<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="no"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="6"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
     category="std" docName="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-09"
     ipr="trust200902"
     obsoletes=""
     updates=""
     submissionType="IETF"
     xml:lang="en"
     tocInclude="true"
     tocDepth="6"
     symRefs="true"
     sortRefs="true"
     consensus="true"
     version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.12.3 -->
  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="BGP BFD Strict-Mode ">BGP BFD Strict-Mode</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-07"/>
    <author initials="M" surname="Zheng" fullname="Mercia Zheng">
      <organization>Ciena</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>3939 N. 1st Street</street>
          <region>San Jose, CA 95134</region>
          <country>UNITED STATES</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>merciaz.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="A" surname="Lindem" fullname="Acee Lindem">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>301 Midenhall Way</street>
          <region>GARY, NC 27513</region>
          <country>UNITED STATES</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>acee@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="J" surname="Haas" fullname="Jeffrey Haas">
      <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1133 Innovation Way</street>
          <region>SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94089</region>
          <country>UNITED STATES</country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>jhaas@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="A" surname="Fu" fullname="Albert Fu">
      <organization>Bloomberg L.P.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>afu14@bloomberg.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>IDR Workgroup</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <t>
         This document specifies extensions to RFC4271 BGP-4 that enable a BGP speaker
         to negotiate additional Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) extensions using a
         BGP capability. This BFD capability enables a BGP speaker to prevent a BGP session
         from being established until a BFD session is established.
         It is referred to as BGP BFD "strict-mode". BGP BFD strict-mode will be supported
         when both the local speaker and its remote peer are BFD strict-mode capable.

      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <!-- ***** MIDDLE MATTER ***** -->

  <middle>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>
         Bidirectional Forwarding Detection BFD <xref target="RFC5882" format="default"/> enables routers to monitor
         data plane connectivity and to detect faults in the bidirectional forwarding path between them.
         This capability is leveraged by routing protocols such as BGP <xref target="RFC4271" format="default"/> to rapidly
         react to topology changes in the face of path failures.
      </t>
      <t>
            The BFD interaction with BGP is specified in Section 10.2 of <xref target="RFC5882" format="default"/>.
            When BFD is enabled for a BGP neighbor, faults in the bidirectional forwarding detected by
            BFD result in session termination. It is possible in some failure scenarios for the network to be
            in a state such that a BGP session may be established but a BFD session cannot be established.
            In some other scenarios, it may be possible to establish a BGP session, but a degraded or
            poor-quality link may result in the corresponding BFD session going up and down frequently.
      </t>
      <t>
            To avoid situations which result in routing churn and to minimize the impact of network
            interruptions, it will be beneficial to disallow BGP to establish a session until BFD session
            is successfully established and has stabilized. We refer to this mode of operation as BGP BFD "strict-mode".
            However, always using "strict-mode" would preclude BGP operation in an environment where not all routers
            support BFD strict-mode or have BFD enabled. This document defines BGP "strict-mode" operation as
            preventing BGP session establishment until both the local and remove speakers have a stable BFD session.
            The document also specifies the BGP protocol extensions for BGP capability <xref target="RFC5492" format="default"/> for
            announcing BFD parameters including a BGP speaker's support for "strict-mode", i.e., requiring a
            BFD session for BGP session establishment.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Requirements Language</name>
      <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119" format="default"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default"/>
        when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>BFD Strict-Mode Capability</name>
      <t>
           The BGP Strict-Mode Capability <xref target="RFC5492" format="default"/> will allow a BGP speaker's
           to advertise this capability. The capability is defined as follows:
      </t>
      <t>
   Capability code: 74
      </t>
      <t>
        Capability length: 0 octets
      </t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="operation" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Operation</name>
      <t>
          A BGP speaker which supports capabilities advertisement and has BFD strict-mode enabled
          MUST include the BFD strict-mode capability.
      </t>
      <t>
          A BGP speaker which supports the BFD Strict-Mode capability, examines the list
          of capabilities present in the capabilities that the speaker
          receives from its peer. If both the local and remote BGP speakers include
          the BFD strict-mode capability,
          the BGP finite state machine does not transition to the Established state from OpenSent or
          OpenConfirm state <xref target="RFC4271" format="default"/> until the BFD session is in the Up state (see
          below for AdminDown state). This means that a KEEPALIVE message is not sent nor is the
          KeepaliveTimer set.
      </t>
      <t>
          If the BFD session does not transition to the Up state, and the HoldTimer has been negotiated to
          a non-zero value, the BGP FSM will close the session appropriately.
          If the HoldTimer has been negotiated to a zero value, the session should be closed after a
          time of X. This time X is  referred as "BGP BFD Hold time". The proposed default BGP BFD
          Hold time value is 30 seconds. The BGP BFD Hold time value is configurable.
      </t>
      <t>
          If BFD session is in the AdminDown state, then the BGP finite state machine will proceed
          normally without input from BFD. This means that BFD session "AdminDown" state WILL NOT prevent
          the BGP state transition to Established state from OpenConfirm.
      </t>
      <t>
          Once the BFD session has transitioned to the Up state, the BGP FSM may proceed to
          transition to the Established state from the OpenSent or OpenConfirm state appropriately.
          I.e. a KEEPALIVE message is sent, and the KeepaliveTimer is started.
      </t>
      <t>
          If either BGP peer has not advertised the BFD Strict-Mode Capability, then a BFD session
          WILL NOT be required for the BGP session to reach Established state. This does not preclude usage
          of BFD after BGP session establishment <xref target="RFC5882" format="default"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
          If BFD is disabled for a BGP peer and the BGP session state is being held in
          OpenSent or OpenConfirm state, then the BGP will close session, and start a new
          TCP connect.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Manageability Considerations</name>
      <t>
          Auto-configuration is possible for the enabling BGP BFD Strict-Mode. However,
          the configuration automation is out of the scope of this document.
      </t>
      <t>
          A BGP NOTIFICATION message Subcode indicating BFD Hold timer expiration may be required
          for network management. (To be discussed in the next revision of this document.)
      </t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>
          The mechanism defined in this document interacts with the BGP finite state machine when so configured.
          The security considerations of BFD thus, become considerations for BGP-4 <xref target="RFC4271" format="default"/>
          so used. Given that a BFD session is required for a BGP session, a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack on
          BGP can now be mounted by preventing a BFD session between the BGP peers from being established or
          interrupting an existing BFD session.
          The use of the BFD Authentication mechanism defined in <xref target="RFC5880" format="default"/> is thus
          RECOMMENDED when used to protect BGP-4 <xref target="RFC4271" format="default"/>.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>
        This document defines the BGP BFD capability. The Capability Code 74 has been assigned from
        the First-Come-First-Served range (64-238) of the Capability Codes registry. 
      </t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgement</name>
      <t>
              The authors would like to acknowledge the review and inputs from Shyam Sethuram, Mohammed Mirza,
              Bruno Decraene, Carlos Pignataro, and Enke Chen.
      </t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <references>
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4271.xml"/>
      <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
      <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5492.xml"/>
      <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5880.xml"/>
      <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5882.xml"/>
      <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
