Re: [BFD] bfd-mpls-05

Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com> Fri, 29 February 2008 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rtg-bfd-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048DA28C68C; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:38:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_75=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R78S9gJEBxsC; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:38:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E41228C42C; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:38:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412B93A67D0 for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:38:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eEMQtr8CE58p for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF5028C608 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:37:42 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1TGbYu19303; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:37:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [64.102.159.125] (dhcp-64-102-159-125.cisco.com [64.102.159.125]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m1TGcCu20122; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:38:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <47C834CE.6010607@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:37:34 -0500
From: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
Organization: cisco Systems, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Damodharan SP - TLS , Chennai" <damodharansp@hcl.in>
Subject: Re: [BFD] bfd-mpls-05
References: <47C732C5.60608@cisco.com> <E469FC6F8C0DDA449560E56FD769C8C0A891BF@CHN-HCLT-EVS01.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>
In-Reply-To: <E469FC6F8C0DDA449560E56FD769C8C0A891BF@CHN-HCLT-EVS01.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-Face: *3w8NvnQ|kS~V{&{U}$?G9U9EJQ8p9)O[1[1F'1i>XIc$5FR!hdAIf5}'Xu-3`^Z']h0J* ccB'fl/XJYR[+,Z+jj`4%06nd'y9[ln&ScJT5S+O18e^
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.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://www.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


On 2/29/2008 8:26 AM, Damodharan SP - TLS , Chennai said the following:
> Hi,
>    As per my understanding of bfd mpls and the comments from the below mail
>  
>    In "draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-05.txt"
>        The UDP destination port to be used for control packets from 
> egress to ingress is not clear.
>        
>    case 1.  "BFD control packets sent by the egress LSR are UDP packets. The
>        source IP address is a routable address of the replier; the source
>        port is the well-known UDP port 3784.  The destination IP address and
>        UDP port MUST be copied from the source IP address and UDP port of
>        the control packet received from the ingress LSR."
> 
>        -> It means that the UDP destination port for the packet from 
> egress to ingress
>            should be copied from source udp port of the packet received 
> the ingress.
>      
>   case  2.  "The BFD control packet sent by the egress LSR to the 
> ingress LSR MAY
>        be routed based on the destination IP address as per the procedures
>        in [BFD-MHOP]."
>  
>        BFD-MHOP("draft-ietf-bfd-multihop-06.txt 
> <https://hcltmail-chn.hcl.in/exchange/damodharansp/all-ids/draft-ietf-bfd-multihop-06.txt>";) 
> :
>        "The encapsulation of BFD Control packets for multihop application in
>         IPv4 and IPv6 is identical to that defined in [BFD-1HOP 
> <https://hcltmail-chn.hcl.in/exchange/damodharansp/Drafts/FW:%20WGLC%20comments%20on%20bfd-mpls-05.EML/1_text.htm#ref-BFD-1HOP>], 
> except that
>         the UDP destination port MUST have a value of 4784.  This can 
> aid in  
>         the demultiplexing and internal routing of incoming BFD packets."
>           
>        -> It means that the UDP destination port must be 4784.
> 
> So  1. Which UDP destination port to use for the control packet from 
> egress to ingress (case 1 or case 2)?
>       2. Destination IP address to be used for the control packets from 
> egress to ingress
>           before receiving the bfd packets from ingress(after BFD 
> Discriminator TLV is exchanged by lsp ping)?

Perhaps one direct solution is to require the egress send it's local 
discriminator in an LSP-Ping echo reply (currently MAY), and have the 
LSP ingress LSR send the first BFD Control packet. Like:

    On receipt of the LSP-Ping echo request message, the egress LSR MUST
    reply with an LSP-Ping echo reply message conveying its own local
    discriminator assigned by it to the BFD session for the LSP.
...
    Once the ingress LSR learns the local discriminator assigned by the
    egress LSR for a given BFD session from the LSP-Ping reply, it MUST
    send a BFD control packet...

Or have the egress chose the source port in the BFD control packet and 
use the well-known port as destination.

Thanks,

--Carlos.

>  
> Regards,
> Damodharan.S
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Carlos Pignataro
> *Sent:* Fri 2/29/2008 3:46 AM
> *To:* BFD WG
> *Subject:* WGLC comments on bfd-mpls-05
> 
> 
> Please find a couple of comments regarding bfd-mpls-05. I realize this
> is way past end of WGLC, but I hope the comments are useful and can be
> given consideration.
> 
> 
> 3.1. BFD for MPLS LSPs: Motivation
> 
>        The LSP may be  associated with any of the following FECs:
>          a) RSVP IPv4/IPv6 Session [RFC3209]
>          b) LDP IPv4/IPv6 prefix [RFC3036]
>          c) VPN IPv4/IPv6 prefix [RFC4364]
>          d) Layer 2 VPN [L2-VPN]
>          e) Layer 2 Circuit ID [RFC4447]
> 
> Does item e) refer to both the PWid FEC and the Generalized PWid FEC
> (128 and 129)?
> 
> Are BGP Labeled IPv4/IPv6 prefixes [RFC3107] excluded for a reason?
> 
> Also, for the e) FECs, there is the VCCV signaling aspects to be
> considered, from RFC4447 / RFC5085 to provide the VCCV control channel
> associated with the PW before BFD could be sent. Please also see last
> comment.
> 
> ---
> 
> 3.2. Using BFD in Conjunction with LSP-Ping
> 
>         a) Association of a LSP-Ping echo request message with a FEC. In
>       the case of Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP), for a single label stack
>       LSP, the only way to associate a fault detection message with a FEC
>       is by carrying the FEC in the message.
> 
> Is this the case not only for PHP but also for UHP with exp-null?
> Additionally for aggregated FECs in general (e.g., in the case of
> per-VRF label vs. per-VPNv4-FEC label, etc) the same applies but OTOH
> there would need to be only one BFD session per "vrf aggregated fec"
> (since it's the same label stack for different VPNv4 FECs, and the LSP
> being tested is identical), correct? Could this be clarified in the
> document?
> 
>       LSP-Ping provides this
>       functionality. Next-hop label allocation also makes it necessary to
>       carry the FEC in the fault detection message as the label alone is
>       not sufficient to identify the LSP being verified.
> ...
>       i) LSP-Ping is used for boot-strapping the BFD session as described
>       later in this document.
> 
> There seem to be cases where there is no need for boot-strapping the BFD
> session with LSP-Ping. For example, for PWs, both ends can start sending
> BFD Control messages with Your Discr value of zero in an Active role, as
> the PW Label provides the context to bootstrap the session.
> 
> ---
> 
> 4. Theory of Operation
> 
>       If there are multiple alternate paths from an ingress LSR to an
>       egress LSR for a LDP IP FEC, LSP-Ping traceroute MAY be used to
>       determine each of these alternate paths. A BFD session SHOULD be
>       established for each alternate path that is discovered.
> 
> There may also be multiple ECMPs for other FECs, like VPNv4/VPNv6
> prefixes. Does this SHOULD apply to those as well? For other FECs, there
> wouldn't be ECMPs (e.g., PWs RFC 4928), should that be explicitly mentioned?
> 
> ---
> 
> 5. Initialization and Demultiplexing
> 
> 
>     A BFD session may be established for a FEC associated with a MPLS
>     LSP. As desribed above in the case of PHP and next-hop label
>     allocation the BFD control packet received by the egress LSR does not
>     contain sufficient information to associate it with a BFD session.
>     Hence the demultiplexing MUST be done using the remote discriminator
>     field in the received BFD control packet. The exchange of BFD
>     discriminators for this purpose is described in the next section.
> 
> 6. Session Establishment
> 
>     To establish a BFD session a LSP-Ping echo
>     request message MUST carry the local discriminator assigned by the
>     ingress LSR for the BFD session. This MUST subsequently be used as
>     the My Discriminator field in the BFD session packets sent by the
>     ingress LSR.
> 
> There seem to be other additional cases besides PHP where discriminators
> need to be exchanged/boot-strapped (e.g., UHP and single label), but
> situations where it's not needed (e.g., PWs). Should these cases be
> enumerated/framed or clarified? Is this "MUST" (the first one in Section
> 6) too strong considering cases where bootstrapping with LSP-Ping is not
> needed (e.g., PWs) or should the MUST be conditioned to the cases where
> is needed?
> 
> ---
> 
> 6. Session Establishment
> 
>     On receipt of the LSP-Ping echo request message, the egress LSR MUST
>     send a BFD control packet to the ingress LSR.
> ...
> 7. Encapsulation
> 
>     BFD control packets sent by the egress LSR are UDP packets. The
>     source IP address is a routable address of the replier; the source
>     port is the well-known UDP port 3784.  The destination IP address and
>     UDP port MUST be copied from the source IP address and UDP port of
>     the control packet received from the ingress LSR.
> 
> LSP-Ping (ingress->egress) is used to exchange the ingress My
> Discriminator. And then a BFD Control packet (egress->ingress) is used
> to exchange the egress My Discriminator. Section 6 says that the egress
> replies with a BFD Control packet (before it has received a BFD Control
> packet from ingress), and Section 7 says that the egress copies the dest
> UDP port from the source's ingress. Therefore it seems that the
> destination UDP Port of the first BFD Control packet (from egress to
> ingress) is unspecified, and could be anything in the [49152 .. 65535]
> range since:
> 
>     The BFD control packet sent by the ingress LSR MUST be a UDP packet
>     with a well known destination port 3784 [BFD-IP] and a source port
>     assigned by the sender as per the procedures in [BFD-IP].
> 
> Should the egress use also 3784 as destination port in the first BFD
> Control packet? Should the port be also included in the LSP-Ping
> message? Or should the UDP port be allowed to change in the first packet
> from the ingress->egress?
> If the egress uses 3784 as dest UDP port, these two requirements from
> [BFD-IP] seem to end up contradicting on this case:
> 
>     The same UDP
>     source port number MUST be used for all BFD Control packets
>     associated with a particular session.  The source port number SHOULD
>     be unique among all BFD sessions on the system.
>     ...
>     but the number of distinct uses of
>     the same UDP source port number SHOULD be minimize
> 
> So that would seem to leave the other two options (send the UDP Port in
> the LSP-Ping, or allow for the UDP Port to change during the handshake.
> 
> ---
> 
> 7. Encapsulation
> 
>     For MPLS PWs, alternatively,
>     the presence of a fault detection message may be indicated by setting
>     a bit in the control word [VCCV].
> 
> This procedure needs signaling or static configuration to create the
> VCCV control channel before BFD packets could be exchanged over the
> control channel (with the bit in the CW). Are more details needed? See
> below as well.
> 
> ---
> 
> 7. Encapsulation
> 
>       In this case the destination IP address, used in a
>       BFD session established for one such alternate path, is the address
>       in the 127/8 range discovered by LSP-ping traceroute [RFC4379] to
>       exercise that particular alternate path.
> 
> A nit, where it says "is the address", there may be (and typically will
> be) multiple addresses from 127/8 to exercise a particular ECMP. Should
> that say "is one address from the 127/8 ... that exercises..."?
> 
> Also, there is no mention of BFD Echo adjunct function to the
> asynchronous mode.
> 
> ---
> 
> 11.2. Informative References
> 
>       [VCCV]     T. Nadeau, C. Pignataro, R. Aggarwal,
>                  "Pseudo Wire (PW) Virtual Circuit Connection Verification
>                  ((VCCV)", draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-13.txt
> 
> This reference points to rev 13 of this document. In the subsequent
> revision, this document was split into what resulted in RFC 5085 and the
> ID draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd. It seems that some citations refer to the
> former, while others to the latter, and they appear to be made in a
> Normative fashion (e.g., because the VCCV control channel needs to exist
> in order to send BFD packets over it).
> However, given that PWs need an associated VCCV control channel, do not
> need LSP-Ping boot-strapping (as can get the context from the PW label),
> should this document point to draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd (that goes into
> different BFD functional modes) for the PW case instead of also defining
> it here, since it has a number of specific unique issues?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> --Carlos Pignataro.
> Escalation RTP - cisco Systems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> DISCLAIMER:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only.
> It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in 
> this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of HCL or its affiliates.
> Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of 
> this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any mail and 
> attachments please check them for viruses and defect.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
--Carlos Pignataro.
Escalation RTP - cisco Systems