Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Updated by:8564
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         V. ManralRequest for Comments: 7175                                   Ionos Corp.Category: Standards Track                                D. Eastlake 3rdISSN: 2070-1721                                           Huawei R&D USA                                                                 D. Ward                                                           Cisco Systems                                                             A. Banerjee                                                        Cumulus Networks                                                                May 2014Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) SupportAbstract   This document specifies use of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection   (BFD) protocol in Routing Bridge (RBridge) campuses based on the   RBridge Channel extension to the Transparent Interconnection of Lots   of Links (TRILL) protocol.   BFD is a widely deployed Operations, Administration, and Maintenance   (OAM) mechanism in IP and MPLS networks, using UDP and Associated   Channel Header (ACH) encapsulation respectively.  This document   specifies the BFD encapsulation over TRILL.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 inSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7175.Manral, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 7175                    TRILL BFD Support                   May 2014Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 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 Contents1. Introduction ....................................................21.1. Terminology ................................................32. BFD over TRILL ..................................................32.1. Sessions and Initialization ................................43. TRILL BFD Control Protocol ......................................53.1. One-Hop TRILL BFD Control ..................................53.2. BFD Control Frame Processing ...............................54. TRILL BFD Echo Protocol .........................................64.1. BFD Echo Frame Processing ..................................65. Management and Operations Considerations ........................76. Default Authentication ..........................................77. Security Considerations .........................................88. IANA Considerations .............................................99. Acknowledgements ................................................910. References .....................................................910.1. Normative References ......................................910.2. Informative References ...................................101. Introduction   Faster convergence is a critical feature of Transparent   Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) [RFC6325] networks.  The   TRILL IS-IS Hellos [RFC7177] [IS-IS] used between RBridges provide a   basic neighbor and continuity check for TRILL links.  However,   failure detection by non-receipt of such Hellos is based on the   Holding Time parameter that is commonly set to a value of tens of   seconds and, in any case, has a minimum expressible value of one   second.Manral, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 7175                    TRILL BFD Support                   May 2014   Some applications, including Voice over IP, may wish, with high   probability, to detect interruptions in continuity within a much   shorter time period.  In some cases, physical-layer failures can be   detected very rapidly, but this is not always possible, such as when   there is a failure between two bridges that are in turn between two   RBridges.  There are also many subtle failures possible at higher   levels.  For example, some forms of failure could affect unicast   frames while still letting multicast frames through; since all TRILL   IS-IS Hellos are multicast, such a failure cannot be detected with   Hellos.  Thus, a low-overhead method for frequently testing   continuity for the TRILL Data between neighbor RBridges is necessary   for some applications.  The BFD protocol [RFC5880] provides a low-   overhead method for the rapid detection of connectivity failures.   BFD is a widely deployed OAM [RFC6291] mechanism in IP and MPLS   networks, using UDP and ACH encapsulation, respectively.  This   document describes a TRILL encapsulation for BFD packets for networks   that forward based on the TRILL Header.1.1.  Terminology   This document uses the acronyms defined in [RFC6325] along with the   following:      BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection      IP: Internet Protocol      IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System      MH: Multi-Hop      PPP: Point-to-Point Protocol      OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance   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 [RFC2119].2.  BFD over TRILL   TRILL supports unicast neighbor BFD Echo and one-hop and multi-hop   BFD Control, as specified below, over the RBridge Channel facility   [RFC7178].  (Multi-destination BFD is a work in progress [MultiBFD].)   BFD-over-TRILL support is similar to BFD-over-IP support [RFC5881],   except where differences are explicitly mentioned.Manral, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 7175                    TRILL BFD Support                   May 2014   Asynchronous and demand modes MUST be supported [RFC5880].  BFD over   TRILL supports the Echo function; however, implementation of TRILL   BFD Echo is optional, and it can only be used for single-hop   sessions.   The TRILL Header hop count in the BFD packets is sent out with the   maximum value of 0x3F.  To prevent spoofing attacks, the TRILL hop   count of a received session is checked [RFC5082].  For a single-hop   session, if the hop count is less than 0x3F and the RBridge Channel   Header MH flag is zero, the packet is discarded.  For multi-hop   sessions, the hop count check can be disabled if the MH flag is one.   As in BFD for IP, the format of the Echo Packet content is not   defined.   New RBridge Channel code points for BFD TRILL Control and BFD Echo   packets are specified.   Authentication mechanisms as supported in BFD are also supported for   BFD running over TRILL.2.1.  Sessions and Initialization   Within an RBridge campus, there will be no more than one TRILL BFD   Control session from any RBridge RB1 to RBridge RB2 for each RB1   TRILL port.  This BFD session must be bound to this interface.  As   such, both sides of a session MUST take the "Active" role (sending   initial BFD Control packets with a zero value of Your Discriminator),   and any BFD packet from the remote machine with a zero value of Your   Discriminator MUST be associated with the session bound to the remote   system and interface.   Note that TRILL BFD provides OAM facilities for the TRILL data plane.   This is above whatever protocol is in use on a particular link, such   as a pseudowire [RFC7173], Ethernet [RFC6325], or PPP link [RFC6361].   Link-technology-specific OAM protocols may be used on a link between   neighbor RBridges, for example, Continuity Fault Management [802.1Q]   if the link is Ethernet.  But such link-layer OAM (and coordination   between it and OAM in the TRILL data-plane layer, such as TRILL BFD)   is beyond the scope of this document.   If lower-level mechanisms are in use, such as link aggregation   [802.1AX], that present a single logical interface to TRILL IS-IS,   then only a single TRILL BFD session can be established to any other   RBridge over this logical interface.  However, lower-layer OAM could   be aware of and/or run separately on each of the components of an   aggregation.Manral, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 7175                    TRILL BFD Support                   May 20143.  TRILL BFD Control Protocol   TRILL BFD Control frames are unicast TRILL RBridge Channel frames   [RFC7178].  The RBridge Channel Protocol value is given inSection 8.   The protocol-specific data associated with the TRILL BFD Control   protocol is as shown inSection 4.1 of [RFC5880].3.1.  One-Hop TRILL BFD Control   One-hop TRILL BFD Control is typically used to rapidly detect link   and RBridge failures.  TRILL BFD frames over one hop for such   purposes SHOULD be sent with high priority; that is, the Inner.VLAN   tag priority should be 7, they should be queued for transmission as   maximum priority frames, and, if they are being sent on an Ethernet   link where the output port is configured to include an Outer.VLAN   tag, that tag should specify priority 7.   For neighbor RBridges RB1 and RB2, each RBridge sends one-hop TRILL   BFD Control frames to the other only if TRILL IS-IS has detected   bidirectional connectivity; that is, the adjacency is in the 2-Way or   Report state [RFC7177], and both RBridges indicate support of TRILL   BFD is enabled.  The BFD-Enabled TLV is used to indicate this as   specified in [RFC6213].3.2.  BFD Control Frame Processing   The following tests SHOULD be performed on received TRILL BFD Control   frames before generic BFD processing.   o  Is the M bit in the TRILL Header non-zero?  If so, discard the      frame.  (Multi-destination BFD is a work in progress [MultiBFD].)      Failure to perform this test would make a denial-of-service attack      using bogus multi-destination BFD Control frames easier.   o  If the Channel Header MH flag is zero, indicating one hop, test      that the TRILL Header hop count received was 0x3F (i.e., is 0x3E      if it has already been decremented); if it is any other value,      discard the frame.  If the Channel Header MH flag is one,      indicating multi-hop, test that the TRILL Header hop count      received was not less than a configurable value that defaults to      0x30.  If it is less, discard the frame.  Failure to perform these      tests would make it easier to spoof BFD Control frames.  However,      if forged BFD Control frames are a concern, then BFD      Authentication [RFC5880] should be used.Manral, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 7175                    TRILL BFD Support                   May 20144.  TRILL BFD Echo Protocol   A TRILL BFD Echo frame is a unicast RBridge Channel frame, as   specified in [RFC7178], which should be forwarded back by an   immediate neighbor because both the ingress and egress nicknames are   set to a nickname of the originating RBridge.  Normal TRILL Data   frame forwarding will cause the frame to be returned unless micro-   loop suppression logic in the neighbor RBridge prohibits sending a   frame back out the port on which it was received or the like.   RBridges with such prohibitions cannot support BFD Echo.  The TRILL   OAM protocol number for BFD Echo is given inSection 8.   TRILL BFD Echo frames SHOULD be sent on a link only if the following   conditions are met.  An Echo originating under other circumstances   will consume bandwidth and CPU resources but is unlikely to be   returned.   -  A TRILL BFD Control session has been established,   -  TRILL BFD Echo support is indicated by the RBridge that would      potentially respond to the BFD Echo,   -  The adjacency is in the Report state [RFC7177], and   -  The TRILL BFD Echo originating RBridge wishes to make use of this      optional feature.   Since the originating RBridge is the RBridge that will be processing   a returned Echo frame, the entire TRILL BFD Echo protocol-specific   data area is considered opaque and left to the discretion of the   originating RBridge.  Nevertheless, it is suggested that this data   include information by which the originating RBridge can authenticate   the returned BFD Echo frame and confirm the neighbor that echoed the   frame back.  For example, it could include its own System ID, the   neighbor's System ID, a session identifier, and a sequence count as   well as a Message Authentication Code.4.1.  BFD Echo Frame Processing   The following tests MUST be performed on returned TRILL BFD Echo   frames before other processing.  The RBridge Channel document   [RFC7178] requires that the information in the TRILL Header be given   to the BFD protocol.   o  Is the M bit in the TRILL Header non-zero?  If so, discard the      frame.  (Multi-destination BFD is a work in progress [MultiBFD].)Manral, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 7175                    TRILL BFD Support                   May 2014   o  The TRILL BFD Echo frame should have gone exactly two hops, so      test that the TRILL Header hop count as received was 0x3E (i.e.,      0x3D if it has already been decremented), and if it is any other      value, discard the frame.  The RBridge Channel Header in the frame      MUST have the MH bit equal to one, and if it is zero, discard the      frame.5. Management and Operations Considerations   The TRILL BFD parameters on an RBridge are configurable.  The default   values are the same as in the IP BFD case [RFC5881], except where   specified in this document, such as for hop count.   It is up to the operator of an RBridge campus to configure the rates   at which TRILL BFD frames are transmitted on a link to avoid   congestion (e.g., link, input/output (I/O), CPU) and false failure   detection.  See also the discussion of congestion inSection 2 of   [RFC5881].   As stated in [RFC5880]:      It is worth noting that a single BFD session does not consume a      large amount of bandwidth.  An aggressive session that achieves a      detection time of 50 milliseconds, by using a transmit interval of      16.7 milliseconds and a detect multiplier of 3, will generate 60      packets per second.  The maximum length of each packet on the wire      is on the order of 100 bytes, for a total of around 48 kilobits      per second of bandwidth consumption in each direction.6.  Default Authentication   Consistent with TRILL's goal of being able to operate with minimum   configuration, the default for BFD authentication between neighbor   RBridges is based on the state of the IS-IS shared secret   authentication for Hellos between those RBridges as detailed below.   The BFD authentication algorithm and methods in this section MUST be   implemented at an RBridge if TRILL IS-IS authentication and BFD are   implemented at that RBridge.  If such BFD authentication is   configured, then its configuration is not restricted by the   configuration of IS-IS security.   If IS-IS authentication is not in effect between neighbor RBridges,   then, by default, TRILL BFD between those RBridges is also unsecured.   If such IS-IS authentication is in effect, then, unless configured   otherwise, TRILL BFD Control frames sent between those RBridges MUST   use BFD Meticulous Keyed SHA1 authentication [RFC5880].  The BFD   authentication keys between neighbor RBridges by default are derivedManral, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 7175                    TRILL BFD Support                   May 2014   from the IS-IS shared secret authentication keys for Hellos between   those RBridges as detailed below.  However, such BFD authentication   keys MAY be configured to some other value.     HMAC-SHA256 ( ( "TRILL BFD Control" | originPortID | originSysID ),                   IS-IS-shared-key )   In the above, "|" indicates concatenation; HMAC-SHA256 is as   described in [FIPS180] and [RFC6234]; and "TRILL BFD Control" is the   17-byte US ASCII [ASCII] string indicated that is then concatenated   with the 2-byte Port ID of the originating port and the 6-byte IS-IS   System ID of the originating RBridge, the last two items being in   network byte order.  The Port and System IDs are included to minimize   exposure of the same key to improve resistance to cryptanalysis.   IS-IS-shared-key is secret keying material being used for IS-IS   authentication on the link.   The use of the above derived key is accomplished by associating the   above default authentication type and key with the Key ID of the   IS-IS-shared-key used in the derivation and then using that Key ID in   the Authentication Section of the BFD Control frame OAM protocol-   specific data.  Also, Auth Type would be 5, and Auth Len would be 28   in the Authentication Section.  RBridges MAY be configured to use   other BFD security modes or keying material or configured to use no   security.   Authentication for TRILL BFD Echo is a local implementation issue as   BFD Echo frames are authenticated by their sender when returned by a   neighbor.  However, if TRILL IS-IS and BFD Control are being   authenticated to a neighbor and BFD Echo is in use, BFD Echo frames   to be returned by that neighbor should be authenticated, and such   authentication should use different keying material from other types   of authentication.  For example, it could use keying material derived   as follows, where "|" indicates concatenation:     HMAC-SHA256 ( ( "TRILL BFD Echo" | originPortID | originSysID ),                   IS-IS-shared-key )7.  Security Considerations   BFD over TRILL utilizes the RBridge Channel extension to the TRILL   protocol and is generally analogous to BFD over IP.  As such, the BFD   authentication facility is available to authenticate BFD-over-TRILL   packet payloads, but no encryption or other security features are   provided at the BFD-over-TRILL level.  See the following:   -  [RFC5881] for general BFD security considerations,Manral, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 8]

RFC 7175                    TRILL BFD Support                   May 2014   -  [RFC7178] for general RBridge Channel security considerations, and   -  [RFC6325] for general TRILL protocol security considerations.Section 3.2 describes security concerns with multi-hop BFD Control   packets and failure to check the TRILL Header M bit in BFD Control   packets.8.  IANA Considerations   IANA has allocated two RBridge Channel protocol numbers [RFC7178]   from the Standards Action range, as follows:       Protocol     Number       --------     ------       BFD Control  0x002       BFD Echo     0x0039.  Acknowledgements   The authors would like to specially thank Dave Katz, an author of   [RFC5880] and [RFC5881], from which some material herein has been   reproduced.   The following individuals are thanked for their comments and   suggestions: Scott Bradner, Stewart Bryant, Stephen Farrell, Eric   Gray, Brian Haberman, Barry Leiba, Erik Nordmark, John Scudder,   Robert Sparks, Martin Stiemerling, and Sean Turner.10.  References10.1.  Normative References   [ASCII]    American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character              Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for Information              Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.   [FIPS180]  National Institute of Science and Technology, "Secure Hash              Standard (SHS)", Federal Information Processing Standard              (FIPS) 180-4, March 2012, <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/fips-180-4.pdf>.   [IS-IS]    International Organization for Standardization,              "Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-domain              routeing information exchange protocol for use in              conjunction with the protocol for providing the              connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)", Second              Edition, November 2002.Manral, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 9]

RFC 7175                    TRILL BFD Support                   May 2014   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection              (BFD)",RFC 5880, June 2010.   [RFC5881]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection              (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)",RFC 5881, June              2010.   [RFC6213]  Hopps, C. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS BFD-Enabled TLV",RFC6213, April 2011.   [RFC6325]  Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.              Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol              Specification",RFC 6325, July 2011.   [RFC7177]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Yang, H., and              V. Manral, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links              (TRILL): Adjacency",RFC 7177, May 2014.   [RFC7178]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Manral, V., Li, Y., Aldrin, S., and D.              Ward, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links              (TRILL): RBridge Channel Support",RFC 7178, May 2014.10.2.  Informative References   [802.1AX]  IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area              networks -- Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008,              January 2008.   [802.1Q]   IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area              networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual              Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011, August              2011.   [MultiBFD] Katz, D. and D. Ward,"BFD for Multipoint Networks", Work              in Progress, February 2014.   [RFC5082]  Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.              Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism              (GTSM)",RFC 5082, October 2007.   [RFC6234]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms              (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)",RFC 6234, May 2011.Manral, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 10]

RFC 7175                    TRILL BFD Support                   May 2014   [RFC6291]  Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,              D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"              Acronym in the IETF",BCP 161,RFC 6291, June 2011.   [RFC6361]  Carlson, J. and D. Eastlake 3rd, "PPP Transparent              Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol Control              Protocol",RFC 6361, August 2011.   [RFC7173]  Yong, L., Eastlake 3rd, D., Aldrin, S., and J. Hudson,              "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)              Transport Using Pseudowires",RFC 7173, May 2014.Manral, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 11]

RFC 7175                    TRILL BFD Support                   May 2014Authors' Addresses   Vishwas Manral   Ionos Corp.   4100 Moorpark Ave.   San Jose, CA  95117   USA   EMail: vishwas@ionosnetworks.com   Donald Eastlake 3rd   Huawei R&D USA   155 Beaver Street   Milford, MA  01757   USA   Phone: +1-508-333-2270   EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com   Dave Ward   Cisco Systems   170 W. Tasman Drive   San Jose, CA  95138   USA   EMail: dward@cisco.com   Ayan Banerjee   Cumulus Networks   1089 West Evelyn Avenue   Sunnyvale, CA 94086   USA   EMail: ayabaner@gmail.comManral, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 12]

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp