Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.txt

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Tue, 18 April 2017 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 06178129431 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 Fe2NYg-4_vHl for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (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 1BB7B127876 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id a103so9375782ioj.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=iBZfld8P2vZxZVinkZ46+b3t8P+O2e5R+Ct3QF6M74Q=; b=pI9IG/4MuZA+QD4myP0xRVgG/JsowoG+RPhTlJYAMSMSiuDetdNyxdm3Itt/gHiazR iIuhuXx7LexgOq12WLmH+xN2OrXswgKoXdIZ3Ka7xLABxCzFajE0YOyWiWB66lDJX/p8 07Da0KpZ+m8pFGy5g380lefJ3hqhkHp+AcIERe9D994jfxw0hQ0HZjodb9vDXuCjTGye /KwjHivvufUYOaq0wtb4LBoBoRn4zslNywrNnav05xQTS4V1Q1a26HeXOv+wBMrEM+Qz ysgUypq/yWvc6DxT0tfWPBLc1CgVDcslf3Vfo4qqy/2/j04SLFs+OaFa+0vkMA7cwbRV G43A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iBZfld8P2vZxZVinkZ46+b3t8P+O2e5R+Ct3QF6M74Q=; b=GLI45gFKF7fz+6Z7ZxjPK/WyhYf2kp26qfbA+NkQKIp45FI9CN30DnpOMkj6HyQFBN jnGy4cguwvZM2OG2DIAZ30/glb140jhthS0uKPacYC/SsF/Btkk+4036XAhJ4fcmagG7 23Mhr7sOWsV+ULQ7M2RB13xLclYfuJQrV9OPOEdapy1cl+XbgLTmCINH783I9RFMzIOv iLgHgW2ezgl/Moq3xNC+gj0JZLR8mxSxU/S4xxp/xDG56znNjvyFMn98xHiQd66p8XKN 7r7cfRWha3JV0YufKGmEznLHqI4p+3dIZrftY7iU3y1PeWnjesxAr3P0+J3pBXW0Y26G gcsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7o/iUzX1FkkY3rPqox8yntWFoMn1eN9bg9+p3FSTF4ETMc+zR6 loPVkHiDscQOhkP0Ldy2TDXIdW+0DQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.140.10 with SMTP id o10mr17028557iod.139.1492547817436; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.170.4 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170418203108.GB9688@pfrc.org>
References: <CA+b+ERn5o-i-6shdzj_afa8Z1yQO3Ep6HmB=Fv4StSW_ge95Ew@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERkBeBoz0Le4wgqZK1X76=_HKOEUYTWYBd_xnjYoaJgrsw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERnBL9Q3ep1JrC9HQp3B3AYmiQ8ctTssK1g4L_ueTTRaMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ER=cZiBfWj4=+uKeqsWwypGFz3p+Tvx8Q2dD3hFFXSC4=w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ER=f-S118JtY--n-B0P+CB0yvy_rw3JaJpWw02n7prQ=Ww@mail.gmail.com> <20170314204212.GD12864@pfrc.org> <815723FC-B143-4410-B0FF-D9FB4F827862@cisco.com> <20170314213607.GH12864@pfrc.org> <579D00D9-D80F-4625-BF16-0D5112C2FA98@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERkXLg3O0hEAtokUDn4ndjixyuT4dpv9LfLVPmfsb1akug@mail.gmail.com> <20170418203108.GB9688@pfrc.org>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:36:56 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: RFOpPAjrGhYUA9rzisGDFJ5mPM4
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERnxjsjVbSowzBgBhrCtY5ehhn+SM+uvF3G071No-3gk6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c06084c77ff1c054d76de17
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Dq294IqjUCjOPmaFXivj08cC4H8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:37:00 -0000

Hi Jeff,

Since you brought it up to the main mailing list, who are the other folks
> besides yourself that thinks S-BFD is a better fit?
>

​I will let them speak themselves if they care ...​



> You're going to make me write that largeish e-mail that doesn't help the
> discussion much about why S-BFD is not a good fit, aren't you?
>

​I am not going to make you do anything however since we are discussing
how best to detect NH liveness in NBMA env. we should examine all options
vs requirements for those.  ​

And one of the requirements as you have heard from at least one customer is
to test MTU of the path to such BGP next hops. Is RFC5880 BFD really best
tool for that ?



> > Yet UDP echo in some implementations
> > already does it today.
>
> As noted previously, the draft does permit for alternate means beyond BFD.
> However, we have to pick one.  Standardizing ping is likely a bad idea. :-)
>

​What is there to standardize ? RFC862 seems like pretty good standard
already.

Ref: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc862

And implementing it in hardware should not be that hard too for those
concerned
not to go to RE/RP with each packet. .

Thx,
R.
​






>
>
> -- Jeff
>