Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Haas
Request for Comments:
9384 Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track March 2023
ISSN: 2070-1721
A BGP Cease NOTIFICATION Subcode for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)
Abstract
The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol (
RFC 5880) is
used to detect loss of connectivity between two forwarding engines,
typically with low latency. BFD is leveraged by routing protocols,
including the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), to bring down routing
protocol connections more quickly than the original protocol timers.
This document defines a subcode for the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
message (
Section 6.7 of RFC 4271) for use when a BGP connection is
being closed due to a BFD session going down.
Status of This Memo
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 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9384.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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
(
https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Requirements Language
3. BFD Cease NOTIFICATION Subcode
4. Operational Considerations
5. Security Considerations
6. IANA Considerations
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Author's Address
1. Introduction
The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol [
RFC5880] is
used to detect loss of connectivity between two forwarding engines,
typically with low latency. BFD is utilized as a service for various
clients, including routing protocols, to provide an advisory
mechanism for those clients to take appropriate actions when a BFD
session goes down [
RFC5882]. This is typically used by the clients
to trigger closure of their connections more quickly than the
original protocol timers might allow.
Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP-4) [
RFC4271] terminates its
connections upon Hold Timer expiration when the speaker does not
receive a BGP message within the negotiated Hold Time interval. As
per Sections
4.
2 and
4.4 of [
RFC4271], the minimum Hold Time interval
is at least three seconds, unless KEEPALIVE processing has been
disabled by negotiating the distinguished Hold Time of zero.
If a BGP speaker desires to have its connections terminate more
quickly than the negotiated BGP Hold Timer can accommodate upon loss
of connectivity with a neighbor, the BFD protocol can be relied upon
by BGP speakers to supply that faster detection. When the BFD
session state changes to Down, the BGP speaker terminates the
connection with a Cease NOTIFICATION message sent to the neighbor, if
possible, and then closes the TCP connection for the session.
This document defines a subcode, "BFD Down", to be sent with the
Cease NOTIFICATION message that indicates the reason for this type of
connection termination.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "
MUST", "
MUST NOT", "
REQUIRED", "
SHALL", "
SHALL NOT",
"
SHOULD", "
SHOULD NOT", "
RECOMMENDED", "
NOT RECOMMENDED", "
MAY", and
"
OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [
RFC2119] [
RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. BFD Cease NOTIFICATION Subcode
The value 10 has been allocated by IANA for the "BFD Down" Cease
NOTIFICATION message subcode.
When a BGP connection is terminated due to a BFD session going into
the Down state, the BGP speaker
SHOULD send a NOTIFICATION message
with the error code "Cease" and the error subcode "BFD Down".
4. Operational Considerations
A BFD session may go into the Down state when there is only a partial
loss of connectivity between two BGP speakers. Operators using BFD
for their BGP connections make choices regarding what BFD timers are
used based upon a variety of criteria -- for example, stability vs.
fast failure.
In the event of a BGP connection being terminated due to a "BFD Down"
event from partial loss of connectivity as detected by BFD, the
remote BGP speaker might be able to receive a BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
message with the "BFD Down" subcode. The receiving BGP speaker will
then have an understanding that the connection is being terminated
because of a BFD-detected issue and not an issue with the BGP
speaker.
When there is a total loss of connectivity between two BGP speakers,
it may not have been possible for the Cease NOTIFICATION message to
have been sent. Even so, BGP speakers
SHOULD provide this reason as
part of their operational state. Examples include bgpPeerLastError
per the BGP MIB [
RFC4273] and "last-error" per [BGP-YANG].
When the procedures in [
RFC8538] for sending a NOTIFICATION message
with a "Cease" code and "Hard Reset" subcode are required, and the
BGP connection is being terminated because BFD has gone into the Down
state, the "BFD Down" subcode
SHOULD be encapsulated in the Hard
Reset's data portion of the NOTIFICATION message.
5. Security Considerations
Similar to [
RFC4486], this document defines a subcode for the BGP
Cease NOTIFICATION message that provides information to aid network
operators in correlating network events and diagnosing BGP peering
issues. This subcode is purely informational and has no impact on
the BGP Finite State Machine beyond that already documented by
[
RFC4271], Sections
6.6 and
6.7.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned the value 10 from the "BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
message subcodes" registry (
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp- parameters/), with the name "BFD Down" and a reference to this
document.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[
RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14,
RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[
RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/
RFC4271, January 2006,
<
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[
RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)",
RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/
RFC5880, June 2010,
<
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[
RFC5882] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Generic Application of
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)",
RFC 5882,
DOI 10.17487/
RFC5882, June 2010,
<
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5882>.
[
RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14,
RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/
RFC8174,
May 2017, <
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[
RFC8538] Patel, K., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and J. Haas,
"Notification Message Support for BGP Graceful Restart",
RFC 8538, DOI 10.17487/
RFC8538, March 2019,
<
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8538>.
7.2. Informative References
[BGP-YANG] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Hares, S., and J. Haas, "YANG
Model for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-16, 1
March 2023, <
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- ietf-idr-bgp-model-16>.
[
RFC4273] Haas, J., Ed. and S. Hares, Ed., "Definitions of Managed
Objects for BGP-4",
RFC 4273, DOI 10.17487/
RFC4273,
January 2006, <
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4273>.
[
RFC4486] Chen, E. and V. Gillet, "Subcodes for BGP Cease
Notification Message",
RFC 4486, DOI 10.17487/
RFC4486,
April 2006, <
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4486>.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Jeff Tantsura and Dale Carder for their comments on this
document.
Mohamed Boucadair provided feedback as part of the Routing
Directorate review of this document.
In 2006, Bruno Rijsman had written a proposal that was substantively
similar to this document: draft-rijsman-bfd-down-subcode. That draft
did not progress in the Inter-Domain Routing (IDR) Working Group at
that time. The author of this document was unaware of Bruno's prior
work when creating this proposal.
Author's Address
Jeffrey Haas
Juniper Networks