wdiff rfc9384.original rfc9384.txt

Inter-Domain Routing

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Haas
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9384 Juniper Networks
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track 27 December 2022
Expires: 30 June March 2023
ISSN: 2070-1721

A BGP Cease Notification NOTIFICATION Subcode For for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)
draft-ietf-idr-bfd-subcode-05

Abstract

The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol [RFC 5880] (RFC 5880) is
used to detect loss of connectivity between two forwarding engines,
typically with low latency. BFD is leveraged by routing protocols,
including the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), to bring down routing
protocol connections faster more quickly than the native original protocol timers.

This document defines a Subcode subcode for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
message [RFC4271], Section 6.7, (Section 6.7 of RFC 4271) for use when a BGP connection is
being closed due to a BFD session going down.

Requirements Language

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.

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 an Internet Standards Track document.

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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of 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 30 June 2023.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9384.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language
3. BFD Cease NOTIFICATION Subcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.
4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgments
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Introduction

The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol [RFC5880] is
used to detect loss of connectivity between two forwarding engines,
typically with low latency. BFD is utilized as a service for various
clients, including routing protocols, to provide an advisory
mechanism for those clients to take appropriate actions when a BFD
session goes down [RFC5882]. This is typically used by the clients
to trigger closure of their connections more quickly than the native
original protocol timers might allow.

The

Border Gateway Protocol, Version Protocol version 4 (BGP) (BGP-4) [RFC4271] terminates its
connections upon Hold Timer expiration when the speaker does not
receive a BGP message within the negotiated Hold Time interval. As
per Section Sections 4.2 and Section 4.4 of [RFC4271], the minimum Hold Time interval
is at least three seconds, unless KEEPALIVE processing has been
disabled by negotiating the distinguished Hold Time of zero.

If a BGP speaker desires to have its connections terminate more
quickly than the negotiated BGP Hold Timer can accommodate upon loss
of connectivity with a neighbor, the BFD protocol can be relied upon
by BGP speakers to supply that faster detection. When the BFD
session state changes to Down, the BGP speaker terminates the
connection with a Cease NOTIFICATION message sent to the neighbor, if
possible, and then closes the TCP connection for the session.

This document defines a subcode, "BFD Down", to be sent with the
Cease NOTIFICATION message that indicates the reason for this type of
connection termination.

2. Requirements Language

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.

3. BFD Cease NOTIFICATION Subcode

The value 10 has been allocated by IANA for the "BFD Down" Cease
NOTIFICATION message Subcode. subcode.

When a BGP connection is terminated due to a BFD session going into
the Down state, the BGP speaker SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message
with the Error Code Cease error code "Cease" and the Error Subcode error subcode "BFD Down".

4. Operational Considerations

A BFD session may go into the Down state when there is only a partial
loss of connectivity between two BGP speakers. Operators using BFD
for their BGP connections make choices for regarding what BFD timers are
used based upon a variety of criteria; criteria -- for example, stability vs.
fast failure.

In the event of a BGP connection being terminated due to a BFD Down "BFD Down"
event from partial loss of connectivity as detected by BFD, the
remote BGP speaker might be able to receive a BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
message with the BFD Down Subcode. "BFD Down" subcode. The receiving BGP speaker will
then have an understanding that the connection is being terminated
because of a BFD-detected issue and not an issue with the BGP
speaker.

When there is a total loss of connectivity between two BGP speakers,
it may not have been possible for the Cease NOTIFICATION message to
have been sent. Even so, BGP speakers SHOULD provide this reason as
part of their operational state. Examples include bgpPeerLastError
in
per the BGP MIB [RFC4273], [RFC4273] and "last-error" in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]. per [BGP-YANG].

When the procedures in [RFC8538] for sending a NOTIFICATION message
with a Cease Code "Cease" code and Hard Reset Subcode "Hard Reset" subcode are required, and the
BGP connection is being terminated because BFD has gone Down, into the BFD Down Subcode
state, the "BFD Down" subcode SHOULD be encapsulated in the Hard
Reset's data portion of the NOTIFICATION message.

5. Security Considerations

Similar to [RFC4486], this document defines a subcode for the BGP
Cease NOTIFICATION message that provides information to aid network
operators in correlating network events and diagnosing BGP peering
issues. This subcode is purely informational and has no impact on
the BGP Finite State Machine beyond that already documented by
[RFC4271], Section Sections 6.6 and 6.7.

6. IANA Considerations

NOTE TO IANA and the RFC Editor: IANA is requested to make the
temporary allocation below permanent. The RFC Editor is requested to
delete this note to IANA prior to publication.

IANA has assigned the value 10 from the BGP "BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
message subcodes subcodes" registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-
parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-8)
parameters/), with the Name name "BFD
Down", Down" and a Reference reference to this
document.

6. Acknowledgments

Thanks to Jeff Tantsura, and Dale Carder for their comments on the
draft.

Mohamed Boucadair provided feedback as part of Routing Directorate
review of this document.

Bruno Rijsman had a substantively similar proposal to this document
in 2006; draft-rijsman-bfd-down-subcode. That draft did not progress
in IDR at that time. The author of this draft was unaware of Bruno's
prior work when creating this proposal.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S. and RFC Publisher, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, S., Ed., and RFC
Publisher, "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

[RFC5880] Katz, D., Ward, D., D. and RFC Publisher, D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.

[RFC5882] Katz, D., Ward, D., D. and RFC Publisher, D. Ward, "Generic Application of
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5882,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5882, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5882>.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B. and RFC Publisher, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

[RFC8538] Patel, K., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., Haas, J., and RFC
Publisher, J. Haas,
"Notification Message Support for BGP Graceful Restart",
RFC 8538, DOI 10.17487/RFC8538, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8538>.

7.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]

[BGP-YANG] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Hares, S., and J. Haas, "BGP
YANG "YANG
Model for Service Provider Networks", Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-15, 13
October 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
idr-bgp-model-15.txt>. draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-16, 1
March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-idr-bgp-model-16>.

[RFC4273] Haas, J., Ed., Ed. and S. Hares, S., Ed., and RFC Publisher, "Definitions of Managed
Objects for BGP-4", RFC 4273, DOI 10.17487/RFC4273,
January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4273>.

[RFC4486] Chen, E., Gillet, V., E. and RFC Publisher, V. Gillet, "Subcodes for BGP Cease
Notification Message", RFC 4486, DOI 10.17487/RFC4486,
April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4486>.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Jeff Tantsura and Dale Carder for their comments on this
document.

Mohamed Boucadair provided feedback as part of the Routing
Directorate review of this document.

In 2006, Bruno Rijsman had written a proposal that was substantively
similar to this document: draft-rijsman-bfd-down-subcode. That draft
did not progress in the Inter-Domain Routing (IDR) Working Group at
that time. The author of this document was unaware of Bruno's prior
work when creating this proposal.

Author's Address

Jeffrey Haas
Juniper Networks
Email: jhaas@juniper.net