[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-bfd-intervals

Internet Engineering Task Force                                 N. Akiya
Internet-Draft                                           M. Binderberger
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: October 4, 2012                                   April 2, 2012


                   Mandatory interval support in BFD
                      draft-akiya-bfd-intervals-00

Abstract

   This document defines a set of interval values that must be supported
   for transmitting BFD control packets and for calculating the
   detection time in the receive direction.  Implementations are allowed
   to define a lower limit for the interval so that only set values
   equal or larger than the lower limit needs to be supported.

   This solves the problem of finding an interval value that both BFD
   speakers can support while allowing a simplified implementation as
   seen for hardware-based BFD.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 4, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Akiya & Binderberger     Expires October 4, 2012                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Mandatory interval support in BFD         April 2012


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  The problem with few supported intervals  . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Well-defined intervals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   Appendix A.  Why some intervals are mandatory . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5






























Akiya & Binderberger     Expires October 4, 2012                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Mandatory interval support in BFD         April 2012


1.  Introduction

   The standard [RFC5880] describes how to calculate the transmission
   interval and the detection time.  It does not make any statement
   though how so solve a situation where one BFD speaker cannot support
   the calculated value.  In practise this may not been a problem as
   long as software-implemented timers have been used and as long as the
   granularity of such timers was small compared to the interval values
   being supported.

   In the meantime requests exist for very fast interval values, down to
   3.3msec for MPLS-TP.  At the same time the requested scale for the
   number of BFD sessions in increasing.  Both requirements have driven
   vendors to use Network Processors (NP), FPGAs or other hardware-based
   solutions to offload the periodic packet transmission and the timeout
   detection in the receive direction.  A potential problem with this
   hardware-based BFD is the granularity of the interval timers.
   Depending on the implementation only a few intervals may be
   supported, which can cause interoperability problems.  This document
   proposes a set of interval values that must be supported by all
   implementations.  Details are laid out in the following sections.


2.  The problem with few supported intervals

   Lets assume vendor "A" supports 10msec, 100msec and 1sec interval
   timers in hardware.  Vendor "B" supports every value from 20msec
   onward, with a granularity of 1msec.  For a BFD session "A" tries to
   set up the session with 10msec while "B" uses 20msec as the value for
   RequiredMinRxInterval and DesiredMinTxInterval.  RFC5880 describes
   that the negotiated value for Rx and Tx is 20msec.  But system "A" is
   not able to support this.  Multiple ways exist to resolve the dilemma
   but none of them is without problems.

   a.  Realizing that it cannot support 20msec, system "A" sends out a
       new BFD packet, advertising the next larger interval of 100msec
       with RequiredMinRxInterval and DesiredMinTxInterval.  The new
       negotiated interval between "A" and "B" then is 100msec, which is
       supported by both systems.  The problem though is that we moved
       from the 10/20msec range to 100msec, which likely is not fitting
       the requirements.

   b.  System "A" could violate RFC5880 and use the 10msec interval for
       the Tx direction.  In the receive direction it could use an
       adjusted multiplier value M' = 2 * M to match the correct
       detection time.  Now beside the fact that we explicitly violate
       RFC5880 there may be the problem that system "B" drops up to 50%
       of the packets; this could be the case when "B" uses an ingress



Akiya & Binderberger     Expires October 4, 2012                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Mandatory interval support in BFD         April 2012


       rate policer to protect itself and the policer would be
       programmed with an expectation of 20msec receive intervals.

   The example above could be even worse when we assume that system "B"
   can only support a few timer values itself.  Lets assume "B" supports
   "20msec", "300msec" and "1sec".  If both systems would adjust their
   advertised intervals then the adjustment ends at 1sec.


3.  Well-defined intervals

   The problem can be reduced by defining interval values that must be
   supported by all implementations.  Then the adjustment mechanism
   could find a commonly supported interval without deviating too much
   from the original request.

   The proposed set of mandatory interval values is: 3.3msec, 10msec,
   20msec, 50msec, 300msec and 1sec.

   What does "mandatory" mean exactly?  In the example above, vendor "A"
   has a fastest interval of 10msec and thus would be required to
   support all intervals in the mandatory set that are equal or larger
   than 10msec, i.e. it would support 10msec, 20msec, 50msec, 300msec,
   1sec.  Vendor "B" has a fastest interval of 20msec and thus would
   need to support 20msec, 50msec, 300msec and 1sec.  This does not
   restrict both vendors from implementing additional values outside of
   the mandatory set.  As long as requirements are met for the mandatory
   set of values, then both vendor "A" and "B" are free to support
   additional values outside of the mandatory set.


4.  IANA Considerations

   No request to IANA.


5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any additional security issues and
   the security mechanisms defined in [RFC5880] apply in this document.


6.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection



Akiya & Binderberger     Expires October 4, 2012                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Mandatory interval support in BFD         April 2012


              (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.


Appendix A.  Why some intervals are mandatory

   The list of mandatory interval values is trying to balance various
   objectives.  The list should not contain too many values as more
   timers may increase the implementation costs.  On the other hand less
   values produces larger gaps and adjustment jumps.  Larger values in
   the lower interval range may be easier to support, potentially even
   in software instead of hardware.

   o  3.3msec: required by MPLS-TP

   o  10msec and 20msec: both values allow to detect faster than 50msec,
      when used with a multiplier of 2 or 3 (for 10msec).  A compromise
      could be a single interval of 15msec.

   o  50msec: this seems an interval often supported by software
      implementations, so the assumption here is that for convenience
      this value should be supported.

   o  300msec: this would support large scale of 3 x 300msec setups used
      by customers to have a detection time slightly below 1sec for VoIP
      setups.

   o  1sec: as mentioned in RFC5880

   With that stated, one of the primary intention of this first draft is
   to seek feedback on the number of interval values in the mandatory
   set as well as each value.


Authors' Addresses

   Nobo Akiya
   Cisco Systems

   Email: nobo@cisco.com


   Marc Binderberger
   Cisco Systems

   Email: mbinderb@cisco.com






Akiya & Binderberger     Expires October 4, 2012                [Page 5]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/