Resetting the sequence number in an authenticated BFD session

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Thu, 10 January 2008 20:42 UTC

Return-path: <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD4EH-0000gg-Cz; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:42:21 -0500
Received: from rtg-bfd by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JD4EF-0000gN-Ls for rtg-bfd-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:42:19 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD4EF-0000gC-A5 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:42:19 -0500
Received: from eci-iron1.ecitele.com ([147.234.242.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD4EE-0004bh-EK for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:42:19 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO ILPTAM01.ecitele.com) ([147.234.244.44]) by eci-iron1.ecitele.com with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2008 22:59:48 +0200
Received: from ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com ([147.234.245.181]) by ILPTAM01.ecitele.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:42:13 +0200
Received: from ILPTMAIL01.ecitele.com (147.234.245.211) by ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com (147.234.245.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.240.5; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:42:13 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C853C9.4745A9C0"
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:42:12 +0200
Message-ID: <64122293A6365B4A9794DC5636F9ACFD0252D70A@ILPTEX02.ecitele.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Resetting the sequence number in an authenticated BFD session
Thread-Index: AchTxJoMy3m6iHfxTVCQbsdfBl6XpA==
X-Priority: 1
Priority: Urgent
Importance: high
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: David Ward <dward@cisco.com>, David Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2008 20:42:13.0849 (UTC) FILETIME=[47D14C90:01C853C9]
X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1
Cc: Ronen Sommer <Ronen.Sommer@ecitele.com>, BFD WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, Igor Danilovich <Igor.Danilovich@ecitele.com>
Subject: Resetting the sequence number in an authenticated BFD session
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>
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org

Hi all,
I have a question related to the expected behavior of sequence numbers in an aythenticated (MD5 or SHA1) BFD session.
 
The corresdponding sections of draft-ietf-bfd-base-06 state that, once the packet has been authenticated by the receiver, its sequence number MUST be checked; if its value is out of range defined by the last received sequence number and the Detect Multiplexor, the packet MUST be discarded.
 
This may result in the a BFD session going down in the situation when the transceiver "loses" the information about its last transmitted sequence number. A suitable use case is a multilink interface (LAG, ML-PPP, etc.) with the links residing in different line cards, and e BFD implemented in one of these cards: if this card fails, the BFD would could be re-started in one of the remaining cards. Such a restart would not affect the local session because the BFD machine would be restarted with bfd.AuthSeqKnown = 0, but keeping bfd.XmitAuthSeq consistent between different line cards seems problematic. (Implemeting BFD in some common card would resolve the situation with the multilink interfaces but would raise similar issues when the common card fails).
 
Note that this problem would not occur for a non-authenticated BFD session.
 
IMHO this problem is real, and I do not see a simple solution for it. 
I would highly appreciate any feedback from the draft authors and/or from the WG.
 
Regards,
                  Sasha