Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-26

Greg Mirsky <> Thu, 04 April 2024 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9657DC180B51; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.095
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cKWZe_Qe9n6N; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 13:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D41EC14F618; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 13:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 00721157ae682-61428e80f0cso13343837b3.2; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 13:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1712263838; x=1712868638;; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mA05sTM+0OIi/gPBsnnjnxL/mVHwBneBZOfE9n8WtU8=; b=B7AN6GiX/pNoajcGrxt5etjQD7aknB9aQJXHOkr51dVrKVY2dB7jooskDUYz2SUQc0 +bRCDjPwroOWewzAWHvl417ch4e+wi3OI3UyrxVhxUIP7jDFfZnbIc5yNpYOFy/fnM3L liOAi2zqjq/8mDRiJ1piHq+u2YLghXlYAKZaRQIjdQs8jJYcXzN5qO6VB2igCQYETBxb RMzLTtW0pNuoBXkKmFSNKud6qYzZQ6B2QgNWZ1xLhk7o6PTtqkkm+tJX72u7mNySKEMZ GhM8iPdCss17P2v49yTJeQKj58oU7jqA0rglyk3T8H3TcEPGDqW3pLCaUVxNN0BlBXWo 9PQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1712263838; x=1712868638; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=mA05sTM+0OIi/gPBsnnjnxL/mVHwBneBZOfE9n8WtU8=; b=OBQdVVyu9rHAoTlWukalP+cymmWQZKJJSh7VNIboqNPP3Tuar5UK0esSFeja505pay ALTRgTlR7VUuI7JWPz/hH2qriJF4neVxcsSKs84aHQdehstozenCMHEbuWP0J3JW/M1i jJcqAPCpnUYZczIHWlvYn/qrR3xYn1qgv/tEUw2LRNMXUqdnQ+U7UduEypoXvuEHrKr1 Or0FVk79apRavLN8ceZh05hthylbsVB0A5IoA20PScVssULT6r1KHeNPe0jhNGAXObPD khs0HfqncFEgUSqnFjJsXihhLXt55cKFD1oKaQ95ow/FrE8AFyEEuMFu+YcIDBCg7wY0 Z9zA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWXQoqqppMbA2YDz22de/pYbRqyINitydhcoeZUvlHQZxd/vgaEB3tUbKVchqs5mE7tDtEpaVDPbmwqRA2hJ08M+KddSsriuoKDHzdAkgC6elFrBOOIoVjx679Effx8UBSPRLfMW6X3C1jh8/EFMjIp3e7sM2bSLTpfmFDwNURjXieg6Ei9YnMNrE5I+JWejwdHARLg+fRF0UPqLW8Od8QB
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyNOMkv6QqDzj+HFTJMgldYib6egVJCMkWeX5ZnppcLGPoYVjN+ RM7ZjymkfVJQeSHbnooHlR4IXOthquKv49NMOc2P2a/bq6RcpdTnn5vJ8UWCPKvWK/HthFsls3A a8Mhjy+KkAjfRon69WUfiTzLvppR7gVcRM1k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEJIrBPxBsSnqpAt/Wubu6O5PlZxv31ati4nnhlUKTWe8/H8qq0GJazq04GiqXPFGyac1VsxQ7G7xcyCd39OS0=
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:caca:0:b0:615:15a2:5bf9 with SMTP id m193-20020a0dcaca000000b0061515a25bf9mr3704604ywd.20.1712263838037; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 13:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 13:50:27 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Andrew Alston <>
Cc: Andrew Alston - IETF <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d4027d06154b7dfb"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-26
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 20:50:41 -0000

Hi Andrew,
thank you for further clarifying your concern. After discussing this
scenario, I propose the following update in Section 3.1:
   None, one or more sub-TLVs
   MAY be included in the BFD Reverse Path TLV.
   None, one or more sub-TLVs
   MAY be included in the BFD Reverse Path TLV.  However, the number of
   sub-TLVs in the Reverse Path field MUST be limited.  The default
   limit is 128, but an implementation MAY be able to control that

Do you find this update reasonably addressing your concern?


On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 12:26 PM Andrew Alston <> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
> I’m more concerned about the potential load of that search for path in the
> path sent is ridiculously long basically the current text works - but I’m
> concerned it opens a potential denial of service vector by forcing the
> receiving router to do a search against a path that could contain a
> thousand sub-tlvs without exceeding the mtu length.
> For example - a generic ipv4 tlv in the registry as defined by 8029 -
> which is in the type 1/16/29 registry - is 8 bytes long - a 9000 byte
> packet could pack these a thousand deep and the receiver would then be
> trying to match that to a local LSP - which could potentially create a huge
> resource issue.
> It may be that the working group doesn't view this as a viable problem -
> but since I spotted it - it's necessary to raise it and see what people
> think
> Thanks
> Andrew
> Get Outlook for iOS <>
> Internal All Employees
> ------------------------------
> *From:* mpls <> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 4, 2024 8:04:56 PM
> *To:* Andrew Alston - IETF <>
> *Cc:* <>;
> <
>>; <
>>; <>; <
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Rtgdir last call review of
> draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-26
> CAUTION: This email has originated from a free email service commonly used
> for personal email services, please be guided accordingly especially if
> this email is asking to click links or share information.
> Hi Andrew,
> thank you for your thorough review and constructive comments. As we
> discussed, the new working version includes the update addressing your
> first question. Please find my notes in response to the second scenario
> below under the GIM>> tag.
> Regards,
> Greg
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:57 PM Andrew Alston via Datatracker <
>> wrote:
> Reviewer: Andrew Alston
> Review result: Has Issues
> RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed
> Hello,
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The
> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts
> as
> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing
> ADs.
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would
> be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion
> or by
> updating the draft.
> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-26
> Reviewer: Andrew Alston
> Review Date: 04-04-2024
> IETF LC End Date: 16-04-2024
> Intended Status: Experimental
> Summary:
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
> resolved
> before publication.
> Comments:
> The draft itself was well written and clear.  I found no major issues in
> either
> the text of the draft or it's content, beyond the two issues noted below
> Major Issues:
> In Section 3.1 the BFD Reverse Path field TLV Type and Length fields are
> both 2
> octets (16bits) in length.  The document goes on to state that the Reverse
> path
> field contains none, one, or more sub-TLV's. It further states that these
> sub-TLV types may be any sub-TLV type defined for TLV Type 1, 16 or 21 in
> the
> MPLS LSP Ping Parameters registry.
> There is no limitation on the length that can be specified in the length
> field.
> This raises the possibility that a length could be used - with stacked
> sub-TLV's in the reverse path, to create a very large packet, which could
> potentially create a denial of service issue / MTU issue on the path. I've
> discussed this with the authors prior to sending this review (and my
> thanks to
> them for their timely responses to my queries) and it is proposed that an
> update to the first paragraph of the Operational Considerations section of
> the
> documented be updated from:
> When an explicit path is set either as Static or RSVP-TE LSP,
> corresponding sub-TLVs, defined in [RFC7110], MAY be used to identify
> the explicit reverse path for the BFD session.
> When an explicit path is set etierhet as Static or RSVP-TE LSP,
> corresponding sub-TLVs, defined in [RFC7110], MAY be used to identify
> the explicit reverse path for the BFD session.  If a particular set of
> sub-TLVs composes the Return Path TLV [RFC7110] and does not increase
> the length of the Maximum Transmission Unit for the given LSP,
> that set can be safely used in the BFD Reverse Path TLV.
> The second issue - which is related - concerns a potential denial of
> service
> vector in the supplied path lengths.
> Should a path defined by these sub-TLV's be of extreme length,
> irrespective of
> it being valid or not, there is a concern that the receiving router, on
> attempting to do path matching to the reverse path, could be vulnerable to
> resource saturation.  By way of illustration, the document states that any
> sub-TLV in the LSP ping parameters registry for types 1, 16 and 21 may be
> used.
>  By specifying a length of 8192 and utilsing sub-TLV 14 (Generic IPv4
> Prefix as
> specified in RFC8029), a path of 2048 elements could be constructed.  It's
> unclear how a receiving router would handle the processing of this. Similar
> scenarios can occur when paths are specified in terms of IPv4 IGP-Prefix
> Segment ID's which can be stacked.
> Effectively, there is a concern that through the use of long paths - valid
> or
> not valid - it may be possible to create resource starvation on the
> receiving
> router by spamming these packets.  This is slightly mitigated by the fact
> that
> these packets will be inside a limited domain, however, that does not
> mitigate
> the concern should said limited domain be compromised to allow for such
> transmission.
> GIM>> Thank you for bringing this scenario to our attention. Should note
> that the use of the BFD Reverse Path TLV in LSP Ping in SR-MPLS is
> considered in more details in draft-ietf-spring-bfd
> <>. There, the use
> of Non-FEC TLV is recommended for the SR-MPLS environment. For the scenario
> that you describe, it seems like the receiver of the MPLS Echo Request
> message will evaluate the reverse path constructed based on sub-TLVs and
> determine whether it can support it. If the path is deemed invalid, then
> the MPLS Echo Reply message will include the Return Code defined in Section
> 3.2:
>    *  "Failed to establish the BFD session.  The specified reverse path
>       was not found" (TBD4).  When a specified reverse path is
>       unavailable, the egress BFD peer sends an Echo Reply with the
>       return code set to "Failed to establish the BFD session.  The
>       specified reverse path was not found" to the ingress BFD peer
>       Section 3.1.
> What are your thoughts?
> Minor Issues:
> No minor issues found.