Re: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA backup?

"Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <naikumar@cisco.com> Thu, 17 January 2019 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <naikumar@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C07128CF2 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 13:06:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HIX20whITgzQ for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 13:06:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E16C21271FF for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 13:06:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=33014; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1547759216; x=1548968816; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=gbBBzcc/YsaYiy29j/TyyY3NC93fQYxkmK2E6hDEhAg=; b=UmVM/Mp+m/M0de/7w9SzIfog2HkIgjsCIyrheP6gOzDs9yy5bxzUvpWz 8BD6l2qjw31j7v2rqsCBTt0FdFPNRKA1jvD97efj76FOXtDHCA/oZ0f2N wsD8GBDh3EMy0PQA902WDGo4wgb1nrY8bjXj+FxXWS6ofAtc+uHsliui+ I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAACD7UBc/5pdJa1jGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgQ12ZoECJwqDd4gajVAliSWOXRSBZws?= =?us-ascii?q?BAYRsAheCQSI0CQ0BAwEBAgEBAm0ohUoBAQEBAyNWEAIBCBEDAQEBIQcDAgI?= =?us-ascii?q?CHxEUCQgCBAENBYMiAYEdTAMVrAaBL4gPDYIdjD8XgX+BEScME4IeLoJXgWY?= =?us-ascii?q?RARIBJhAJFgKCUTGCJgKJRoEbhQyGb4sJMwkCjlyDOBiBZoUrin6KAIYviBy?= =?us-ascii?q?CHgIRFIEnHzgoPXFwFWUBgkEJkFNBMYdPgR+BHwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,489,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="226988282"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jan 2019 21:06:54 +0000
Received: from xch-rcd-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0HL6s1c005436 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:06:54 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 15:06:53 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 15:06:53 -0600
From: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <naikumar@cisco.com>
To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>, "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
CC: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA backup?
Thread-Topic: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA backup?
Thread-Index: AQHUrkVWilVjo+OzYEyhX+0kYQ2oPKWznhSAgAASM4CAAFUWgA==
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:06:53 +0000
Message-ID: <0146107F-AB79-4589-8F0D-CB3CF831DD79@cisco.com>
References: <CAKz0y8xNcx9AmS-kx4nM1YXnqk8+PDPrPrdBhMs4jtYVegoz8g@mail.gmail.com> <25009_1547719034_5C40517A_25009_420_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B78E8A2@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKz0y8yuVJ7t31OKKm7F1G1aGYMOyFqdE=5JWjWeBBTH_-9OQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKz0y8yuVJ7t31OKKm7F1G1aGYMOyFqdE=5JWjWeBBTH_-9OQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.a.0.180210
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.20.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0146107FAB7945898F0DCB3CF831DD79ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.21, xch-rcd-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/EW74yhkDyJF5kPBqTAFkqlmJ4UU>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:06:59 -0000

Hi Muthu,

The primary reason for my question on encapsulations is because RFC 4379 has the foll. as one of the reasons for using the destination address in 127/8 range for IPv4 (0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6) for diagnostic packets sent over MPLS LSP:
   1. Although the LSP in question may be broken in unknown ways, the
      likelihood of a diagnostic packet being delivered to a user of an
      MPLS service MUST be held to an absolute minimum.

Since multihop BFD uses a routable destination address, wondering whether there would be any issues if multihop BFD packets are sent over the RLFA backup path without following RFC 5884 encapsulation..

<Nagendra> In end-to-end LSP scenarios, RFC5884 is applicable that suggests to use 127/8 or ::FFFF:7F00/104 address. I am not aware of any IP environment with LSP rLFA. Theoretically I think it wont/shouldn’t change the encapsulation but simply push the rLFA stack.

Regards,
Nagendra

From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:02 AM
To: "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA backup?

Hi Stephane,

Thanks for your response. Please see inline..

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 3:27 PM <stephane.litkowski@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com>> wrote:
Hi,

I think that the fact that “control” packets can benefit of FRR is really implementation dependent. It is also linked to the place where BFD packets are created (RP or LC).
From a theoretical point of view, nothing prevents FRR to be used as for any packet generated by the router itself.

Do we know of any implementation that provides RLFA FRR protection to multihop BFD packets?

Regarding the encapsulation, if your BFD client is using RFC5883, this will not change during FRR, the FRR will just push labels on top independently.

The primary reason for my question on encapsulations is because RFC 4379 has the foll. as one of the reasons for using the destination address in 127/8 range for IPv4 (0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6) for diagnostic packets sent over MPLS LSP:
   1. Although the LSP in question may be broken in unknown ways, the
      likelihood of a diagnostic packet being delivered to a user of an
      MPLS service MUST be held to an absolute minimum.

Since multihop BFD uses a routable destination address, wondering whether there would be any issues if multihop BFD packets are sent over the RLFA backup path without following RFC 5884 encapsulation..

Regards,
Muthu

Again, the possibility to get FRR is really implementation dependent, as the forwarding decision of the BFD packet may not be taken by the network processor of the LC.

Brgds,

From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 10:16
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Can Multihop BFD be protected using RLFA backup?

Hi All,

Multihop BFD (RFC 5883) packets are sent over UDP/IP. The encapsulation used is identical to single hop BFD (RFC 5881) except that the UDP destination port is set to 4784.

Now, suppose on the ingress node there is no IP/LFA backup path for the destination address tracked by multihop BFD, but there exists an an RLFA backup path to that destination. In this case, is multihop BFD expected to be protected using the RLFA backup path i.e should multihop BFD packets be sent over the RLFA backup path if the primary path goes down?

If multihop BFD packets are to be sent over the RLFA backup path, what encapsulation should the ingress use? The encapsulation specified in RFC 5883 or the encapsulation specified in RFC 5884 (MPLS BFD)?

Please let me know you opinion.

Regards,
Muthu

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.