rfc:rfc5171
Network Working Group M. Foschiano Request for Comments: 5171 Cisco Systems Category: Informational April 2008
Cisco Systems UniDirectional Link Detection (UDLD) Protocol
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
IESG Note
This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information.
Abstract
This document describes a Cisco Systems protocol that can be used to detect and disable unidirectional Ethernet fiber or copper links caused, for instance, by mis-wiring of fiber strands, interface malfunctions, media converters' faults, etc. It operates at Layer 2 in conjunction with IEEE 802.3's existing Layer 1 fault detection mechanisms.
This document explains the protocol objectives and applications, illustrates the specific premises the protocol was based upon, and describes the protocol architecture and related deployment issues to serve as a possible base for future standardization.
Foschiano Informational [Page 1] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Protocol Objectives and Applications ............................3
3. Protocol Design Premises ........................................4
4. Protocol Background .............................................4
5. Protocol Architecture ...........................................5
5.1. The Basics .................................................5
5.2. Neighbor Database Maintenance ..............................5
5.3. Event-driven Detection and Echoing .........................6
5.4. Event-based versus Event-less Detection ....................6
6. Packet Format ...................................................7
6.1. TLV Description ............................................9
7. Protocol Logic .................................................10
7.1. Protocol Timers ...........................................10
8. Comparison with Bidirectional Forwarding Detection .............11
9. Security Considerations ........................................11
10. Deployment Considerations .....................................11
11. Normative References ..........................................12
12. Informative Reference .........................................12
1. Introduction
Today's Ethernet-based switched networks often rely on the Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) defined in the IEEE 802.1D standard [1] to create a loop-free topology that is used to forward the traffic from a source to a destination based on the Layer 2 packet information learned by the switches and on the knowledge of the status of the physical links along the path.
Issues arise when, due to mis-wirings or to hardware faults, the communication path behaves abnormally and generates forwarding anomalies. The simplest example of such anomalies is the case of a bidirectional link that stops passing traffic in one direction and therefore breaks one of the most basic assumptions that high-level protocols typically depend upon: reliable two-way communication between peers.
The purpose of the UDLD protocol is to detect the presence of anomalous conditions in the Layer 2 communication channel, while relying on the mechanisms defined by the IEEE in the 802.3 standard [2] to properly handle conditions inherent to the physical layer.
Foschiano Informational [Page 2] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
2. Protocol Objectives and Applications
The UniDirectional Link Detection protocol (often referred to in short as "UDLD") is a lightweight protocol that can be used to detect and disable one-way connections before they create dangerous situations such as Spanning Tree loops or other protocol malfunctions.
The protocol's main goal is to advertise the identities of all the capable devices attached to the same LAN segment and to collect the information received on the ports of each device to determine if the Layer 2 communication is happening in the appropriate fashion.
In a network that has an extensive fiber cabling plant, problems may
arise when incorrect patching causes a switch port to have its RX
fiber strand connected to one neighbor port and its TX fiber strand
connected to another. In these cases, a port may be deemed active if
it is receiving an optical signal on its RX strand. However, the
problem is that this link does not provide a valid communication path
at Layer 2 (and above).
If this scenario of wrongly connected fiber strands is applied to multiple ports to create a fiber loop, each device in the loop could directly send packets to a neighbor but would not be able to receive from that neighbor.
Albeit the above scenario is rather extreme, it exemplifies how the
lack of mutual identification of the neighbors can bring protocols to
the wrong assumption that during a transmission the sender and the
receiver are always properly matched. Another equally dangerous
incorrect assumption is that the lack of reception of protocol
messages on a port unmistakably indicates the absence of transmitting
protocol entities at the other end of the link.
The UDLD protocol was implemented to help correct certain assumptions made by other protocols, and in particular to help the Spanning Tree Protocol to function properly so as to avoid the creation of dangerous Layer 2 loops. It has been available on most Cisco Systems switches for several years and is now part of numerous network design best practices.
Foschiano Informational [Page 3] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
3. Protocol Design Premises
The current implementation of UDLD is based on the following considerations/presuppositions:
o The protocol would have to be run in the control plane of a
network device to be flexible enough to support upgrades and
bug fixes. The control plane speed would ultimately be the
limiting factor to the capability of fast fault detection of
the protocol (CPU speed, task switching speed, event processing
speed, etc.). The transmission medium's propagation delay at
10 Mbps speed (or higher) would instead be considered a
negligible factor.
o Network events typically do not happen with optimal timing, but
rather at the speed determined by the software/firmware
infrastructure that controls them. (For psychological and
practical reasons, developers tend to choose round timer values
rather than determine the optimal value for the specific
software architecture in use. Also, software bugs, coding
oversights, slow process switching, implementation overhead can
all affect the control plane responsiveness and event timings.)
Hence it was deemed necessary to adopt a conservative protocol
design to minimize false positives during the detection
process.
o If a fault were discovered, it was assumed that the user would
want to keep the faulty port down for a predetermined amount of
time to avoid unnecessary port state flapping. For that
reason, a time-based fault recovery mechanism was provided
(although alternative recovery mechanisms are not implicitly
precluded by the protocol itself).
4. Protocol Background
UDLD is meant to be a Layer 2 detection protocol that works on top of the existing Layer 1 detection mechanisms defined by the IEEE standards. For example, the Far End Fault Indication (FEFI) function for 100BaseFX interfaces and the Auto-Negotiation function for 100BaseTX/1000BaseX interfaces represent standard physical-layer mechanisms to determine if the transmission media is bidirectional. (Please see sections 24.3.2.1 and 28.2.3.5 of [2] for more details.) The typical case of a Layer 1 "fault" indication is the "loss of light" indication.
UDLD differs from the above-mentioned mechanisms insofar as it
performs mutual neighbor identification; in addition, it performs
neighbor acknowledgement on top of the Logical Link Control (LLC)
Foschiano Informational [Page 4] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
layer and thus is able to discover logical one-way miscommunication between neighbors even when either one of the said PHY layer mechanisms has deemed the transmission medium bidirectional.
5. Protocol Architecture
5.1. The Basics
UDLD uses two basic mechanisms:
a. It advertises a port's identity and learns about its neighbors
on a specific LAN segment; it keeps the acquired information on
the neighbors in a cache table.
b. It sends a train of echo messages in certain circumstances that
require fast notifications or fast resynchronization of the
cached information.
Because of the above, the algorithm run by UDLD requires that all the
devices connected to the same LAN segment be running the protocol in
order for a potential misconfiguration to be detected and for a
prompt corrective action to be taken.
5.2. Neighbor Database Maintenance
UDLD sends periodical "hello" packets (also called "advertisements" or "probes") on every active interface to keep each device informed about its neighbors. When a hello message is received, it is cached and kept in memory at most for a defined time interval, called "holdtime" or "time-to-live", after which the cache entry is considered stale and is aged out.
If a new hello message is received when a correspondent old cache entry has not been aged out yet, then the old entry is dropped and is replaced by the new one with a reset time-to-live timer. Whenever an interface gets disabled and UDLD is running, or whenever UDLD is disabled on an interface, or whenever the device is reset, all existing cache entries for the interfaces affected by the configuration change are cleared, and UDLD sends at least one message to inform the neighbors to flush the part of their caches also affected by the status change. This mechanism is meant to keep the caches coherent on all the connected devices.
Foschiano Informational [Page 5] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
5.3. Event-driven Detection and Echoing
The echoing mechanism is the base of UDLD's detection algorithm: whenever a UDLD device learns about a new neighbor or receives a resynchronization request from an out-of-synch neighbor, it (re)starts the detection process on its side of the connection and sends N echo messages in reply. (This mechanism implicitly assumes that N packets are sufficient to get through a link and reach the other end, even though some of them might get dropped during the transmission.)
Since this behavior must be the same on all the neighbors, the sender of the echoes expects to receive (after some time) an echo in reply. If the detection process ends without the proper echo information being received, and under specific conditions, the link is considered to be unidirectional.
5.4. Event-based versus Event-less Detection
UDLD can function in two modes: normal mode and aggressive mode.
In normal mode, a protocol determination at the end of the detection process is always based on information received in UDLD messages: whether it's the information about the exchange of proper neighbor identifications or the information about the absence of such proper identifications. Hence, albeit bound by a timer, normal mode determinations are always based on gleaned information, and as such are "event-based". If no such information can be obtained (e.g., because of a bidirectional loss of connectivity), UDLD follows a conservative approach based on the considerations in Section 3 and deems a port to be in "undetermined" state. In other words, normal mode will shut down a port only if it can explicitly determine that the associated link is faulty for an extended period of time.
In contrast, in aggressive mode, UDLD will also shut down a port if
it loses bidirectional connectivity with the neighbor for the same
extended period of time mentioned above and subsequently fails
repeated last-resort attempts to re-establish communication with the
other end of the link. This mode of operation assumes that loss of
communication with the neighbor is a meaningful network event in
itself and is a symptom of a serious connectivity problem. Because
this type of detection can be event-less, and lack of information
cannot always be associated to an actual malfunction of the link,
this mode is optional and is recommended only in certain scenarios
(typically only on point-to-point links where no communication
failure between two neighbors is admissible).
Foschiano Informational [Page 6] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
6. Packet Format
The UDLD protocol runs on top of the LLC sub-layer of the data link layer of the OSI model. It uses a specially assigned multicast destination MAC address and encapsulates its messages using the standard Subnetwork Access Protocol (SNAP) format as described in the following:
Destination MAC address 01-00-0C-CC-CC-CC
UDLD SNAP format:
LLC value 0xAAAA03
Org Id 0x00000C
HDLC protocol type 0x0111
UDLD's Protocol Data Unit (PDU) format is as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Ver | Opcode | Flags | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | List of TLVs (variable length list) | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The TLV format is the basic one described below:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TYPE | LENGTH | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | VALUE | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type (16 bits): If an implementation does not understand a Type
value, it should skip over it using the length field.
Length (16 bits): Length in bytes of the Type, Length, and Value
fields. In order for this field value to be valid, it should
be greater than or equal to the minimum allowed length, 4
bytes. If the value is less than the minimum, the whole packet
is to be considered corrupted and therefore it must be
discarded right away during the parsing process. TLVs should
not be split across packet boundaries.
Foschiano Informational [Page 7] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
Value (variable length): Object contained in the TLV.
The protocol header fields are defined as follows:
Ver (3 bits):
0x01: UDLD PDU version number
Opcode (5 bits):
0x00: Reserved
0x01: Probe message
0x02: Echo message
0x03: Flush message
0x04-0x1F: Reserved for future use
Flags (8 bits):
bit 0: Recommended timeout flag (RT)
bit 1: ReSynch flag (RSY)
bit 2-7: Reserved for future use
PDU Checksum (16 bits):
IP-like checksum. Take the one's complement of the one's
complement sum (with the modification that the odd byte at the
end of an odd length message is used as the low 8 bits of an
extra word, rather than as the high 8 bits.) NB: All UDLD
implementations must comply with this specification.
The list of currently defined TLVs comprises:
Name Type Value format
Device-ID TLV 0x0001 ASCII character string
Port-ID TLV 0x0002 ASCII character string
Echo TLV 0x0003 List of ID pairs
Message Interval TLV 0x0004 8-bit unsigned integer
Timeout Interval TLV 0x0005 8-bit unsigned integer
Device Name TLV 0x0006 ASCII character string
Sequence Number TLV 0x0007 32-bit unsigned integer
Reserved TLVs > 0x0007 Format unknown.
To be skipped by parsing routine.
Foschiano Informational [Page 8] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
6.1. TLV Description
Device-ID TLV:
This TLV uniquely identifies the device that is sending the UDLD
packet. The TLV length field determines the length of the carried
identifier and must be greater than zero. In version 1 of the
protocol, the lack of this ID is considered a symptom of packet
corruption that implies that the message is invalid and must be
discarded.
Port-ID TLV:
This TLV uniquely identifies the physical port the UDLD packet is
sent on. The TLV length field determines the length of the
carried identifier and must be greater than zero. In version 1 of
the protocol, the lack of this ID is considered a symptom of
packet corruption that implies that the message is invalid and
must be discarded.
Echo TLV:
This TLV contains the list of valid DeviceID/PortID pairs received
by a port from all its neighbors. If either one of the
identifiers in a pair is corrupted, the message will be ignored.
This list includes only DeviceIDs and PortIDs extracted from UDLD
messages received and cached on the same interface on which this
TLV is sent. If no UDLD messages are received, then this TLV is
sent containing zero pairs. Despite its name, this TLV must be
present in both probe and echo messages, whereas in flush messages
it's not required.
Message Interval TLV:
This required TLV contains the 8-bit time interval value used by a
neighbor to send UDLD probes after the linkup or detection phases.
Its time unit is 1 second. The holdtime of a cache item for a
received message is calculated as (advertised-message-interval x
R), where R is a constant called "TTL to message interval ratio".
Timeout Interval TLV:
This optional TLV contains the 8-bit timeout interval value (T)
used by UDLD to decide the basic length of the detection phase.
Its time unit is 1 second. If it's not present in an
advertisement, T is assumed to be a hard-coded constant.
Foschiano Informational [Page 9] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
Device Name TLV:
This required TLV is meant to be used by the CLI or SNMP and
typically contains the user-readable device name string.
Sequence Number TLV:
The purpose of this optional TLV is to inform the neighbors of the
sequence number of the current message being transmitted. A
counter from 1 to 2^32-1 is supposed to keep track of the sequence
number; it is reset whenever a transition of phase occurs so that
it will restart counting from one, for instance, whenever an echo
message sequence is initiated, or whenever a linkup message train
is triggered.
No wraparound of the counter is supposed to happen.
The zero value is reserved and can be used as a representation of
a missing or invalid sequence number by the user interface.
Therefore, the TLV should never contain zero. (NB: The use of
this TLV is currently limited only to informational purposes.)
7. Protocol Logic
UDLD's protocol logic relies on specific internal timers and is sensitive to certain network events.
The type of messages that UDLD transmits and the timing intervals that it uses are dependent upon the internal state of the protocol, which changes based on network events such as:
o Link up
o Link down
o Protocol enabled
o Protocol disabled
o New neighbor discovery
o Neighbor state change
o Neighbor resynchronization requests
7.1. Protocol Timers
UDLD timer values could vary within certain "safety" ranges based on the considerations in Section 3. However, in practice, in the current implementation, timers use only certain values verified during testing. Their time unit is one second.
During the detection phase, messages are exchanged at the maximum possible rate of one per second. After that, if the protocol reaches
Foschiano Informational [Page 10] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
a stable state and can make a certain determination on the "bidirectionality" of the link, the message interval is increased to a configurable value based on a curve known as M1(t), a time-based function.
In case the link is deemed anything other than bidirectional at the end of the detection, this curve is a flat line with a fixed value of Mfast (7 seconds in the current implementation).
In case the link is instead deemed bidirectional, the curve will use Mfast for the first 4 subsequent message transmissions and then will transition to an Mslow value for all other steady-state transmissions. Mslow can be either a fixed value (60 seconds in some obsolete implementations) or a user-configurable value (between Mfast and 90 seconds with a default of 15 seconds in the current implementations).
8. Comparison with Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
Similarly to UDLD, the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [3] protocol is intended to detect faults in the path between two network nodes. However, BFD is supposed to operate independently of media, data protocols, and routing protocols. There is no address discovery mechanism in BFD, which is left to the application to determine.
On the other hand, UDLD works exclusively on top of a L2 transport supporting the SNAP encapsulation and operates independently of the other bridge protocols (UDLD's main "applications"), with which it has limited interaction. It also performs full neighbor discovery on point-to-point and point-to-multipoint media.
9. Security Considerations
In a heterogeneous Layer 2 network that is built with different models of network devices or with devices running different software images, the UDLD protocol should be supported and configured on all ports interconnecting said devices in order to achieve a complete coverage of its detection process. Note that UDLD is not supposed to be used on ports connected to untrusted devices or incapable devices; hence, it should be disabled on such ports.
10. Deployment Considerations
Cisco Systems has supported the UDLD protocol in its Catalyst family of switches since 1999.
Foschiano Informational [Page 11] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
11. Normative References
[1] IEEE 802.1D-2004 Standard -- Media access control (MAC) Bridges
[2] IEEE 802.3-2002 IEEE Standard -- Local and metropolitan area
networks Specific requirements--Part 3: Carrier Sense Multiple
Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and
Physical Layer Specifications
12. Informative Reference
[3] Katz, D., and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection",
Work in Progress, March 2008.
Author's Address
Marco Foschiano Cisco Systems, Inc. Via Torri Bianche 7, 20059 Vimercate (Mi) Italy
EMail: foschia@cisco.com
Foschiano Informational [Page 12] RFC 5171 UDLD April 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and at http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Foschiano Informational [Page 13]
/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5171.txt · Last modified: 2008/04/14 22:00 by 127.0.0.1