Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Aggarwal Request for Comments: 5884 K. Kompella Updates: 1122 Juniper Networks Category: Standards Track T. Nadeau ISSN: 2070-1721 BT G. Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
June 2010
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Abstract
摘要
One desirable application of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is to detect a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) data plane failure. LSP Ping is an existing mechanism for detecting MPLS data plane failures and for verifying the MPLS LSP
data plane against the control plane. BFD can be used for the former, but not for the latter. However, the control plane processing required for BFD Control packets is relatively smaller
than the processing required for LSP Ping messages. A combination of LSP Ping and BFD can be used to provide faster data plane failure detection and/or make it possible to provide such detection on a greater number of LSPs. This document describes the applicability of BFD in relation to LSP Ping for this application. It also describes procedures for using BFD in this environment.
BFD的一种重要应用是检测MPLS LSP数据平面故障。LSP Ping是一种现有检测机制，它可以检测MPLS数据平面失效并验证MPLS数据平面和控制平面的一致性。BFD可以用于前者（检测MPLS数据平面故障）但不能用于后者（验证MPLS数据平面和控制平面的一致性）。然而控制平面的处理需要BFD控制报文包比其需要的LSP ping信息相对更小。LSP Ping和BFD的组合可以提供快速数据平面故障检测并/或可能提供大量LSP上的这种检测。这个文档描述了关联LSP Ping的BFD对这种应用的适用性。也描述了在这种环境中使用BFD的规程。
Status of This Memo
备忘录现状
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5884.
Copyright Notice
版权
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Specification of Requirements ...................................3
3. Applicability ...................................................3
3.1. BFD for MPLS LSPs: Motivation ..............................3
3.2. Using BFD in Conjunction with LSP Ping .....................5
4. Theory of Operation .............................................6
5. Initialization and Demultiplexing ...............................7
6. Session Establishment ...........................................7
6.1. BFD Discriminator TLV in LSP Ping ..........................8
7. Encapsulation ...................................................8
8. Security Considerations .........................................9
9. IANA Considerations ............................................10
10. Acknowledgments ...............................................10
11. References ....................................................10
11.1. Normative References .....................................10
11.2. Informative References ...................................10
1. Introduction
介绍
One desirable application of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is to track the liveness of a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP). In particular, BFD can be used to detect
a data plane failure in the forwarding path of an MPLS LSP. LSP Ping [RFC4379] is an existing mechanism for detecting MPLS LSP data plane failures and for verifying the MPLS LSP data plane against the
control plane. This document describes the applicability of BFD in relation to LSP Ping for detecting MPLS LSP data plane failures. It also describes procedures for using BFD for detecting MPLS LSP data plane failures.
BFD的一种重要应用时跟踪MPLS LSP的活性。特别是，BFD可以用于检测MPLS LSP转发路径的数据平面失效。LSP Ping[RFC4379]是现存的检测MPLS LSP数据平面故障和验证数据平面和控制平面一致性的机制。本文档描述BFD和MPLS Ping 关联使用来检测MPLS LSP数据平面失效。也描述了BFD检测MPLS LSP 数据平面的规程。
2. Specification of Requirements
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 [RFC2119].
3. Applicability
适用性
In the event of an MPLS LSP failing to deliver data traffic, it may not always be possible to detect the failure using the MPLS control plane. For instance, the control plane of the MPLS LSP may be functional while the data plane may be mis-forwarding or dropping data. Hence, there is a need for a mechanism to detect a data plane failure in the MPLS LSP path [RFC4377].
在一个MPLS LSP不能发送数据流的情况下，使用MPLS控制平面并非总能检测出失效。例如，数据平面错误转发或者丢失数据。而MPLS LSP控制平面可能仍维持原功能。因此，需要一种机制来检测MPLS LSP路径的数据平面失效。
3.1. BFD for MPLS LSPs: Motivation
原因
LSP Ping described in [RFC4379] is an existing mechanism for
detecting an MPLS LSP data plane failure. In addition, LSP Ping also
provides a mechanism for verifying the MPLS control plane against the
data plane. This is done by ensuring that the LSP is mapped to the
same Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC), at the egress, as the
ingress.
[RFC4379]中描述的LSP Ping是现存的检测MPLS LSP数据平面失效和验证数据平面和控制平面一致性的机制。这确保了LSP在出节点和入节点匹配相同的FEC(转发等价类)。
BFD cannot be used for verifying the MPLS control plane against the data plane. However, BFD can be used to detect a data plane failure in the forwarding path of an MPLS LSP. The LSP may be associated with any of the following FECs:
BFD不能用于验证MPLS控制平面和数据平面的一致性，然而它可以检测一条MPLS LSP转发路径上的数据平面失效。LSP可以关联到以下几种FEC：
a) Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) LSP_Tunnel IPv4/IPv6
Session [RFC3209]
b) Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) IPv4/IPv6 prefix [RFC5036]
c) Virtual Private Network (VPN) IPv4/IPv6 prefix [RFC4364]
d) Layer 2 VPN [L2-VPN]
e) Pseudowires based on PWid FEC and Generalized PWid FEC [RFC4447]
f) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) labeled prefixes [RFC3107]
LSP Ping includes extensive control plane verification. BFD, on the other hand, was designed as a lightweight means of testing only the data plane. As a result, LSP Ping is computationally more expensive than BFD for detecting MPLS LSP data plane faults. BFD is also more suitable for being implemented in hardware or firmware due to its fixed packet format. Thus, the use of BFD for detecting MPLS LSP data plane faults has the following advantages:
LSP Ping包括大量控制平面查证，而BFD是一种只验证数据平面的轻量级方法。因此，LSP Ping 在检测MPLS LSP数据平面故障时比BFD开销更大。而且对于固定的包格式BFD更适于在硬件或固件上实施。因此用BFD检测MPLS LSP数据平面故障有以下优点：
- Support for fault detection for greater number of LSPs.
支持大数量的LSPs故障检测
b) Fast detection. Detection with sub-second granularity is considered as fast detection. LSP Ping is intended to be used in an environment where fault detection messages are exchanged, either for diagnostic purposes or for infrequent periodic fault detection, in the order of tens of seconds or minutes. Hence, it is not appropriate for fast detection. BFD, on the other hand, is designed for sub-second fault detection intervals. Following are some potential cases when fast detection may be desirable for MPLS LSPs:
快速检测 毫秒级检测被称为快速检测 LSP ping 用于故障检测信息须交换的环境，用于诊断目的或者稀少周期的故障检测诊断，约为10s或min级。因此它不能提供快速检查。BFD被设计为毫秒级的检测间隔。下面是一些MPLS可能需要快速检测的潜在情况：
1. In the case of a bypass LSP used for a facility-based link or node protection [RFC4090]. In this case, the bypass LSP is essentially being used as an alternate link to protect
one or more LSPs. It represents an aggregate and is used to carry data traffic belonging to one or more LSPs, when the link or the node being protected fails. Hence, fast failure detection of the bypass LSP may be desirable particularly in the event of link or node failure when the data traffic is moved to the bypass LSP.
旁路LSP被用作基础设备链路或者节点保护，这种情况旁路LSP本质上作为替换链路来保护一个或多个LSP。当链路或节点被保护的失败，它代表一个或多个MPLS LSP的集合并用来传输他们的数据流。所以，当LSP上的链路或节点失效，数据流转移到旁路上时，需要快速失效检测。
2. MPLS Pseudowires (PWs). Fast detection may be desired for MPLS PWs depending on i) the model used to layer the MPLS network with the Layer 2 network, and ii) the service that the PW is emulating. For a non-overlay model between the Layer 2 network and the MPLS network, the provider may rely on PW fault detection to provide service status to the end- systems. Also, in that case, interworking scenarios such as ATM/Frame Relay interworking may force periodic PW fault detection messages. Depending on the requirements of the service that the MPLS PW is emulating, fast failure
detection may be desirable.
MPLS PWs 。快速检测可能被MPLS PW需要，它依赖于1）这个模型将MPLS网络层置于二层网络和2）PW仿真服务层之间。对于二层网络和MPLS网络之间的无覆盖模型，提供者需要依赖PW故障检测来为端系统提供服务状态。另外在这种情况中，例如ATM/Frame转接等交互场景可能会导致周期性PW故障检测信息。根据MPLS PW仿真需求，快速检测可能十分重要。
There may be other potential cases where fast failure detection is desired for MPLS LSPs.
也有一些其他潜在情况需要MPLS LSP使用快速检测。
3.2. Using BFD in Conjunction with LSP Ping
BFD与 LSP Ping结合使用
BFD can be used for MPLS LSP data plane fault detection. However, it does not have all the functionality of LSP Ping. In particular, it cannot be used for verifying the control plane against the data
plane. LSP Ping performs the following functions that are outside the scope of BFD:
BFD能被用于BFD LSP 数据平面故障检测。然而它不具备LSP Ping的全部功能。尤其是。它无法用于验证控制平面和数据平面的一致性。LSP Ping用于执行以下超出BFD范畴的功能：
a) Association of an LSP Ping Echo request message with a FEC. In the case of Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) or when the egress Label Switching Router (LSR) distributes an explicit null label to the penultimate hop router, 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. 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. In addition, presence of the FEC in the Echo request message makes it possible to verify the control plane against the data plane at the egress LSR.
LSP Ping Echo request message与一个FEC绑定。在PHP（倒数第二跳弹出）或者出节点向倒数第二跳发送一个明确的null 标签的情况下，对于一个单标签栈LSP，故障检测信息绑定到FEC的唯一方法是将FEC携带到message中。LSP提供这种功能。下一跳标签分发也需要将FEC放到故障检测信息中，只用标签不足以识别正被验证的LSP。另外，Echo request message中存在FEC可以验证出节点控制平面和数据平面的一致性。
b) Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) considerations. LSP Ping traceroute makes it possible to probe multiple alternate paths for LDP IP FECs.
ECMP中， LSP Ping 可以提供LDP IP FECs的多替换路径探测。
c) Traceroute. LSP Ping supports traceroute for a FEC and it can be used for fault isolation.
路由跟踪。 LSP Ping支持对FEC的路由跟踪，它可以用于故障隔离。
Hence, BFD is used in conjunction with LSP Ping for MPLS LSP fault detection:
因此，BFD与LSP Ping结合用于MPLS LSP故障检测：
i) LSP Ping is used for bootstrapping the BFD session as described later in this document.
LSP Ping用于引导BFD会话如同本文后面描述的那样。
ii) BFD is used to exchange fault detection (i.e., BFD session)
packets at the required detection interval.
BFD用于在要求的检测间隔内交换故障检测（即，BFD会话）包。
iii) LSP Ping is used to periodically verify the control plane against the data plane by ensuring that the LSP is mapped to the same FEC, at the egress, as the ingress.
LSP Ping 用于周期性验证控制平台和数据平台的一致性，以确保LSP在入节点和出节点映射相同的FEC.
4. Theory of Operation
运行原理
To use BFD for fault detection on an MPLS LSP, a BFD session MUST be established for that particular MPLS LSP. BFD Control packets MUST be sent along the same data path as the LSP being verified and are
processed by the BFD processing module of the egress LSR. If the LSP is associated with multiple FECs, a BFD session SHOULD be established for each FEC. For instance, this may happen in the case of next-hop label allocation. Hence, the operation is conceptually similar to
the data plane fault detection procedures of LSP Ping.
使用BFD作一个MPLS LSP的故障检测。一个BFD会话必须为一个特定的MPLS LSP建立。
BFD控制报文必须在相同的数据路径上发送，LSP已被验证并且BFD报文必须在出节点路由的BFD处理模块上处理。如果LSP关联多个FEC，必须为每一个FEC建立单独的BFD会话。这可能在下一站标签分配时发生。因此，运行的原理概念相近于数据平面的LSP Ping故障检测处理。
If MPLS fast-reroute is being used for the MPLS LSP, the use of BFD for fault detection can result in false fault detections if the BFD fault detection interval is less than the MPLS fast-reroute switchover time. When MPLS fast-reroute is triggered because of a link or node failure, BFD Control packets will be dropped until traffic is switched on to the backup LSP. If the time taken to perform the switchover exceeds the BFD fault detection interval, a fault will be declared even though the MPLS LSP is being locally repaired. To avoid this, the BFD fault detection interval should be greater than the fast-reroute switchover time. An implementation SHOULD provide configuration options to control the BFD fault detection interval.
当FRR被应用于MPLS LSP时，如果BFD的检测时间间隔小于MPLS FRR的转换时间，可能导致错误的故障检测。当FRR因链路或节点失效被触发时，BFD控制报文被丢弃直到流量被转换到备用LSP上。如果转换时间超出了BFD的检测时间间隔则被BFD认为是故障尽管MPLS LSP被局部修复了。为了避免这种情况，BFD故障检测时间间隔应该大于FRR的替换时间。实现机制中应该提供控制BFD故障检测时间间隔的配置选项。
If there are multiple alternate paths from an ingress LSR to an egress LSR for an 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.
如果对于一个LDP IP FEC 从入节点到出节点之间有多个可替换的路径，LSP Ping traceroute可用来确定每一条替换路径。每个被发现的路径都要建立一个唯一的BFD会话。
Periodic LSP Ping Echo request messages SHOULD be sent by the ingress
LSR to the egress LSR along the same data path as the LSP. This is
to periodically verify the control plane against the data plane by
ensuring that the LSP is mapped to the same FEC, at the egress, as
the ingress. The rate of generation of these LSP Ping Echo request
messages SHOULD be significantly less than the rate of generation of
the BFD Control packets. An implementation MAY provide configuration
options to control the rate of generation of the periodic LSP Ping
Echo request messages.
周期性LSP Ping Echo request messages应该沿相同的LSP路径由入节点发给出节点。
这是为了周期的验证数据平面和控制平面的一致性，确保LSP在出节点和入节点映射同一个FEC。
周期性LSP Ping request messages 频率应该小于BFD控制报文的频率，实现机制中应该提供控制周期性 LSP Ping request messages 频率的选项。
To enable fault detection procedures specified in this document, for a particular MPLS LSP, this document requires the ingress and egress LSRs to be configured. This includes configuration for supporting BFD and LSP Ping as specified in this document. It also includes configuration that enables the ingress LSR to determine the method used by the egress LSR to identify Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) packets, e.g., whether the Time to Live (TTL) of the innermost MPLS label needs to be set to 1 to enable the egress
LSR to identify the OAM packet. For fault detection for MPLS PWs, this document assumes that the PW control channel type [RFC5085] is configured and the support of LSP Ping is also configured.
本文件规定了对于特定MPLS LSP 故障检查的使能程序规则，文件要求入节点和出节点LSR配置这些规则。包括本文中规定的BFD和LSP Ping的配置。还包括使入节点LSR能决定出节点LSR所用的用来确认OAM包的方法的配置。例如,是否将最内层MPLS标签的TTL设置成1以使出节点可以确认OAM包。对于MPLS PWs的故障检测，本文假定PW控制通道类型[RFC5085]被配置并且支持LSP Ping也被配置。
5. Initialization and Demultiplexing
初始化和分用
A BFD session may be established for a FEC associated with an MPLS LSP. As described above, in the case of PHP or when the egress LSR distributes an explicit null label to the penultimate hop router, or 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.
为一个FEC建立的一个BFD会话可以关联一个MPLS LSP。如上述，在PHP或出节点向倒数第二跳发一个明确的null标签，或下一跳标签分配时，出节点接收的控制报文不能提供足够的信息绑定一个BFD会话。因此分用必须使用在接收控制报文中的remote discriminator 域。为此的BFD标识交换在下一部分描述。
6. Session Establishment
会话建立
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. Further, the use of the Echo function is outside the scope of this specification. The initiation of fault detection for a particular <MPLS LSP, FEC> combination results in the exchange of LSP Ping Echo request and Echo reply packets, in the ping mode, between the ingress and egress LSRs for that <MPLS LSP, FEC>. To establish a BFD session, an 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.
BFD会话由LSP Ping引导启动，这只用于异步模式，查询模式和回声功能不在本文件讨论范围内。故障检测初始化对于一个特定<MPLS LSP, FEC> 组合，这导致了特定<MPLS LSP, FEC>的入节点和出节点之间的LSP Ping Echo request 和Echo reply包交换。为建立一个BFD会话 LSP ping Echo request 必须携带BFD会话为入节点分配的local discriminator。它随后被用在入节点发送的BFD包中。
On receipt of the LSP Ping Echo request message, the egress LSR MUST send a BFD Control packet to the ingress LSR, if the validation of the FEC in the LSP Ping Echo request message succeeds. This BFD Control packet MUST set the Your Discriminator field to the discriminator received from the ingress LSR in the LSP Ping Echo request message. The egress LSR MAY respond with an LSP Ping Echo
reply message that carries the local discriminator assigned by it for the BFD session. The local discriminator assigned by the egress LSR MUST be used as the My Discriminator field in the BFD session packets sent by the egress LSR.
接收到LSP Ping Echo request 信息后，如果入节点LSP Ping Echo request 包的FEC被确认生效；出节点必须给入节点发送一个BFD控制报文。这个BFD控制包必须将接收到入节点Discriminator填到Your Discriminator中。出节点可以回复一个LSP Ping Echo reply携带出节点为会话分配的local Discriminator。出节点分配的local Discriminator必须被出节点填在出节点发送的BFD会话报文的My Discriminator中。
The ingress LSR follows the procedures in [BFD] to send BFD Control packets to the egress LSR in response to the BFD Control packets received from the egress LSR. The BFD Control packets from the ingress to the egress LSR MUST set the local discriminator of the egress LSR, in the Your Discriminator field. The egress LSR demultiplexes the BFD session based on the received Your
Discriminator field. As mentioned above, the egress LSR MUST send Control packets to the ingress LSR with the Your Discriminator field set to the local discriminator of the ingress LSR. The ingress LSR uses this to demultiplex the BFD session.
入节点根据[BFD]中的规定为其从出节点接收的包回复一个控制包给出节点。入节点发送的包必须将出节点的the local discriminator放在Your Discriminator中。出节点根据接收到的Your Discriminator区分BFD会话。如上，出节点必须将入节点的local Discriminator放在发送给入节点控制包的Your Discriminator中。入节点以此来区分BFD会话。
6.1. BFD Discriminator TLV in LSP Ping
LSP Ping Echo request and Echo reply messages carry a BFD discriminator TLV for the purpose of session establishment as described above. IANA has assigned a type value of 15 to this TLV. This TLV has a length of 4. The value contains the 4-byte local discriminator that the LSR, sending the LSP Ping message, associates with the BFD session.
如同上述BFD会话的建立 LSP Ping Echo request and Echo reply messages运输一个discriminator TLV。IANA为这个TLV分配类型值为15。TLV长度为4.值包括4字节的local discriminator 。发送这个the LSP Ping message的LSR 用其绑定BFD会话。
If the BFD session is not in UP state, the periodic LSP Ping Echo request messages MUST include the BFD Discriminator TLV.
如果BFD会话不是up状态，周期性的LSP Ping Echo request messages必须包括the BFD Discriminator TLV。
7. Encapsulation
BFD Control packets sent by the ingress LSR MUST be encapsulated in the MPLS label stack that corresponds to the FEC for which fault detection is being performed. If the label stack has a depth greater than one, the TTL of the inner MPLS label MAY be set to 1. This may be necessary for certain FECs to enable the egress LSR’s control
plane to receive the packet [RFC4379]. For MPLS PWs, alternatively, the presence of a fault detection message may be indicated by setting a bit in the control word [RFC5085].
入节点发送的BFD控制报文被封装在和其检测的FEC一致的标签栈内，如果标签栈的深度大于1，内层标签的TTL可被设置为1.对于特定的FECs这可能是让出节点的控制平面接收包所必需的(RFC4379)。对于MPLS PWs 也可在控制字中设置一位 来表明故障检测信息的存在。与上述方法二者选一。
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]. The source IP address is a routable address of the sender. The destination IP address MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and
from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6 with the following exception. If the FEC is an LDP IP FEC, the ingress LSR may discover multiple alternate paths to the egress LSR for this FEC using LSP
Ping traceroute. 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 for IPv4 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6
discovered by LSP Ping traceroute [RFC4379] to exercise that
particular alternate path.
入节点发送的BFD控制报文是一个UDP报文，目的端口为3784[BFD-IP]，源端口根据[BFD-IP]规定来选择。源IP地址为入节点的路由地址；目的IP地址对于IPV4 从127/8中随机选择，对于IPV6从0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104中随机选择[RFC4379]。但以下例外：如果FEC为一个LDP IP FEC，入节点可用LSP Ping traceroute来发现到出节点的多个替换路径。这种情况下，用于特定可替换路径的BFD会话建立的目的IP地址是被LSP Ping traceroute发现运用到特定替换路径的ip地址。这个地址也是对于IPV4 从127/8中随机选择，对于IPV4从0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104中随机选择[RFC1122]。
The motivation for using the address range 127/8 is the same as specified in Section 2.1 of [RFC4379]. This is an exception to the behavior defined in [RFC1122].
使用127/8随机地址的目的和[RFC4379]的2.1部分中的规定一样。这对于[RFC1122]中定义的行为是一种例外。
The IP TTL or hop limit MUST be set to 1 [RFC4379].
IP TTL或hop limit 必须设为1[RFC4379]
BFD Control packets sent by the egress LSR are UDP packets. The source IP address is a routable address of the replier.
出节点发送的BFD控制报文是UDP包，源IP地址是回答者的路由地址。
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]. If this is the case, the destination IP address MUST
be set to the source IP address of the LSP Ping Echo request message, received by the egress LSR from the ingress LSR.
出节点发给入节点的BFD控制报文根据[BFD-MHOP]规定目的IP地址路由，这种情况下,目的地址必须设为出节点从入节点收到的the LSP Ping Echo request message的源IP地址。
Or the BFD Control packet sent by the egress LSR to the ingress LSR MAY be encapsulated in an MPLS label stack. In this case, the presence of the fault detection message is indicated as described above. This may be the case if the FEC for which the fault detection is being performed corresponds to a bidirectional LSP or an MPLS PW. This may also be the case when there is a return LSP from the egress LSR to the ingress LSR. In this case, the destination IP address
MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and from the
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6.
或者出节点发送的BFD报文有可能被封装在标签栈中，这种情况，检测信息像以上描述那样被指出。可能的情况是被执行故障检测的FEC与一个双向LSP或者是一个PW一致。也可能是由出节点到入节点有一个返回LSP。这种情况，目的IP地址对于IPV4 从127/8中随机选择，对于IPV6从0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104中随机选择[RFC4379]。
The BFD Control packet sent by the egress LSR MUST have a well-known destination port 4784, if it is routed [BFD-MHOP], or it MUST have a well-known destination port 3784 [BFD-IP] if it is encapsulated in a MPLS label stack. The source port MUST be assigned by the egress LSR as per the procedures in [BFD-IP].
出节点发送的BFD包的目的端口为4784[BFD-MHOP],如果它封装在标签栈中则目的端口为3784[BFD-IP]。源端口根据[BFD-IP]设置。
Note that once the BFD session for the MPLS LSP is UP, either end of the BFD session MUST NOT change the source IP address and the local discriminator values of the BFD Control packets it generates, unless it first brings down the session. This implies that an LSR MUST ignore BFD packets for a given session, demultiplexed using the received Your Discriminator field, if the session is in UP state and if the My Discriminator or the Source IP address fields of the received packet do not match the values associated with the session.
一旦MPLS LSP上的BFD会话为up,任一端的BFD会话不能改变它源地址和local ldiscriminator。除非它首先将会话down。一个LSR根据接收到得Your Discriminator来分用会话，如果会话状态为up，接收到的源IP地址或者My Discriminator与会话绑定值不符则丢弃此报文。
8. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in [BFD], [BFD-MHOP], and [RFC4379] apply to this document. For BFD Control packets sent by the ingress LSR or when the BFD Control packet sent by the egress LSR are encapsulated in an MPLS label stack, MPLS security considerations apply. These are discussed in [MPLS-SEC]. When BFD Control packets sent by the egress LSR are routed, the authentication considerations discussed in [BFD-MHOP] should be followed.
在[BFD], [BFD-MHOP], and [RFC4379]中的安全情况被应用到本文中。当入节点和出节点发送的控制报文被封装在标签栈内时，MPLS安全情况应用。这在[MPLS-SEC]中讨论。当出节点的控制报文被路由时，[BFD-MHOP]中的认证情况被采用。
9. IANA Considerations
This document introduces a BFD discriminator TLV in LSP Ping. The BFD Discriminator has been assigned a value of 15 from the LSP Ping TLVs and sub-TLVs registry maintained by IANA.
10. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Yakov Rekhter, Dave Katz, and Ina Minei for contributing to the discussions that formed the basis of this
document and for their comments. Thanks to Dimitri Papadimitriou for his comments and review. Thanks to Carlos Pignataro for his comments and review.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[BFD] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", RFC 5880, June 2010.
[BFD-IP] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June
2010.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
11.2. Informative References
[BFD-MHOP] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, June 2010.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire
Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A
Control Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[L2-VPN] Kompella, K., Leelanivas, M., Vohra, Q., Achirica, J., Bonica, R., Cooper, D., Liljenstolpe, C., Metz, E., Ould- Brahim, H., Sargor, C., Shah, H., Srinivasan, and Z. Zhang, "Layer 2 VPNs Over Tunnels", Work in Progress, February 2003.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
[RFC4377] Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D., and S.
Matsushima, "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements
for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks", RFC
4377, February 2006.
[MPLS-SEC] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", Work in Progress, October 2009.
Authors’ Addresses
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Thomas D. Nadeau
BT
BT Centre
81 Newgate Street
London EC1A 7AJ
UK
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
69万+
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
