IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bess] A question about the draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> Tue, 15 March 2022 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3B23A07FB; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qi4qlWqkBq84; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 07:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D68843A0884; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 07:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KHwXN4jzSz682wj; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 22:19:48 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.182) by fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.219) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 15:20:33 +0100
Received: from kwepeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.162) by kwepeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.21; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 22:20:31 +0800
Received: from kwepeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.162]) by kwepeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.162]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.021; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 22:20:31 +0800
From: "Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org" <draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>, rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: A question about the draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator
Thread-Index: AQHYN8LNQmLzGzdQkEuSrAvF+A78l6zAf2gw
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 14:20:31 +0000
Message-ID: <1c74ced331ac4ab3b9ebf9b74b1ec21d@huawei.com>
References: <CA+RyBmUEULD__UWa6yeoanEn6jWLXjOREcZnJ7o+HU7UXgyqGQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmUEULD__UWa6yeoanEn6jWLXjOREcZnJ7o+HU7UXgyqGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.153.118]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1c74ced331ac4ab3b9ebf9b74b1ec21dhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/71K0-yD2iPo1MV1aIwmNDrssRg0>
Subject: Re: [bess] A question about the draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 14:20:43 -0000

Hi Greg,
       Thanks for your comments.
       The scenario you pointed out is a 4PE scenario, but in our solution, a large number of scenarios are based on 3PE.
In a 3PE scenario, deploying BFD wastes resources. A large number of single-homed PEs may be connected to the dual-homed PEs. The dual-homed PEs may not have enough resources to create BFD sessions.

Regards,
Haibo

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 12:44 AM
To: Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>; draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org; BESS <bess@ietf.org>; rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: A question about the draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

Hi Haibo and the Authors,
thank you for updating the draft. I've read the new version and have a question about the use case presented in the document. There are three PEs with two of them providing redundant access to a CE. It appears that a more general case would be if both CEs use redundant connections to the EVPN. Asume, PE4 is added and connected to CE2. In that case, it seems reasonable that each PE is monitoring remote PEs, i.e., PE1 monitors PE3 and PE4, PE2 - PE3 and PE4, PE3 - PE1 and PE2, and PE4 - PE1 and PE2. So, now there are pairs of S-BFD sessions between PEs connected to CE1 and CE2 respectively. That seems like too many sessions and that number can be reduced if one uses BFD instead of S-BFD. Would you agree? To simplify operations, it might be helpful to use the technique described in draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-09>. In the recent discussion of the draft on the BFD WG ML, the authors noted that they are working on extending the scope to include the multi-hop BFD.
Greatly appreciate your thoughts about the number of S-BFD sessions.

Regards,
Greg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email