Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Reshad/Jeff:

Hi!  Thanks for chiming in!

>From your replies, I'm not sure if you think the BFD WG should have
been involved more, or if you agree that it may be better to have a
general purpose attribute like this one developed in BFD, or if you
are ok with the current work. ??   With your bfd-chair hat, of course.

Thanks!

Alvaro.




On December 17, 2020 at 10:52:50 AM, Reshad Rahman wrote:
> On 2020-12-16 4:21 p.m., Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:09:54PM -0800, Alvaro Retana wrote:


> > > (2b) The fact that BFD monitoring can be achieved without the new
> > > attribute makes me think that the bootstrapping of BFD using BGP would
> > > be better served in a document produced by the BFD WG. One of the
> > > editors has expressed the same opinion [1] [2]. Has a discussion taken
> > > place in the  BFD WG (or at least with the Chairs) about this work? Why
> > > was it not taken up there?
> >
...
> > >
> > I will not speak for Reshad, but I don't recall this issue. I may simply
> > be forgetting the e-mail brought to the list, if so.
>
> I tried to dig this up and here's the summarized history:
>
> There was some discussion right after IETF96 (I was at the BESS meeting):
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/-D0iRI2aMSD9tkMWGObsmKGiXow/
>
> Greg did bring this draft to the attention of the BFD WG in 2018 but there
> was no discussion:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/wQOhY6p9L3Z7f29VpNx_yRsCTZg/
>
> AFAIK BFD WG wasn't involved in WGLC.
>
> Note that draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bfd reuses the mechanism for signaling BFD
> discriminator.
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
> > The meta desire here is that communication of the BFD Discriminator for
> > p2mp sessions requires protocol help - in this case BGP. While this could
> > also be discovered via provisioning, that would limit the flexibility of
> > the deployment of this feature.
> >
> > For this specific internet-draft's purpose, dissemination of the
> > Discriminator is tightly scoped. The fact that this happens under an AFI/
> > SAFI that is not expected to hit general purpose Internet routes limits
> > the blast radius of its use. However, as you note, Alvaro, there may be
> > more general purpose desire to use this attribute for.