<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5082 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5082.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5880 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5880.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5881 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5881.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5883 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5883.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4271 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4271.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7880 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7880.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7911 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7911.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7947 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7947.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8446 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8446.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6241 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6241.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6242 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6242.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8341 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8341.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8040 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8040.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3688 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3688.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6020 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6020.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8340 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8340.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8342 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8342.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8349 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8349.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC9314 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9314.xml">

<!-- <!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9314.xml"> -->
]>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>


<rfc category="std" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-15" submissionType="IETF">
    <front>
	<title>Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications</title>

	<author fullname="Enke Chen" initials="E." surname="Chen">
	    <organization>Palo Alto Networks</organization>
	    <address>
		<postal>
		<street></street>
		<city></city>
		<region></region>
		<code></code>
		<country></country>
		</postal>
		<email>enchen@paloaltonetworks.com</email>
	    </address>
	</author>

	<author fullname="Naiming Shen" initials="N." surname="Shen">
	    <organization>Zededa</organization>
	    <address>
		<email>naiming@zededa.com</email>
	    </address>
	</author>
	<author fullname='Robert Raszuk' initials='R' surname='Raszuk'>
    <organization>Arrcus</organization>
    <address>
        <postal>
            <street>2077 Gateway Place</street>
            <city>San Jose</city>
            <region>CA</region>
            <code>95110</code>
            <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>robert@raszuk.net</email>
    </address>
	</author>
	<author fullname="Reshad Rahman" initials="R." surname="Rahman">
	    <organization>Graphiant</organization>
	    <address>
		<postal>
		<street></street>
		<city></city>
		<region></region>
		<code></code>
		<country>Canada</country>
		</postal>
		<email>reshad@yahoo.com</email>
	    </address>
	</author>
	<date year="2023" />

	<abstract>
	    <t>
	    For operational simplification of "sessionless" applications
	    using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD), in this document we present procedures
	    for "unsolicited BFD" that allow a BFD session to be initiated
	    by only one side, and established without explicit per-session
	    configuration or registration by the other side (subject to certain
	    per-interface or global policies).
            </t>
            <t>
            We also introduce a new YANG module
            to configure and manage "unsolicited BFD". The YANG module in this document
            is based on YANG 1.1 as defined in RFC 7950 and conforms to the Network Management 
            Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as described in RFC 8342. This document augments RFC 9314.
	    </t>
	</abstract>

	<note title="Requirements Language">
	    <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"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
       appear in all capitals, as shown here.
	    
	    </t>
	</note>
    </front>

    <middle>
	<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
	    <t>
            The current implementation and deployment practice for BFD
            (<xref target="RFC5880"/> and <xref target="RFC5881"/>)
	    usually requires BFD sessions be explicitly
            configured or registered on both sides. This requirement is
            not an issue when an application like BGP <xref target="RFC4271"/>
            has the concept of a "session" that involves both sides for its
            establishment.
            However, this requirement can be operationally challenging
            when the prerequisite "session" does not
            naturally exist between two endpoints in an application.
            Simultaneous configuration and coordination
            may be required on both sides for BFD to take effect. For example:
	    </t>

	    <t>
                <list style="symbols">
	        <t>	      
             When BFD is used to keep track of the "liveness" of the nexthop
             of static routes. Although only one side may need the BFD
             functionality, currently both sides need to be involved in
             specific configuration and coordination and in some cases
             static routes are created unnecessarily just for BFD.
                </t>

                <t>
             When BFD is used to keep track of the "liveness" of the
             third-pary nexthop of BGP routes received from the Route Server
             <xref target="RFC7947"/> at an Internet Exchange Point (IXP).  As the
             third-party nexthop is different from the peering address of
             the Route Server, for BFD to work, currently two routers peering
             with the Route Server need to have routes and nexthops from each
             other (although indirectly via the Route Server).
	        </t>
		</list>
	    </t>

	    <t>
            Clearly it is beneficial and desirable to reduce or eliminate
            unnecessary configurations and coordination in these
            "sessionless" applications using BFD.
	    </t>

	    <t>
	    In this document we present procedures
	    for "unsolicited BFD" that allow a BFD session to be initiated
	    by only one side, and established without explicit per-session
	    configuration or registration by the other side (subject to certain
	    per-interface or global policies).
	    </t>
        <t>Unsolicited BFD impacts only the initiation of BFD sessions. There is no change to all the other procedures specified in
          <xref target="RFC5880"/> such as, but not limited to, the Echo function and Demand mode.</t>

	    <t>
	    With "unsolicited BFD" there is potential risk for
	    excessive resource usage by BFD from "unexpected" remote systems.
	    To mitigate such risks,
	    several mechanisms are recommended in the Security Considerations
	    section.
	    </t>
            <t>The procedure described in this document could be applied to BFD for Multihop paths <xref target="RFC5883"/>.
               However, because of security risks, this document applies only to BFD for single IP hops  <xref target="RFC5881"/>.</t>

	    <t>
	    Compared to the "Seamless BFD" <xref target="RFC7880"/>, this proposal involves
	    only minor procedural enhancements to the widely deployed BFD itself.
	    Thus, we believe that this proposal is inherently simpler in the
	    protocol itself and deployment.
	    As an example, it does not require the exchange of BFD
	    discriminators over an out-of-band channel before BFD session bring-up.
	    </t>

	    <t>
	    When BGP Add-Path <xref target="RFC7911"/> is deployed at an IXP using a Route Server,
	    multiple BGP paths (when they exist) can be made available to the clients of the
	    Route Server as described in <xref target="RFC7947"/>.
	    Unsolicited BFD can be used by BGP route selection's Route Resolvability Condition 
	    <xref target="RFC4271" section="9.1.2.1"/> to exclude routes where the NEXT_HOP is not
	    reachable using the procedures specified in this document.
	    </t>
        </section>

	<section title="Procedures for Unsolicited BFD">
            <t>
	      With "unsolicited BFD", one side takes the "Active role"
	      and the other side takes only the "Passive role" as
	      described in <xref target="RFC5880"/>, section 6.1.
	    </t>

	    <t>
	      Passive unsolicited BFD support MUST be disabled by default, and
              MUST require explicit configuration to be enabled.
              On the passive side, the following BFD parameters, from <xref target="RFC5880"/> section 6.8.1 SHOULD be configurable:
              <list style="symbols">
              <t>bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval</t>
              <t>bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval</t>
              <t>bfd.DetectMult</t>
              </list> 
              The passive side MAY also choose to use the values of the parameters above that 
	      the active side uses in its BFD Control packets. However, the bfd.LocalDiscr value MUST be selected by the passive side 
        to allow multiple unsolicited BFD sessions.
	     </t>

	     <t>
	       The active side starts sending the BFD Control packets as specified in 
         <xref target="RFC5880"/>. The passive side does not send BFD Control packets initially, 
         it sends BFD Control packets only after it has received BFD Control packets from the active side.
	     </t>

	     <t>
	       When the passive side receives a BFD Control packet from the active side 
         with 0 as "Your Discriminator" and does not find an existing BFD session, 
         the passive side SHOULD create a matching BFD session toward the active side, 
         unless not permitted by local configuration or policy.</t>
             <t>
             When the passive side receives an incoming BFD Control packet on a numbered interface,
             the source address of that packet MUST belong to the subnet of the interface on which the BFD 
             packet is received, else the BFD control packet MUST NOT be processed.</t>

         <t>
         The passive side MUST then start sending BFD Control packets and perform the necessary 
         procedure for bringing up, maintaining and tearing down the BFD session. 
         If the BFD session fails to get established within a certain amount of time 
         (which is implementation specific but has to be at least equal to the local failure detection time), 
         or if an established BFD session goes down, the passive side MUST stop 
         sending BFD Control packets and SHOULD delete the BFD session created until 
         BFD Control packets are initiated by the active side again.
	       </t>

        <t>
         When an Unsolicited BFD session goes down, an implementation may retain 
         the session state for a period of time.
         Retaining this state can be useful for operational purposes.
        </t>
	</section>

  <section title="State Variables">
      
    <t>
      This document defines a new state variable called Role. 
    </t>
    <t>
      bfd.Role
    </t>
    <t>
      The role of the local system during BFD session initialization, as per <xref target="RFC5880"/>, section 6.1.
      Possible values are Active or Passive. 
    </t>

  </section>

	<section title="YANG Data Model">
	    <t>
            This section extends the YANG data model for BFD <xref target="RFC9314"/>
	    to cover unsolicited BFD. The new module imports <xref target="RFC8349"/> since the "bfd"
            container in <xref target="RFC9314"/> is under "control-plane-protocol". 
            The YANG module in this document conforms to the Network Management
            Datastore Architecture (NMDA) <xref target="RFC8342"/>.
	    </t>
            
            <section title="Unsolicited BFD Hierarchy">
            <t>Configuration for unsolicited BFD parameters for IP single-hop sessions can be done at 2 levels:
            <list style="symbols">
            <t>Globally, i.e. for all interfaces.</t>
            <t>For specific interfaces. This requires support for the "unsolicited-params-per-interface" feature.</t>
            </list>
            If configuration exists at both levels, per-interface configuration takes precedence over global configuration.
            </t>
            <t>For operational data, a new "unsolicited" container has been added for BFD IP single-hop sessions.</t>
            <t>The tree diagram below uses the graphical representation of data models, as defined in <xref target="RFC8340"/>.</t>
        <figure align="left">
          <preamble/>

          <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
module: ietf-bfd-unsolicited

  augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
          /rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh:
    +--rw unsolicited?
       +--rw local-multiplier?                 multiplier
       +--rw (interval-config-type)?
          +--:(tx-rx-intervals)
          |  +--rw desired-min-tx-interval?    uint32
          |  +--rw required-min-rx-interval?   uint32
          +--:(single-interval) {single-minimum-interval}?
             +--rw min-interval?               uint32
  augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
          /rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh
          /bfd-ip-sh:interfaces:
    +--rw unsolicited
       +--rw enabled?                          boolean
       +--rw local-multiplier?                 bfd-types:multiplier {bfd-unsol:unsolicited-params-per-interface}?
       +--rw (interval-config-type)? {bfd-unsol:unsolicited-params-per-interface}?
          +--:(tx-rx-intervals)
          |  +--rw desired-min-tx-interval?    uint32
          |  +--rw required-min-rx-interval?   uint32
          +--:(single-interval) {bfd-types:single-minimum-interval}?
             +--rw min-interval?               uint32
  augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
          /rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh
          /bfd-ip-sh:sessions/bfd-ip-sh:session:
    +--ro role?   bfd-unsol:role

             ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
	  </section>
	  
	<section title="Unsolicited BFD Module">
        <figure align="left">
	  <preamble/>

          <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-bfd-unsolicited@2023-04-22.yang"
module ietf-bfd-unsolicited {

  yang-version 1.1;

  namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-unsolicited";

  prefix "bfd-unsol";

  // RFC Ed.: replace occurences of YYYY with actual RFC numbers
  // and remove this note

  import ietf-bfd-types {
    prefix "bfd-types";
    reference 
      "RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
       Detection (BFD)";
  }

  import ietf-bfd {
    prefix "bfd";
    reference 
      "RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
       Detection (BFD)";
  }

  import ietf-bfd-ip-sh {
    prefix "bfd-ip-sh";
    reference
      "RFC 9314: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
       Detection (BFD)";
  }

  import ietf-routing {
    prefix "rt";
    reference
      "RFC 8349: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
       (NMDA version)";
  }

  organization "IETF BFD Working Group";

  contact
    "WG Web:   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/>
     WG List:  <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>

     Editors:  Enke Chen (enchen@paloaltonetworks.com),
               Naiming Shen (naiming@zededa.com),
               Robert Raszuk (robert@raszuk.net),
               Reshad Rahman (reshad@yahoo.com)";

  description
    "This module contains the YANG definition for BFD unsolicited
     as per RFC YYYY.

     Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons
     identified as authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

     Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
     without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
     to the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License
     set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
     Relating to IETF Documents
     (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

     This version of this YANG module is part of RFC YYYY; see
     the RFC itself for full legal notices.";

  reference "RFC YYYY";

  revision 2023-04-22 {
    description
      "Initial revision.";
    reference
      "RFC YYYY: Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications.";
  }

  /*
   * Feature definitions
   */
  feature unsolicited-params-per-interface {
    description
      "This feature indicates that the server supports per-interface
       parameters for unsolicited sessions.";
    reference
      "RFC YYYY: Unsolicited BFD for Sessionless Applications.";
  }

  /*
   * Type Definitions
   */
  identity role {
    description
      "Base identity from which all roles are derived.
       Role of local system during BFD session initialization.";
  }
  identity active {
    base "bfd-unsol:role";
    description "Active role";
    reference
      "RFC5880: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),
       Section 6.1";
  }
  identity passive {
    base "bfd-unsol:role";
    description "Passive role";
    reference
      "RFC5880: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),
       Section 6.1";
  }

  /*
   * Augments
   */
   augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
         + "rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh" {
     description
       "Augmentation for BFD unsolicited parameters";
     container unsolicited {
       description
         "BFD IP single-hop unsolicited top level container";
       uses bfd-types:base-cfg-parms;
     }
   }

   augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
         + "rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh/"
         + "bfd-ip-sh:interfaces" {
     description
       "Augmentation for BFD unsolicited on IP single-hop interface";
     container unsolicited {
       description
         "BFD IP single-hop interface unsolicited top level 
          container";
       leaf enabled {
         type boolean;
         default false;
         description
           "BFD unsolicited enabled on this interface.";
       }
       /*
        * The following is the same as bfd-types:base-cfg-parms, but
        * without default values (for inheritance)
        */
       leaf local-multiplier {
         if-feature bfd-unsol:unsolicited-params-per-interface;
         type bfd-types:multiplier;
         description
           "Multiplier transmitted by the local system. Defaults to
            ../../unsolicited/local-multiplier.
            A multiplier configured under an interface takes precedence
            over the mulitiplier configured at the global level.";
       }

       choice interval-config-type {
         if-feature bfd-unsol:unsolicited-params-per-interface;
         description
           "Two interval values or one value used for both transmit and
            receive. Defaults to ../../unsolicited/interval-config-type.
            An interval configured under an interface takes precedence
            over any interval configured at the global level.";
         case tx-rx-intervals {
           leaf desired-min-tx-interval {
             type uint32;
             units "microseconds";
             description
               "Desired minimum transmit interval of control packets.";
           }
           leaf required-min-rx-interval {
             type uint32;
             units "microseconds";
             description
               "Required minimum receive interval of control packets.";
           }
         }
         case single-interval {
           if-feature "bfd-types:single-minimum-interval";
           leaf min-interval {
             type uint32;
             units "microseconds";
             description
               "Desired minimum transmit interval and required
                minimum receive interval of control packets.";
           }
         }
       }
     }
   }

  augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
        + "rt:control-plane-protocol/bfd:bfd/bfd-ip-sh:ip-sh/"
        + "bfd-ip-sh:sessions/bfd-ip-sh:session" {
    description
      "Augmentation for BFD unsolicited on IP single-hop session";
      leaf role {
        type identityref {
          base "bfd-unsol:role";
        }
        config false;
        description "Role.";
      }
  }
}
<CODE ENDS>
        ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
	</section>
  <section title="Data Model Example">
  <t>This section shows an example on how to configure the passive end of unsolicited BFD:
       <list style="symbols">
       <t>We have global BFD IP single-hop unsolicited configuration with a local-multiplier of 2 and min-interval at 50ms</t>
       <t>BFD IP single-hop unsolicited is enabled on interface eth0, with a local-multiplier of 3 and min-interval at 250 ms</t>
       <t>BFD IP single-hop unsolicited is enabled on interface eth1. Since there is no parameter configuration for eth1, it inherits from the global configuration.</t>
       </list>
  </t>
          <figure align="left">
	  <preamble/>

          <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<config xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<interfaces xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
  <interface>
    <name>eth0</name>
    <type
        xmlns:ianaift="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type">ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
  </interface>
  <interface>
    <name>eth1</name>
    <type
        xmlns:ianaift="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type">ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
  </interface>
</interfaces>
<routing xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing">
  <control-plane-protocols>
    <control-plane-protocol>
      <type
          xmlns:bfd-types="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-types">bfd-types:bfdv1</type>
      <name>name:BFD</name>
      <bfd xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd">
        <ip-sh xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-ip-sh">
          <unsolicited>
            <local-multiplier>2</local-multiplier>
            <min-interval>50000</min-interval>
          </unsolicited>
          <interfaces>
              <interface>eth0</interface>
              <unsolicited>
                <enabled>true</enabled>
                <local-multiplier>3</local-multiplier>
                <min-interval>250000</min-interval>
              </unsolicited>
          </interfaces>
          <interfaces>
              <interface>eth1</interface>
              <unsolicited>
                <enabled>true</enabled>
              </unsolicited>
          </interfaces>
        </ip-sh>
      </bfd>
    </control-plane-protocol>
  </control-plane-protocols>
</routing>
</config>       
        ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
  </section>

       </section>

	<section title="IANA Considerations">
	    <t>
            This document registers the following namespace URI in the "IETF XML Registry" <xref target="RFC3688"/>:
            </t>
            <t>URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-unsolicited</t>
            <t>Registrant Contact:  The IESG.</t>
            <t>XML:  N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.</t>
            <t>
            This document registers the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry <xref target="RFC6020"/>:
            </t>
            <t>Name:  ietf-bfd-unsolicited</t>
            <t>Namespace:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-unsolicited</t>
            <t>Prefix:  bfd-unsol</t>
            <t>Reference:  RFC YYYY</t>
	</section>


	<section title="Acknowledgments"> 

	<t>Authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Alvaro Retana, Dan Romascanu, Derek Atkins, Greg Mirsky, Gyan Mishra, Henning Rogge, Jeffrey Haas,
      John Scudder, Lars Eggert, Magnus Westerlund, Mahesh Jethanandani, Murray Kucherawy, Raj Chetan, Robert Wilton, Roman Danyliw, Tom Petch,
      and Zaheduzzaman Sarker for their review and valuable input.</t>

	</section> 

	<section title="Security Considerations">
	   <section anchor="BFD-Security" title="BFD Protocol Security Considerations">
	    <t>
	    The same security considerations and protection measures as those described 
      in <xref target="RFC5880"/> and <xref target="RFC5881"/> apply 
      to this document. 

	    In addition, with "unsolicited BFD" there is potential risk for excessive resource usage 
      by BFD from "unexpected" remote systems. To mitigate such risks, implementations of unsolicited BFD MUST:
	    </t>

	   <t>
     <list style="symbols">
	   <t>
     Limit the feature to specific interfaces, and to single-hop BFD sessions using the procedures from
     <xref target="RFC5082"/>.  See <xref target="RFC5881" section="5"/> for the details of these procedures.
     </t>
     <t>
     Apply policy to process BFD packets only from certain subnets or hosts.
      </t>
	    <t>
     Deploy the feature only in an environment that does not 
     offer anonymous participation. Examples include an IXP, 
     where the IXP operator will have a business relationship with 
     all IXP participants, or between a provider and its customers. 
	   </t>
	   </list>
	    </t>
     </section>
     <section title="BFD Protocol Authentication Considerations">
     <t>
     Implementations of unsolicited BFD are RECOMMENDED to
     use BFD authentication; see <xref target="RFC5880"/>.
     If BFD authentication is used, the strongest BFD authentication mechanism that is supported MUST be used.
     </t>
     <t>
     In some environments, such as an Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), BFD authentication cannot be used because of the lack of coordination for the operation of the two endpoints of the BFD session.
     </t>
     <t>
     In other environments, such as when BFD is used to track the next hop of static routes, it is possible to use BFD authentication. This comes with the extra cost of configuring matching keychains between the two endpoints.
     </t>
	   </section>
	   <section title="YANG Module Security Considerations">
      <t>The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
      that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such as
      NETCONF <xref target="RFC6241"/> or RESTCONF <xref target="RFC8040"/>.
      The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the
      mandatory-to-implement secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH) <xref
      target="RFC6242"/>. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the
      mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS <xref
      target="RFC8446"/>.</t>

      <t>The NETCONF access control model <xref target="RFC8341"/> provides
      the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to
      a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol
      operations and content.</t>

      <t>There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
      writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the default).
      These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some
      network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config) to these data
      nodes without proper protection can have a negative effect on network
      operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes and their
      sensitivity/vulnerability:</t>

      <t>/routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol/bfd/ip-sh
         /unsolicited:
      <list style="symbols">
      <t>data node "enabled" enables creation of unsolicited BFD IP single-hop sessions globally, i.e. on all interfaces.
         See <xref target="BFD-Security"/>.</t>
      <t>data nodes local-multiplier, desired-min-tx-interval,
      required-min-rx-interval and min-interval all impact the parameters of the unsolicited
      BFD IP single-hop sessions. Write operations to these nodes change the
      rates of BFD packet generation and detection time of the failures of a
      BFD session.</t>
      </list>
      </t>

      <t>/routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol/bfd/ip-sh
         /interfaces/interface/unsolicited:
      <list style="symbols">
      <t>data node "enabled" enables creation of unsolicited BFD IP single-hop sessions on a specific interface.
         See <xref target="BFD-Security"/>.</t>
      <t>data nodes local-multiplier, desired-min-tx-interval,
      required-min-rx-interval and min-interval all impact the parameters of the unsolicited
      BFD IP single-hop sessions on the interface.</t>
      </list>
      </t>

      <t>Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered
      sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
      important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
      notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and data nodes
      and their sensitivity/vulnerability:</t>

      <t>/routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol/bfd/ip-sh
         /sessions/session/role:
      access to this information discloses the role of the local system in the creation of the unsolicited BFD session.</t>

	   </section>
	</section>

    </middle>

    <back>
	<references title="Normative References">
	    &RFC2119;
	    &RFC3688;
	    &RFC5082;
	    &RFC5880;
	    &RFC5881;
	    &RFC6020;
	    &RFC6241;
	    &RFC6242;
	    &RFC8040;
	    &RFC8174;
	    &RFC8340;
	    &RFC8341;
	    &RFC8349;
	    &RFC8446;
	    &RFC9314;
	</references>
	<references title="Informative References">
	    &RFC4271;
	    &RFC5883;
	    &RFC7880;
	    &RFC7911;
	    &RFC7947;
	    &RFC8342;
	</references>
    </back>
</rfc>

