1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Katz
Request for Comments: 5883 D. Ward
Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
ISSN: 2070-1721 June 2010
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multihop Paths
Abstract
This document describes the use of the Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) protocol over multihop paths, including
unidirectional links.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5883.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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.
Katz & Ward Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 5883 BFD for Multihop Paths June 2010
1. Introduction
The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol [BFD] defines a
method for liveness detection of arbitrary paths between systems.
The BFD one-hop specification [BFD-1HOP] describes how to use BFD
across single hops of IPv4 and IPv6.
BFD can also be useful on arbitrary paths between systems, which may
span multiple network hops and follow unpredictable paths.
Furthermore, a pair of systems may have multiple paths between them
that may overlap. This document describes methods for using BFD in
such scenarios.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
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 [KEYWORDS].
2. Applicability
Please note that BFD is intended as an Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism for connectivity check and connection
verification. It is applicable for network-based services (e.g.
router-to-router, subscriber-to-gateway, LSP/circuit endpoints, and
service appliance failure detection). In these scenarios it is
required that the operator correctly provision the rates at which BFD
is transmitted to avoid congestion (e.g link, I/O, CPU) and false
failure detection. It is not applicable for application-to-
application failure detection across the Internet because it does not
have sufficient capability to do necessary congestion detection and
avoidance and therefore cannot prevent congestion collapse. Host-to-
host or application-to-application deployment across the Internet
will require the encapsulation of BFD within a transport that
provides "TCP-friendly" [TFRC] behavior.
3. Issues
There are three primary issues in the use of BFD for multihop paths.
The first is security and spoofing; [BFD-1HOP] describes a
lightweight method of avoiding spoofing by requiring a Time to Live
(TTL)/Hop Limit of 255 on both transmit and receive, but this
obviously does not work across multiple hops. The utilization of BFD
authentication addresses this issue.
The second, more subtle, issue is that of demultiplexing multiple BFD
sessions between the same pair of systems to the proper BFD session.
In particular, the first BFD packet received for a session may carry
Katz & Ward Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 5883 BFD for Multihop Paths June 2010
a Your Discriminator value of zero, resulting in ambiguity as to
which session the packet should be associated. Once the
discriminator values have been exchanged, all further packets are
demultiplexed to the proper BFD session solely by the contents of the
Your Discriminator field.
[BFD-1HOP] addresses this by requiring that multiple sessions
traverse independent physical or logical links -- the first packet is
demultiplexed based on the link over which it was received. In the
more general case, this scheme cannot work, as two paths over which
BFD is running may overlap to an arbitrary degree (including the
first and/or last hop).
Finally, the Echo function MUST NOT be used over multiple hops.
Intermediate hops would route the packets back to the sender, and
connectivity through the entire path would not be possible to verify.
4. Demultiplexing Packets
There are a number of possibilities for addressing the demultiplexing
issue that may be used, depending on the application.
4.1. Totally Arbitrary Paths
It may be desired to use BFD for liveness detection over paths for
which no part of the route is known (or if known, may not be stable).
A straightforward approach to this problem is to limit BFD deployment
to a single session between a source/destination address pair.
Multiple sessions between the same pair of systems must have at least
one endpoint address distinct from one another.
In this scenario, the initial packet is demultiplexed to the
appropriate BFD session based on the source/destination address pair
when Your Discriminator is set to zero.
This approach is appropriate for general connectivity detection
between systems over routed paths and is also useful for OSPF Virtual
Links [OSPFv2] [OSPFv3].
4.2. Out-of-Band Discriminator Signaling
Another approach to the demultiplexing problem is to signal the
discriminator values in each direction through an out-of-band
mechanism prior to establishing the BFD session. Once learned, the
discriminators are sent as usual in the BFD Control packets; no
packets with Your Discriminator set to zero are ever sent. This
method is used by the BFD MPLS specification [BFD-MPLS].
Katz & Ward Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 5883 BFD for Multihop Paths June 2010
This approach is advantageous because it allows BFD to be directed by
other system components that have knowledge of the paths in use, and
from the perspective of BFD implementation it is very simple.
The disadvantage is that it requires at least some level of BFD-
specific knowledge in parts of the system outside of BFD.
4.3. Unidirectional Links
Unidirectional links are classified as multihop paths because the
return path (which should exist at some level in order to make the
link useful) may be arbitrary, and the return paths for BFD sessions
protecting parallel unidirectional links may overlap or even be
identical. (If two unidirectional links, one in each direction, are
to carry a single BFD session, this can be done using the single-hop
approach.)
Either of the two methods outlined earlier may be used in the
unidirectional link case, but a more general solution can be found
strictly within BFD and without addressing limitations.
The approach is similar to the one-hop specification, since the
unidirectional link is a single hop. Let's define the two systems as
the Unidirectional Sender and the Unidirectional Receiver. In this
approach, the Unidirectional Sender MUST operate in the Active role
(as defined in the base BFD specification), and the Unidirectional
Receiver MUST operate in the Passive role.
In the Passive role, by definition, the Unidirectional Receiver does
not transmit any BFD Control packets until it learns the
discriminator value in use by the other system (upon receipt of the
first BFD Control packet). The Unidirectional Receiver demultiplexes
the first packet to the proper BFD session based on the physical or
logical link over which it was received. This allows the receiver to
learn the remote discriminator value, which it then echoes back to
the sender in its own (arbitrarily routed) BFD Control packet, after
which time all packets are demultiplexed solely by discriminator.
5. Encapsulation
The encapsulation of BFD Control packets for multihop application in
IPv4 and IPv6 is identical to that defined in [BFD-1HOP], except that
the UDP destination port MUST have a value of 4784. This can aid in
the demultiplexing and internal routing of incoming BFD packets.
Katz & Ward Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 5883 BFD for Multihop Paths June 2010
6. Authentication
By their nature, multihop paths expose BFD to spoofing. As the
number of hops increases, the exposure to attack grows. As such,
implementations of BFD SHOULD utilize cryptographic authentication
over multihop paths to help mitigate denial-of-service attacks.
7. IANA Considerations
Port 4784 has been assigned by IANA for use with BFD Multihop
Control.
8. Security Considerations
As the number of hops increases, BFD becomes further exposed to
attack. The use of strong forms of authentication is strongly
encouraged.
No additional security issues are raised in this document beyond
those that exist in the referenced BFD documents.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[BFD] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", RFC 5880, June 2010.
[BFD-1HOP] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June
2010.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[BFD-MPLS] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.
[OSPFv2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPFv3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
Katz & Ward Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
RFC 5883 BFD for Multihop Paths June 2010
[TFRC] Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC
5348, September 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Dave Katz
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206
USA
Phone: +1-408-745-2000
EMail: dkatz@juniper.net
Dave Ward
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206
USA
Phone: +1-408-745-2000
EMail: dward@juniper.net
Katz & Ward Standards Track [Page 6]
^L
|
