IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 04 July 2017 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 28FED1319C2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 cnhmcZzuBpYh for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB010132613 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B4BE61E34A; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 13:58:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 13:58:27 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, idr@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170704175827.GP2289@pfrc.org>
References: <149909741417.22786.4679459342587499122@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170703160800.x6wcym2ma6jceqv7@Vurt.local> <FBD5248C-33C6-436C-8B01-FAE2658B0768@juniper.net> <20170703163846.224w6lxvbt4txqub@Vurt.local> <m2wp7pz3ld.wl-randy@psg.com> <CACWOCC-=B-08FG6No0muVdOwXWdtm2JkuiM1MFYFY=6B4m9MSw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACWOCC-=B-08FG6No0muVdOwXWdtm2JkuiM1MFYFY=6B4m9MSw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EbuEJ3laokWoNfCGGeUvbgs-RpE>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.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, 04 Jul 2017 17:49:16 -0000

On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 08:27:20PM +0000, Job Snijders wrote:
> As a generalized mechanism, IXPs could snoop BFD traffic to disseminate the
> current state of reachability on the fabric, such BFD snooping would work
> for both RS peers as well as bilateral peers.

I must admit to being boggled at expecting IXP switch fabric endpoints being
expected to sniff on a chatty protocol to derive state.  Why do you think
this makes sense?

> A question would be "why
> impose additional reporting duties (load) on the RS peers when the IXP can
> glean similar information through snooping"?

There's also the matter that the fabric isn't necessarily aware of the
semantics of a session.  It would have to report up to some central box
anyway.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email