Re: Ability to detect swapped/merged LSPs
Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Tue, 01 March 2005 18:38 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25932; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:38:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D6CHI-0002Mg-If; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:39:29 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D6CFC-00069w-Ru; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:37:18 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D6CFC-00069q-Bj for rtg-bfd@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:37:18 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25876 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:37:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dns.nexthop.com ([65.247.36.216] helo=aa-mx1.nexthop.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D6CGB-0002LB-13 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:38:20 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6BB42D4DCC; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:37:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from aa-mx1.nexthop.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aa-mx1.nexthop.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 73269-01-85; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:37:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [65.247.36.31]) by aa-mx1.nexthop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC982D5033; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:55:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id j21Htha00775; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:55:43 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:55:43 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: richard.spencer@bt.com
Message-ID: <20050301175543.GN3743@nexthop.com>
References: <B5E87B043D4C514389141E2661D255EC0A8358D0@i2km41-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B5E87B043D4C514389141E2661D255EC0A8358D0@i2km41-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nexthop.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Ability to detect swapped/merged LSPs
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
Richard, I wont claim to be a MPLS expert, but I'm struck by the following: On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:09:26PM -0000, richard.spencer@bt.com wrote: > If we get a swapped LSP (e.g. due to a corrupted forwarding table or configuration error) then all BFD packets received for the corresponding session will be dropped and the session will be declared down as a detection timeout will occur. However, if we get a merging defect where a node receives both valid BFD packets in addition to invalid BFD packets then this defect will not be detected. > > In both cases, traffic is being forwarded onto the wrong destination and therefore these defects need to be detected and appropriate actions taken, e.g. raise an alarm and inform the LSP source (using the appropriate BFD status code) that a defect has occurred so that the source can stop forwarding packets or switch over to an alternative path if one exists. If we are receiving some other node's traffic due to forwarding corruption in the network, then wouldn't: a. The intended target of the session time out the session after the appropriate interval? b. The node that is accidentally receiving the traffic may be potentially unable to respond due to the inherent unidirectionality of an LSP? (In other words, the case where we do not have an LSP that would permit us to respond.) > By adding new processing rules and status codes, both of these defects could be detected using BFD. An alternative would be to use LSP ping but it would not provide the same defect detection speed, i.e. an LSP might only get tested using LSP pings every 30mins or maybe every hour in a large network with hundreds of thousands of PWs/LSPs, as opposed to BFD packets that can be sent every second. It's probably worth reminding people that a session for BFD for MPLS LSPs must be bootstrapped using LSP-Ping. Upon failure of a BFD session, it's very reasonable to use LSP-Ping not only to reinitialize (or attempt to reinitialize) the BFD session, but also do further troubleshooting. > Richard -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies
- Ability to detect swapped/merged LSPs richard.spencer
- Re: Ability to detect swapped/merged LSPs Thomas D. Nadeau
- Re: Ability to detect swapped/merged LSPs Jeffrey Haas
- RE: Ability to detect swapped/merged LSPs richard.spencer
- RE: Ability to detect swapped/merged LSPs richard.spencer