Re: Conclusion of the discussion on draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand?
Jeffrey Haas <email@example.com> Tue, 18 August 2020 18:02 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162E93A0965 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([126.96.36.199]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ThC-4rzarCy for <email@example.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [188.8.131.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2743A0B5F for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4F5641E2FB; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:14:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:14:31 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Conclusion of the discussion on draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand?
References: <CA+RyBmXCffDUHfZiwPb_ODjiQTDpnQJs0uJb-5oZS8okSdV8Ew@mail.gmail.com> <20200804003817.GA15350@pfrc.org> <20200804193427.GE31729@pfrc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:02:55 -0000
Greg, Thank you for your patience. On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:00:38AM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote: > Dear All, > I much appreciate it if you can share the conclusion of the discussion of > the draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand. > > Regards, > Greg The BFD Working Group chairs and Area Director have reviewed draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand. The chairs had originally issued a working group adoption call without having read the document. Upon review, it was determined that the majority of the text in the draft mostly restated existing BFD Demand mode procedure. The chairs apologize for not having done sufficient vetting prior to starting the adoption process and causing the confusion that followed. The majority of the draft covers a re-statement of existing BFD procedure and obscures the potential request for normative protocol changes. This response is split into two sections: The first portion covers procedure that is a restatement of RFC 5880 Demand behaviors with a few possible non-intended variances. The second portion covers a potential change to BFD Demand behavior and may be reason to continue working group discussion. It's noted that a likely motivation for this draft comes from the following statement in RFC 5884, §6 "Session Establishment": # A BFD session is bootstrapped using LSP Ping. This specification # describes procedures only for BFD asynchronous mode. BFD demand mode # is outside the scope of this specification. While "outside the scope", the procedures for exercising Demand mode are covered largely in detail in RFC 5880. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the following response, ':' blockquotes are from draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand and '#' blockquotes are from the cited RFC. The text of the document and the matching procedures from RFC 5880 follow: : 3. Use of the BFD Demand Mode : : [RFC5880] defines that the Demand mode MAY be: : : o asymmetric, i.e. used in one direction of a BFD session; : : o switched to and from without bringing BFD session to Down state : through using a Poll Sequence. RFC 5880 §6 "Demand Mode" reads: # Demand mode MAY be enabled or disabled at any time, independently in # each direction, by setting or clearing the Demand (D) bit in the BFD # Control packet, without affecting the BFD session state. Note that # the Demand bit MUST NOT be set unless both systems perceive the # session to be Up (the local system thinks the session is Up, and the # remote system last reported Up state in the State (Sta) field of the # BFD Control packet). # # When the transmitted value of the Demand (D) bit is to be changed, # the transmitting system MUST initiate a Poll Sequence in conjunction # with changing the bit in order to ensure that both systems are aware # of the change. The poll sequence is defined in RFC 5880 §5 "The Poll Sequence": # A Poll Sequence consists of a system sending periodic BFD Control # packets with the Poll (P) bit set. When the other system receives a # Poll, it immediately transmits a BFD Control packet with the Final # (F) bit set, independent of any periodic BFD Control packets it may # be sending (see section 6.8.7). When the system sending the Poll # sequence receives a packet with Final, the Poll Sequence is # terminated, and any subsequent BFD Control packets are sent with the # Poll bit cleared. A BFD Control packet MUST NOT have both the Poll # (P) and Final (F) bits set. : For the case of BFD over MPLS LSP, ingress Label switching Edge : Router (LER) usually acts as Active BFD peer and egress LER acts as : Passive BFD peer. The Active peer bootstraps the BFD session by : using LSP ping. Once the BFD session is in Up state the ingress LER : that supports this specification MUST switch to the Demand mode by : setting Demand (D) bit in its Control packet and initiating a Poll : Sequence. If the egress LER supports this specification it MUST : respond with the Final (F) bit set in its BFD Control packet sent to : the ingress LER and ceases further transmission of periodic BFD : control packets to the ingress LER. The procedure above is covered by core RFC 5880 procedures as above. The one item of interest here not part of the specification is "MUST switch". Effectively, an optional procedure normally covered by configuration mode or application profile is mandated by this document. : In this state BFD peers MAY remain as long as the egress LER is in Up : state. The ingress LER MAY check liveness of the egress LER by : setting the Poll flag. The egress LER will respond by transmitting : BFD control packet with the Final flag set. If the ingress LER : doesn't receive BFD packet with the Final flag from its peer after : the predetermined period of time, default wait time recommended 1 : second, the ingress MAY transmit another packet with the Poll flag : set. If ingress doesn't receive BFD control packet with the Final : flag set in response to three consecutive packets with Poll flag, it : MAY declare the BFD peer non-responsive and change state of the BFD : session to Down state. RFC 5880 §6 "Demand Mode" further reads: # When a system in Demand mode wishes to verify bidirectional # connectivity, it initiates a Poll Sequence (see section 6.5). If no # response is received to a Poll, the Poll is repeated until the # Detection Time expires, at which point the session is declared to be # Down. Note that if Demand mode is operating only on the local # system, the Poll Sequence is performed by simply setting the Poll (P) # bit in regular periodic BFD Control packets, as required by section # 6.5. # # The Detection Time in Demand mode is calculated differently than in # Asynchronous mode; it is based on the transmit rate of the local # system, rather than the transmit rate of the remote system. This # ensures that the Poll Sequence mechanism works properly. See section # 6.8.4 for more details. # # [...] # # When the transmitted value of the Demand (D) bit is to be changed, # the transmitting system MUST initiate a Poll Sequence in conjunction # with changing the bit in order to ensure that both systems are aware # of the change. The procedure above documents how to use a poll sequence to verify liveness while in Demand mode. The calculation of the Detection time for Demand mode while undergoing a Poll sequence is referred to in §6.8.4. draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand procedure cited above, in particular the "1 second" time is a variance against the Poll sequence procedure. The "three consecutive packets" is similarly a variance against the core BFD procedures, where this is covered by the Detect Multiplier. With respect to declaring the session Down as part of a Poll sequence in Demand Mode, §6.8.4 has the following text: # If Demand mode is active, and a period of time equal to the Detection # Time passes after the initiation of a Poll Sequence (the transmission # of the first BFD Control packet with the Poll bit set), the session # has gone down -- the local system MUST set bfd.SessionState to Down, # and bfd.LocalDiag to 1 (Control Detection Time Expired). : If the Detection timer at the egress LER expires it MUST send BFD : Control packet to the ingress LER with the Poll (P) bit set, Status : (Sta) field set to Down value, and the Diagnostic (Diag) field set to : Control Detection Time Expired value. The egress LER sends these : Control packets to the ingress LER at the rate of one per second : until either it receives the valid for this BFD session control : packet with the Final (F) bit set from the ingress LER or the defect : condition clears and the BFD session state reaches Up state at the : egress LER. >From the perspective of the egress LER, standard Async BFD without Demand is still running. The following text from §6.6, "Demand Mode", applies: # If Demand mode is active on either or both systems, a Poll Sequence # MUST be initiated whenever the contents of the next BFD Control # packet to be sent would be different than the contents of the # previous packet, with the exception of the Poll (P) and Final (F) # bits. This ensures that parameter changes are transmitted to the # remote system and that the remote system acknowledges these changes. Again, the "1 second" time is a variance against RFC 5880. Prior list e-mail and IETF working group session discussion suggested that the last sentence above leads to the possible conclusion that this this is only done for "parameter changes". However, the leading sentence clearly covers "whenever the contents [...] would be different". Discussion among the chairs and the AD suggest that the last sentence is not intended to specify a normative behavior in restricting to "configuration". RFC 5880 is largely structured around the BFD PDU contents reflecting the "State Variables" documented in §6.8.1 and similar variables in the extension documents. The "parameters" reference in §5.6 is intended to refer to such state variables as instantiatied in the PDU. : The ingress LER transmits BFD Control packets over the MPLS LSP with : the Demand (D) flag set at negotiated interval per [RFC5880], the : greater of bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval and bfd.RemoteMinRxInterval, : until it receives the valid BFD packet from the egress LER with the : Poll (P) bit and the Diagnostic (Diag) field value Control Detection : Time Expired. Reception of such BFD control packet by the ingress : LER indicates that the monitored LSP has a failure and sending BFD : control packet with the Final flag set to acknowledge failure : indication is likely to fail. Here we're just using standard BFD procedure. If the session is Up, transmit appropriately. Don't restate protocol. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This next section potentially proposes new behavior: : Instead, the ingress LER transmits the : BFD Control packet to the egress LER over the IP network with: : : o destination IP address MUST be set to the destination IP address : of the LSP Ping Echo request message [RFC8029]; : : o destination UDP port set to 4784 [RFC5883]; : : o Final (F) flag in BFD control packet MUST be set; : : o Demand (D) flag in BFD control packet MUST be cleared. : : The ingress LER changes the state of the BFD session to Down and : changes rate of BFD Control packets transmission to one packet per : second. The ingress LER in Down mode changes to Asynchronous mode : until the BFD session comes to Up state once again. Then the ingress : LER switches to the Demand mode. The behavior here covers the fact that the underlying MPLS LSP is no longer usable - the egress LSR detected a failure in the receipt of the BFD PDUs from the ingress LSR. Since Demand mode was enabled, how does the ingress LSR know that the session is Down from the perspective of the egress? The procedures documented above per RFC 5880 will have the egress initiating the Poll sequence to do the state transition. But similarly, since Demand mode is enabled, the only way for the egress LSR to know that the session has gone Down from the perspective of the ingress LSR is for it to receive the response to the Poll. Thus, the above procedure attempts to suggest reaching the egress LSR using BFD multi-hop procedures. Chairs commentary: ------------------ This procedural point is potentially worth WG discussion and potentially a motivation to advance this draft. The discussion will largely involve what existing implementations of RFC 5884 already do in circumstances where the ingress path has gone down. Even without Demand mode being active, the egress LSR will still transition to Down and signal toward the ingress LSR. And similarly, the ingress no longer has a valid forward path to carry its acknowledgement of session is in the Down state to the egress LSR. The fault observed here is really with RFC 5884 procedures rather than specifically the Demand mode. Perversely, it could be observed that in the absence of MPLS encapsulation and the use of Demand mode that the above considerations still apply: When a receiver is in Demand mode, needs to transition state, notifies the sender by changing its local state, it may not receive the acknowledgment that the sender has received and processed that state. This can lead to a similarly stale session. What we thus have are two conditions wherein it's not possible to fully clean up a BFD session that has locally determined it is Down. Existing implementations must already deal with this in some fashion, and that discussion on the list may be fruitful.
- Re: Conclusion of the discussion on draft-mirsky-… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Conclusion of the discussion on draft-mirsky-… Greg Mirsky