Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multi-point Networks and Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Use Case
draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-00

PIM Working Group                                              G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft                                                 ZTE Corp.
Updates: 7761 (if approved)                                    J. Xiaoli
Intended status: Standards Track                         ZTE Corporation
Expires: April 25, 2019                                 October 22, 2018

 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multi-point Networks and
     Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Use Case
                  draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-00

Abstract

   This document discusses the use of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
   (BFD) for multi-point networks to provide nodes that participate in
   Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) with the sub-
   second convergence.  Optional extension to PIM-SM Hello, as specified
   in RFC 7761, to bootstrap point-to-multipoint BFD session. also
   defined in this document.

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 April 25, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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

Mirsky & Xiaoli          Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           BFD P2MP Use in PIM-SM             October 2018

   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
     1.1.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Applicability of p2mp BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Multipoint BFD Encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   Faster convergence in the control plane, in general, is beneficial
   and allows minimizing periods of traffic blackholing, transient
   routing loops and other scenarios that may negatively affect service
   data flow.  That equally applies to unicast and multicast routing
   protocols.

   [RFC7761] is the current specification of the Protocol Independent
   Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) for IPv4 and IPv6 networks.
   Confirming implementation of PIM-SM elects a Designated Router (DR)
   on each PIM-SM interface.  When a group of PIM-SM nodes is connected
   to shared-media segment, e.g.  Ethernet, the one elected as DR is to
   act on behalf of directly connected hosts in context of the PIM-SM
   protocol.  Failure of the DR impacts the quality of the multicast
   services it provides to directly connected hosts because the default
   failure detection interval for PIM-SM routers is 105 seconds.
   Introduction of Backup DR (BDR), proposed in
   [I-D.ietf-pim-dr-improvement] improves convergence time in the PIM-SM
   over shared-media segment but still depends on long failure detection
   interval.

   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] had been
   originally defined to detect failure of point-to-point (p2p) paths -
   single-hop [RFC5881], multihop [RFC5883].  [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]
   extends the BFD base specification [RFC5880] for multipoint and
   multicast networks, which precisely characterizes deployment
   scenarios for PIM-SM over LAN segment.  This document demonstrates
   how point-to-multipoint (p2mp) BFD can enable faster detection of

Mirsky & Xiaoli          Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           BFD P2MP Use in PIM-SM             October 2018

   PIM-SM router ailure and thus minimize multicast service disruption.
   The document also defines the extension to PIM-SM [RFC7761] to
   bootstrap a PIM-SM router to join in p2mp BFD session over shared-
   media link.

1.1.  Conventions used in this document

1.1.1.  Terminology

   BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection

   BDR: Backup Designated Router

   DR: Designated Router

   p2mp: Pont-to-Multipoint

   PIM-SM: Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode

1.1.2.  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.

2.  Problem Statement

   [RFC7761] does not provide a method for fast, e.g. sub-second,
   failure detection of a neighbor PIM-SM router.  BFD already has many
   implementations based on HW that are capable to support multiple sub-
   second session concurrently.

3.  Applicability of p2mp BFD

   [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] may provide the efficient and scalable
   solution for the fast-converging environment that has head-tails
   relationships.  Each such group presents itself as p2mp BFD session
   with its head being the root and other routers being tails of the
   p2mp BFD session.  Figure 1 displays the new BFD Discriminator TLV
   [RFC7761] to bootstrap tail of the p2mp BFD session.

Mirsky & Xiaoli          Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           BFD P2MP Use in PIM-SM             October 2018

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |          OptionType           |         OptionLength          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                       My  Discriminator                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Figure 1: BFD Discriminator TLV to Bootstrap P2MP BFD session

   where new fields are interpreted as:

      OptionType is a value (TBA1) assigned by IANA Section 4 that
      identifies the TLV as BFD Discriminator TLV;

      OptionLength value is always 4

      My Discriminator - My Discriminator value allocated by the root of
      the p2mp BFD session.

   If PIM-SM routers, that support this specification, are configured to
   use p2mp BFD for faster convergence, then the router to be monitored,
   referred to as 'head', MUST create BFD session MultipointHead, as
   defined in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint].  The head MUST include BFD TLV
   in its PIM-Hello message and periodically transmit BFD control
   packets.  Source IP address of the BFD control packet MUST be the
   same as the source IP address of the PIM-Hello with BFD TLV messages
   being transmitted by the head.  The values of My Discriminator in the
   BFD control packet and My Discriminator field of the BFD TLV in PIM-
   Hello, transmitted by the head MUST be the same.  When a PIM-SM
   router configured to monitor the head, referred to as 'tail', via
   p2mp BFD receives PIM-Hello packet with BFD TLV it MAY create p2mp
   BFD session as MultipointTail, as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], and demultiplex p2mp BFD test session
   based on head's source IP address the My Discriminator value it
   learned from BFD Discriminator TLV.  If the head ceased to include
   BFD TLV in its PIM-Hello message, tails MUST close the corresponding
   MultipointTail BFD session.  If the tail detects MultipointHead
   failure it MUST remove the neighbor.  If the failed head node was
   PIM-SM DR or BDR the tail MAY start DR Election process as specified
   in Section 4.3.2 [RFC7761] or in Section 4.1
   [I-D.ietf-pim-dr-improvement] respectively.

3.1.  Multipoint BFD Encapsulation

   The MultipointHead of p2mp BFD session when transmitting BFD control
   packet:

Mirsky & Xiaoli          Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           BFD P2MP Use in PIM-SM             October 2018

      MUST set TTL value to 1;

      SHOULD use group address ALL-PIM-ROUTERS ('224.0.0.13' for IPv4
      and 'ff02::d' for IPv6) as destination IP address

      MAY use network broadcast address for IPv4 or link-local all nodes
      multicast group for IPv6 as the destination IP address;

      MUST set destination UDP port value to 3784 when transmitting BFD
      control packets, as defined in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint].

4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate a new OptionType value from PIM Hello
   Options registry according to:

   +-------------+----------------+-------------------+---------------+
   | Value Name  | Length Number  | Name Protocol     | Reference     |
   +-------------+----------------+-------------------+---------------+
   | TBA         | 4              | BFD Discriminator | This document |
   +-------------+----------------+-------------------+---------------+

                  Table 1: BFD Discriminator option type

5.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations discussed in [RFC7761], [RFC5880], and
   [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint], apply to this document.

6.  Acknowledgments

   Authors cannot say enough to express their appreciation of comments
   and suggestions we received from Stig Venaas.

7.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]
              Katz, D., Ward, D., Networks, J., and G. Mirsky, "BFD for
              Multipoint Networks", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18 (work
              in progress), June 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-pim-dr-improvement]
              Zhang, Z., hu, f., Xu, B., and m. mishra, "PIM DR
              Improvement", draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-05 (work in
              progress), June 2018.

Mirsky & Xiaoli          Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           BFD P2MP Use in PIM-SM             October 2018

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, 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>.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
              <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, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5881>.

   [RFC5883]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, DOI 10.17487/RFC5883,
              June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5883>.

   [RFC7761]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
              Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
              Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
              (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, 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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Greg Mirsky
   ZTE Corp.

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com

   Ji Xiaoli
   ZTE Corporation
   No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
   Nanjing
   China

   Email: ji.xiaoli@zte.com.cn

Mirsky & Xiaoli          Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 6]