Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications
draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-02
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (bfd WG)
Authors Enke Chen  , Naiming Shen  , Robert Raszuk  , Reshad Rahman 
Last updated 2020-08-17 (latest revision 2020-07-28)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Yang Validation ☯ 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Reviews
YANGDOCTORS Early Review (of -01): Ready with Nits
Additional Resources
- Yang catalog entry for ietf-bfd-unsolicited@2019-06-26.yang
- Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited
- Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state In WG Last Call
Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
Document shepherd Jeffrey Haas
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Email authors Email WG IPR References Referenced by Nits 
Network Working Group                                            E. Chen
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                                 N. Shen
Expires: January 29, 2021                                         Zededa
                                                               R. Raszuk
                                                            Bloomberg LP
                                                               R. Rahman
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                           July 28, 2020

              Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications
                     draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-02

Abstract

   For operational simplification of "sessionless" applications using
   BFD, in this document we present procedures for "unsolicited BFD"
   that allow a BFD session to be initiated by only one side, and be
   established without explicit per-session configuration or
   registration by the other side (subject to certain per-interface or
   per-router policies).

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 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 January 29, 2021.

Chen, et al.            Expires January 29, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-DraftUnsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications     July 2020

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (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 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.  Procedures for Unsolicited BFD  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Unsolicited BFD Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Unsolicited BFD Module  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  BFD Protocol Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  YANG Module Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   The current implementation and deployment practice for BFD ([RFC5880]
   and [RFC5881]) usually requires BFD sessions be explicitly configured
   or registered on both sides.  This requirement is not an issue when
   an application like BGP [RFC4271] has the concept of a "session" that
   involves both sides for its establishment.  However, this requirement
   can be operationally challenging when the prerequisite "session" does
   not naturally exist between two endpoints in an application.
   Simultaneous configuration and coordination may be required on both
   sides for BFD to take effect.  For example:

   o  When BFD is used to keep track of the "liveness" of the nexthop of
      static routes.  Although only one side may need the BFD
      functionality, currently both sides need to be involved in
      specific configuration and coordination and in some cases static
      routes are created unnecessarily just for BFD.

Chen, et al.            Expires January 29, 2021                [Page 2]
Show full document text
RFC Editor IASA & IETF LLC IETF Trust IRTF IETF IESG IAB IANA Privacy Statement IETF Tools