IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] [Lsvr] Why L2 liveness needed for BGP-SPF

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sun, 22 July 2018 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414931277C8; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 qnUAeJVoiocF; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2416130DD3; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id q127-v6so14927135ljq.11; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JO9zXOeiiNkzy7/W59IHdXmilPK1hGUQbKG00F3QJkM=; b=r57z16tmw93jq3wPaLGFeUa2JJLTWPIj7nevc/NDqOF94LArrTwjgcM13Aubuwc+qg Ew8spHn45sYuMgxzCO56hG2V037j1cKDcj5IMMz1VLC13BAO6OiPFzQnxRIcDhiG3xee ig/ZYZUzF2MNoKP1leLQQE1mJ7lZXASD7C3+qD6tqIxKYfN8rjeuYxLgHl4G1+J5IXHh e2/9zFJTbGL/kk4lnnKJY32JHoO2Dpm95mqOogXr7yYCIAHCGTbrNOw7IMBpbUovdZIn 3w+L3s6MNlbn5xoZp+NVaC+ObI3oZ19HEhzuM62yw6Q+STOE+bxYznNtMyfehoiPyV6c aMYQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JO9zXOeiiNkzy7/W59IHdXmilPK1hGUQbKG00F3QJkM=; b=b3mjJheHuYYgPOXa9AcOKN35SKGX0uPbYGUSh+805LAV6RB24hwlYLF/sONgCnlrwu iNrq2qOiHQAbAajKbsft84S7AifRaXpsoYejiQVBMYQ10qM+xx1F/C36UdksrLIDl4km fTDRXLr+32fbLBf6DPJ0/pVbHHdcwNz8Wj2Cxi9Jn8gGqO6l624GRxMOERxjoaUJlFN7 /QtrN/cN3Y1x3nnkPiVi726tSPIttOGq7oGf+E7rI+EH4gQ4SyjSx38bgtdRp3j7nhId utcWk2vHc2pfpO1Z3MOcEeNAq9+BSj8me0VgSH+f4YxSmoxL3qa+FqtVqStYjRLla5HJ 41rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGXWLPKU6EdbdHENOk1ws4lF93Zn/PH7RwGNSBMyOZCkR9mFYND +P7uh9viqbL3hoFwLgpPyFUFrK3iNMezCfoJqME=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcfnZ2bDCAufddYbkXV0v6mmD3Zh/VP5aP9hlB643Dz2sFeLT771JlbhcPM/I+7GHf+dO+05F5LI9iPCSiB9KU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:4701:: with SMTP id u1-v6mr7059505lja.54.1532279793149; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <fb35cb79-881d-4ca2-8a0b-738886d28b8f.xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com> <bd5ff63067a8446ca8e2267c891933ad@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <m2muujec6q.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAJc3aaNCM0XCDEVmkKxxvKxXdMdKsB+YDWLM3qGo83x271D-ow@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXvE2gJVuXBB31jj8+CDRB8zBq+97fhhgzpJbNAVDbmZg@mail.gmail.com> <m2k1pne0pp.wl-randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2k1pne0pp.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 12:16:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmV9QzaqbLZ=gbtaQ3+bpsH+zSfmxOvPkczJYCXas9HjEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>, idr@ietf.org, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, "Lsvr@ietf.org" <Lsvr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c46a4b057199b00a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9b81AFWZmPxp1kY1rlr-W9ksk0k>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Lsvr] Why L2 liveness needed for BGP-SPF
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 17:16:37 -0000

Hi Randy,
thank you for the quick response to my question. BFD monitors path
continuity at the layer 3, though there's BFD over LAG that picks into the
layer 2. One cannot differentiate between liveness of the remote system and
availability of the path between two systems. If we are not interested
whether packets from the particular source and only that source received,
then we use path continuity check protocol. BFD is the example of the CC
while CFM, Layer 2, is the connectivity verification.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 10:42 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

> > hope an easy question you'll help me with. Liveness as path continuity
> > check or as connectivity verification.
>
> layer 2 link liveness.  we have other tools above layer 2; e.g. bfd.
>
> randy
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email