supported
Figure 1: Unaffiliated BFD Echo diagram

As shown in Figure 1, device A supports BFD, whereas device B is a regular IP forwarder that does not support BFD. Device A would send Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets, and after receiving the Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets sent from device A, the one-hop-away BFD peer device B immediately loops them back by normal IP forwarding, this allows device A to rapidly detect a connectivity loss to device B. Note that device B would not intercept any received Unaffiliated BFD Echo packet or parse any BFD protocol field within the Unaffiliated BFD Echo packet.

An Unaffiliated BFD Echo session is not actually a BFD session because there is no coordination of BFD protocol state between the two link ends: the remote end does not support BFD and so cannot engage in a BFD session. The local end as an initiator may regard the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session as a BFD session from its own standpoint.

For the Unaffiliated Echo procedure, an Unaffiliated BFD Echo session is established on device A. The session MUST adhere to the BFD state machine specified in Section 6.2 of [RFC5880], with the exception that the received state is not derived from BFD Control packets originating from the remote system, but rather from packets that are generated by the local system and looped back from the remote system. Consequently, the AdminDown state is not utilized in Unaffiliated BFD Echo.

BFD Control packets are transmitted and received as Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets, using UDP destination port 3785, as defined in [RFC5881]. The standard procedures for BFD Asynchronous sessions are applied to the looped BFD Control packets, including packet validation and authentication, in accordance with [RFC5880].

Once an Unaffiliated BFD Echo session is created on device A, it starts sending Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets. Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets with zeroed "Your Discriminator" field are demultiplexed to the proper session based on the source IP address or UDP source port, once the remote system loops back the local discriminator, all further received packets are demultiplexed based on the "Your Discriminator" field only, which is conformed to the procedure specified in Section 6.3 of [RFC5880]. An Unaffiliated BFD Echo packet follows the same encapsulation rules as for a BFD Echo packet as specified in Section 4 of [RFC5881]. All Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets for the session MUST be sent with a TTL or Hop Limit value of 255. Received packets MUST have a TTL or Hop Limit value of 254 (similar to Appendix A of [RFC5082] to verify against a configured number of hops); otherwise, the received packets MUST be dropped.

In the context of an Unaffiliated BFD Echo packet, the "Desired Min TX Interval" and "Required Min RX Interval" fields, as defined in [RFC5880], MUST be populated with a specific value to prevent the potential exposure of uninitialized memory. It is RECOMMENDED that these fields be set to a value of 1 second (1,000,000 microseconds). However, upon receipt, these values MUST be ignored and MUST NOT be used in the calculation of the Detection Time.

The "Required Min Echo RX Interval" field, as defined in [RFC5880], MUST be populated with a specific value to prevent the potential exposure of uninitialized memory. It is RECOMMENDED that this field be set to 0. However, this value MUST be ignored upon receipt. The transmission interval for Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets when in the Up state MUST be provisioned on device A.

The functionality of the Unaffiliated BFD Echo feature is dependent on device B performing IP forwarding. While this capability is typically expected to be supported on routers, it may not be enabled by default on hosts. The method for provisioning device B to loop back Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets is outside the scope of this document.

Similar to what's specified in [RFC5880], the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session begins with the periodic, slow transmission of Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets. The slow transmission rate should be no greater than one packet per second, until the session on device A is Up. After the session is Up, the provisioned transmission interval is used. When the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session on device A goes Down, the slow transmission rate is resumed. The "Detect Mult" defined in [RFC5880] MUST be set to a value provisioned on device A. When the bfd.SessionState is Up and a "Detect Mult" number of Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets have not arrived at device A as they should, the device A "MUST set bfd.SessionState to Down and bfd.LocalDiag to 2 (Echo Function Failed)", as specified in Section 6.8.5 of [RFC5880].

In summary, the Unaffiliated BFD Echo packet reuses the format of the BFD Control packet defined in [RFC5880], and the fields within the Unaffiliated BFD Echo packet are populated as follows:

3. Updates to RFC 5880

The Unaffiliated BFD Echo described in this document reuses the BFD Echo function as described in [RFC5880] and [RFC5881], but does not require BFD Asynchronous or Demand mode. In the Unaffiliated BFD Echo operation, only the local system has the BFD protocol enabled, while the remote system simply loops back the received BFD Echo packets as ordinary data packets, without engaging in the BFD protocol.

This document updates [RFC5880] with respect to its descriptions on the BFD Echo function as follows.

The 4th paragraph of Section 3.2 of [RFC5880] is updated as below:

The 3rd and 9th paragraphs of Section 6.1 of [RFC5880] are updated as below:

The 2nd paragraph of Section 6.4 of [RFC5880] is updated as below:

The 2nd paragraph of Section 6.8 of [RFC5880] is updated as below:

The 7th paragraph of Section 6.8.3 of [RFC5880] is updated as below:

The 1st and 2nd paragraphs of Section 6.8.9 of [RFC5880] are updated as below:

4. Operational Considerations

All Operational Considerations from [RFC5880] apply. Since this mechanism leverages existing BFD machinery, particularly periodic pacing of traffic based on configuration, there's no real possibility to create congestion. Moreover, creating congestion would be counter productive to check the bidirectional connectivity.

Some devices that would benefit from the use of BFD may be unable to support the full BFD protocol. Examples of such devices include servers running virtual machines, or Internet of Things (IoT) devices. By using Unaffiliated BFD Echo, these devices only need to support a basic loopback function.

As specified in Section 2 of this document, some configuration is needed to make the Unaffiliated BFD Echo work, although the configuration won't go beyond the scope of [RFC5880]. At a BFD-enabled local system, the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session can coexist with other type of BFD session, in which scenario the remote system for the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session must be different from the remote system for other type of BFD session, and the local system's discriminators for different BFD sessions must be different, at the same time it's not necessary for the local system to differentiate the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session from other type of BFD session.

5. Security Considerations

All Security Considerations from [RFC5880] and [RFC5881] apply.

Unaffiliated BFD Echo requires the remote device to loop Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets. In order to provide this service, the remote device cannot make use of Unicast Strict Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) [RFC3704], otherwise the Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets might not pass the RPF check at the remote device.

As described in Section 5 of [RFC5880], BFD Echo packets may be spoofed. Specifically for Unaffiliated BFD Echo, a DoS attacker may send spoofed Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets to the loop-back device, so some form of authentication SHOULD be included. Considering the Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets in this document are also BFD Control packets, the "Authentication Section" as defined in [RFC5880] for BFD Control packet is RECOMMENDED to be included within the Unaffiliated BFD Echo packet.

As stated in Section 2, in order to avoid unset values being a potential vector for disclosure of uninitialized memory, all fields of the Unaffiliated BFD Echo packet MUST be populated with a certain value, even if some of the fields are ignored on receipt.

6. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA action requested.

7. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Ketan Talaulikar, Greg Mirsky, Santosh Pallagatti, Aijun Wang, Eric Vyncke, Adrian Farrel, Tim Wicinski, Dhruv Dhody, Stephen Farrell, Gunter Van de Velde, Gyan Mishra, Brian Trammell, Gorry Fairhurst, Mahesh Jethanandani, John Scudder, Murray Kucherawy, and Zaheduzzaman Sarker for their careful review and very helpful comments.

The authors would like to acknowledge Jeff Haas for his guidance, insightful review, and very helpful comments.

The authors would like to acknowledge Erik Auerswald for his insightful comments during the discussion of this document.

The authors would like to acknowledge Detao Zhao for the very helpful discussion.

8. Contributors

Liu Aihua
ZTE
Email: liu.aihua@zte.com.cn

Qian Xin
ZTE
Email: qian.xin2@zte.com.cn

Zhao Yanhua
ZTE
Email: zhao.yanhua3@zte.com.cn

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5880]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC5881]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, DOI 10.17487/RFC5881, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5881>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

9.2. Informative References

[BBF-TR-146]
Broadband Forum, "BBF Technical Report - Subscriber Sessions Issue 1", , <https://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-146.pdf>.
[RFC3704]
Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, DOI 10.17487/RFC3704, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3704>.
[RFC5082]
Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C. Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.

Authors' Addresses

Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Ruixue Wang
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Xiao Min (editor)
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Reshad Rahman
Equinix
Ottawa
Canada
Raj Chetan Boddireddy
Juniper Networks