wdiff rfc7419.alt-original rfc7419.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Akiya
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 7419 M. Binderberger
Updates: RFC5880 (if approved) 5880 Cisco Systems
Intended status:
Category: Informational G. Mirsky
Expires: April 17, 2015
ISSN: 2070-1721 Ericsson
October 14,
December 2014

Common Interval Support in Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
draft-ietf-bfd-intervals-05

Abstract

Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) requires that messages are be
transmitted at regular intervals and provides a way to negotiate the
interval used by BFD peers. Some BFD implementations may be
restricted to only support several interval values. When such BFD
implementations speak to each other, there is a possibility of two
sides not being able to find a common value for the interval to run
BFD sessions.

This document updates RFC 5880 by defining a small set of interval
values for BFD that we call "Common Intervals", Intervals" and recommends
implementations to support the defined intervals. This solves the
problem of finding an interval value that both BFD speakers can
support while allowing a simplified implementation as seen for
hardware-based BFD. It does not restrict an implementation from
supporting more intervals in addition to the Common Intervals.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a maximum candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 April 17, 2015.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7419.

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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The problem Problem with few supported intervals Few Supported Intervals . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Well-defined, Well-Defined, Common Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. 4
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2.
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Why some values are Some Values Are in the Common Interval set Set . . . 5 6
Appendix B. Timer adjustment Adjustment with non-identical interval sets Non-identical Interval Sets . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . .
Appendix C. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Introduction

The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) standard [RFC5880]
describes how to calculate the transmission interval and the
detection time. It However, it does not make any statement though about how to
solve a situation where one BFD speaker cannot support the calculated
value. In practice practice, this may not been a problem as long as software-
implemented timers have been used and as long as the granularity of
such timers was small compared to the interval values being
supported, i.e. i.e., as long as the error in the timer interval was small
compared to 25 percent jitter.

In the meantime meantime, requests exist for very fast interval values, down
to
3.3msec 3.3 msec for MPLS-TP. the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP). At the same time
time, the requested scale for the number of BFD sessions is
increasing. Both requirements have driven vendors to use Network
Processors (NP), FPGAs Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), or other
hardware-based solutions to offload the periodic packet transmission
and the timeout detection in the receive direction. A potential
problem with this hardware-based BFD is the granularity of the
interval timers. Depending on the implementation implementation, only a few
intervals may be supported, which can cause interoperability
problems. This document proposes a set of interval values that
should be supported by all implementations. Details are laid out in
the following sections.

2. The problem Problem with few supported intervals Few Supported Intervals

Let's assume vendor "A" supports 10msec, 100msec 10 msec, 100 msec, and 1sec 1 sec
interval timers in hardware. Vendor hardware, and vendor "B" supports every value from 20msec
20 msec onward, with a granularity of 1msec. 1 msec. For a BFD session session, "A"
tries to set up the session with 10msec 10 msec while "B" uses 20msec 20 msec as
the value for RequiredMinRxInterval and DesiredMinTxInterval.
[RFC5880] describes that the negotiated value for Rx and Tx is 20msec. But 20
msec, but system "A" is not able to support this. Multiple ways
exist to resolve the dilemma dilemma, but none of them is without problems.

a. Realizing that it cannot support 20msec, 20 msec, system "A" sends out a
new BFD packet, packet advertising the next larger interval of 100msec 100 msec
with RequiredMinRxInterval and DesiredMinTxInterval. The new
negotiated interval between "A" and "B" then is 100msec, then 100 msec, which
is supported by both systems. The However, the problem though is that we
moved from the 10/20msec 10/20 msec range to 100msec, 100 msec, which has far
deviated from operator expectations.

b. System "A" could violate [RFC5880] and use the 10msec 10 msec interval
for the Tx direction. In the receive direction direction, it could use an
adjusted multiplier value M' = 2 * M to match the correct
detection time. Now beside Now, in addition to the fact that we explicitly
violate
[RFC5880] [RFC5880], there may be the problem that system "B" drops
up to 50% of the packets; this could be the case when "B" uses an
ingress rate policer to protect itself and the policer would be
programmed with an expectation of 20msec 20 msec receive intervals.

The example above could be worse when we assume that system "B" can
only support a few timer values itself. Let's assume "B" supports
"20msec", "300msec" 20
msec, 300 msec, and "1sec". 1 sec. If both systems would adjust their
advertised intervals, then the adjustment ends at 1sec. 1 sec. The example
above could even be worse when we assume that system "B" can only
support "50msec", "500msec" 50 msec, 500 msec, and "2sec". 2 sec. Even if both systems walk
their supported intervals, the two systems will never be able to
agree on a an interval to run any BFD sessions.

3. Well-defined, Well-Defined, Common Intervals

The problem can be reduced by defining interval values that are
supported by all implementations. Then Then, the adjustment mechanism
could find a commonly supported interval without deviating too much
from the original request.

In technical terms terms, the requirement is as follows: a BFD
implementation should support all values in the set of Common
Interval values which that are equal to or larger than the fastest, i.e.
lowest, fastest (i.e.,
lowest) interval the particular BFD implementation supports.

This document defines the set of Common Interval values to be:
3.3msec, 10msec, 20msec, 50msec, 100msec 3.3
msec, 10 msec, 20 msec, 50 msec, 100 msec, and 1sec. 1 sec.

In addition addition, support for 10sec the 10 sec interval together with multiplier
values up to 255 is recommended to support graceful restart.

The adjustment is always towards larger, i.e. slower, larger (i.e., slower) interval
values when the initial interval proposed by the peer is not
supported.

This document is not adding new requirements with respect to the
precision with which a timer value must be implemented. Supporting
an interval value means to advertise advertising this value in the
DesiredMinTxInterval and/or RequiredMinRxInterval field of the BFD
packets and to provide providing timers that are reasonably close. [RFC5880]
defines safety margins for the timers by defining a jitter range.

How is the "Common Interval" Common Interval set used exactly? In the example above,
vendor "A" has a fastest interval of 10msec 10 msec and thus would be
required to support all intervals in the Common Interval set that are
equal or larger than 10msec, i.e. 10 msec, i.e., it would support 10msec, 20msec,
50msec, 100msec, 1sec. 10 msec, 20
msec, 50 msec, 100 msec, and 1 sec. Vendor "B" has a fastest
interval of 20msec 20 msec and thus would need to support 20msec, 50msec, 100msec 20 msec, 50 msec,
100 msec, and 1sec. 1 sec. As long as this requirement is met for the
common set of values, then both vendor "A" and "B" are free to
support additional values outside of the Common Interval set.

4. IANA Considerations

RFC Ed.: RFC-editor please remove this section

No request to IANA.

5. Security Considerations

This document does not introduce any additional security concerns.
The security considerations described in the BFD documents, [RFC5880]
and others, apply to devices implementing the BFD protocol,
regardless of whether or not the Common Interval set is implemented.

5. References

7.1.

5.1. Normative References

[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.

7.2. 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.

5.2. Informative References

[G.8013_Y.1731]
ITU-T G.8013/Y.1731, "ITU-T OAM
International Telecommunications Union, "OAM functions and
mechanisms for Ethernet based network", networks", ITU-T
Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, November 2013.

[GR-253-CORE]
Telcordia Technologies, Inc., "Synchronous Optical Network
(SONET) Transport Systems: Common Generic Criteria", GR-
253-CORE Issue 05, October 2009.

Appendix A. Why some values are Some Values Are in the Common Interval set Set

The list of Common Interval values is trying to balance various
objectives. The list should not contain too many values values, as more
timers may increase the implementation costs. On the other hand less hand,
fewer values produces larger gaps and adjustment jumps. More values
in the lower interval range is are thus seen as critical to support
customer needs for fast detection in setups with multiple vendors.

o 3.3msec: 3.3 msec: required by MPLS-TP, adopting the detection time of
10msec 10
msec from [GR-253-CORE].

o 10msec: 10 msec: general consensus is to support 10msec. 10 msec. Multiple
vendors plan to or do already implement 10msec. 10 msec.

o 20msec: 20 msec: basically avoids a larger gap in this critical interval
region. Still allows 50-60msec 50-60 msec detect and restore (with
multiplier of 2) and covers existing software-based
implementations.

o 50msec: 50 msec: widely deployed interval. Supporting this value reflects
the reality of many BFD implementations today.

o 100msec: 100 msec: similar to 10msec 10 msec, this value allows the reuse of
[G.8013_Y.1731] implementations, especially hardware. It allows
to support large scale of 9 x 100msec 100 msec setups and would be a
replacement for 3 x 300msec 300 msec configurations used by customers to
have a detection time slightly below 1sec 1 sec for VoIP Voice over IP
(VoIP) setups.

o 1sec: 1 sec: as mentioned in [RFC5880]. While the interval for Down
packets can be 1sec 1 sec or larger larger, this draft document recommends to use of
exactly
1sec 1 sec to avoid interoperability issues.

The recommended value for large intervals is 10sec, 10 sec, allowing for a
timeout of 42.5 minutes with a multiplier of 255. This value is kept
outside the Common Interval set set, as it is not required for normal BFD
operations, which
operations that occur in the sub-second range. Instead Instead, the expected
usage is for graceful restart, if needed.

Appendix B. Timer adjustment Adjustment with non-identical interval sets Non-identical Interval Sets

[RFC5880] implicitly assumes that a BFD implementation can support
any timer value equal to or above the advertised value. When a BFD
speaker starts a poll sequence Poll Sequence, then the peer must reply with the
Final (F) bit set and adjust the transmit and detection timers
accordingly. With contiguous software-based timers timers, this is a valid
assumption. Even in the case of a small number of supported interval
values
values, this assumption holds when both BFD speakers support exactly
the same interval values.

But what happens when both speakers support intervals that are not
supported by the peer? An example is router "A" supporting the
Common Interval set plus 200msec 200 msec, while router "B" support supports the
Common Intervals plus 300msec. 300 msec. Assume both routers are configured
and run at 50msec. Now 50 msec. Now, router A is configured for 200msec. 200 msec. We
know the result must be that both BFD speaker speakers use 1sec timers 1 sec timers, but
how do they reach this endpoint?

First

First, router A is sending sends a packet with 200msec. 200 msec. The P bit is set
according to [RFC5880]. The Tx timer stays at 50msec, 50 msec, the detection
timer is 3 * 200msec: 200 msec:

(A) DesiredTx: 200msec, 200 msec, MinimumRx: 200msec, 200 msec, P-bit
Tx: 50msec , 50 msec, Detect: 3 * 200msec 200 msec

Router B now must reply with an F bit. The problem is B is
confirming timer values which that it cannot support. The only setting to
avoid a session flap would be

(B) DesiredTx: 300msec, 300 msec, MinimumRx: 300msec, 300 msec, F-bit
Tx: 50msec , 50 msec, Detect: 3 * 300msec 300 msec

immediately followed by a P-bit packet packet, as the advertised timer
values have been changed:

(B) DesiredTx: 300msec, 300 msec, MinimumRx: 300msec, 300 msec, P-bit
Tx: 50msec , 50 msec, Detect: 3 * 300msec 300 msec

This is not exactly what Section 6.8.7 of [RFC5880] states in section 6.8.7 about the
transmission rate. On the other hand hand, as we will see see, this state
does not last for long. Router A would adjust its timers based on
the received Final bit bit:

(A) Tx: 200msec , 200 msec, Detect: 3 * 1sec 1 sec

Router A is not supporting the proposed 300msec 300 msec and would use 1sec 1 sec
instead for the detection time. It would then respond to the
received Poll sequence Sequence from router B, B using 1sec 1 sec, as router A does
not support the Max(200msec, 300msec): Max(200 msec, 300 msec):

(A) DesiredTx: 1sec, 1 sec, MinimumRx: 1sec, 1 sec, F-bit
Tx: 200msec , 200 msec, Detect: 3 * 1sec 1 sec

followed by its own Poll sequence Sequence, as the advertised timer values
have been changed:

(A) DesiredTx: 1sec, 1 sec, MinimumRx: 1sec, 1 sec, P-bit
Tx: 200msec , 200 msec, Detect: 3 * 1sec 1 sec

Router B would adjust its timers based on the received Final

(B) Tx: 300msec 300 msec , Detect: 3 * 1sec 1 sec

and would then reply to the Poll sequence Sequence from router A:

(B) DesiredTx: 300msec, 300 msec, MinimumRx: 300msec, 300 msec, F-bit
Tx: 1sec , 1 sec, Detect: 3 * 1sec 1 sec

which finally makes router A adjusting adjust its timers:

(A) Tx: 1sec , 1 sec, Detect: 3 * 1sec 1 sec

In other words words, router A and B go through multiple poll sequences Poll Sequences
until they reach a commonly supported interval value. Reaching such
a value is guaranteed by this draft. document.

Appendix C. Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Sylvain Masse and Anca Zamfir for bringing up
the discussion about the Poll sequence, Sequence, and Jeffrey Haas helped
finding for helping
find the fine line between "exact" and "pedantic".

Authors' Addresses

Nobo Akiya
Cisco Systems

Email:

EMail: nobo@cisco.com

Marc Binderberger
Cisco Systems

Email:

EMail: mbinderb@cisco.com

Greg Mirsky
Ericsson

Email:

EMail: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com