Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-02.txt (9/2 to 9/17/2019)

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 09 September 2019 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 60C8912001A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 14:43:48 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=raszuk.net
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 dTSZPN4fVQCI for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 14:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82a.google.com (mail-qt1-x82a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) (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 2A070120019 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 14:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82a.google.com with SMTP id o12so18194693qtf.3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 14:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=F2AJoYd8wzt2CunJcNh+NCWJfOx5mxVL5zbMGItiRjo=; b=a3ypjTMt3NXdJimoF2sQq271J/hubQl1C9HfODh+nxa8IZwvQloD6iTS+cprPyA2xB pINDpwboZaA3xpycF44cX2+YHeoW95HHX4i0DoFON059iGfCr5jBkFsOTScFPehCRAl5 J16cx7UiklYPUMQ83rrifWgxJTYmb/iZOvY0gBs9Cn2tV2651PbGxU0X0TcWN2Q8pSSZ hLuZFuvKOVwiO4QtP7wtRrvfCNYwB5mpO28UZq8fGrnaaGSEqLy0F016yhA8ZGq8qIRF Ht3RdqJmH+2uvpfz5qnE5ABOxQfrV5Bx7ePquvc0WefI34VrAfiq4ym6dWfXheC2b1m8 WVww==
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=F2AJoYd8wzt2CunJcNh+NCWJfOx5mxVL5zbMGItiRjo=; b=A9I+VYk0XMfHNwVfZJZYI0oAmhI4/dULdConF8TdlsC/zIrxrI4HUmQ0fNsi5slo9P v1aejtxi1bUWr4XkNHGZ5nRlxnEgvVOAV3I52JzcvKZKSreQKdjVcwi3DNp0IF97Kq5f 12NItyK4bYM7u2It5ZwrPnUCicAgnMmmiHODYI8s5grzrSIwQ3IuMTLN1779W0g4cZVJ pkkxLHaub+KBJchpTSgj4js/7WwTRJk0f3khsaM6UoHStkCgVnJcffDDyUFhkAjgKBUy ODfkIioQSLmsfHSlh7N/YObQM/PDFi8V+ErqorhoHqQmNLXcmAM4LTgZAfZm/9ZSaskL 5Quw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUgH5kM9mBn0Nj25ms43FkTs5eLeTRCViyEHHr0MO85FjMwcsAJ RgxFjIgDNeGFzQTiRtAa0fVsqiU0elAc/J5ljKWBbg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx117AgCJRPecjXCi8bHC0G62R0Z3KYV1KkYUy+pk+kZ6sUmyv+hTgDVhzQUbLtYnutfXD5dJCr07ggvwurnnY=
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2a3b:: with SMTP id c56mr27081230qtd.343.1568065423982; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 14:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <003701d561b8$84171680$8c454380$@ndzh.com> <970E5C9A-7251-458B-8F9F-B452BDF58AE6@cisco.com> <CAOj+MMHEGwZ8YuaVvG0-mdKYb1gWbb6+8rM3Onf3X=CQGsbZQA@mail.gmail.com> <20A92BAE-9B85-4876-B26C-98E1BDDACA03@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20A92BAE-9B85-4876-B26C-98E1BDDACA03@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 23:43:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMEO-btSTkayAnDOv9rBTmU=yVBP20waNSy-O0oa3gNZPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mercia Zheng (merciaz)" <merciaz@cisco.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000094d572059225ae19"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EiVzqOPOxVxoOfcmllewYQoJOxQ>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-02.txt (9/2 to 9/17/2019)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 21:43:48 -0000

Hi Mercia,

Many thx for an ack and reply.

Yes making the reference to RFC5882 section 10.2 is helpful. I see some
today may still run BFD on IBGP sessions for no reason. In fact it is
actually a sign of bad BGP design if such IBGP sessions are towards route
reflectors.

> There could still be cases where users only want to run iBGP BFD since no
IGP is enabled

> (e.g. fully mesh case).


Well let's not equate full mesh of IBGP with deployment of BGP as IGP.
Those are completely different deployment models.


While someone could run iBGP in a p2p mode as DC reachability protocol that
is rather an exception then a rule.


Concluding - I think it would be pretty safe to state that draft applies
only to point-to-point BGP sessions.


Kind regards,

Robert.



On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 11:32 PM Mercia Zheng (merciaz) <merciaz@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the review comments.
>
> The similar question has been asked early on whether  or not this draft
> should be only for eBGP.
>
> BGP BFD is enabled mostly for eBGP. RFC5882 section 10.2 specifies  “it
> is generally
>
> *unwise* for IBGP sessions to interact with BFD if the underlying IGP
>
> is already doing so.”.
>
>
>
> There could still be cases where users only want to run iBGP BFD since no
> IGP is enabled
>
> (e.g. fully mesh case).
>
>
>
> Anyway, we’ll take care of this comment in the next revision.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mercia
>
>
>
> *From: *Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <
> robert@raszuk.net>
> *Date: *Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 2:37 PM
> *To: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>rg>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for
> draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-02.txt (9/2 to 9/17/2019)
>
>
>
> Hi Acee,
>
>
>
> I have read the draft. Have one key question in fact triggered by
> colleagues comment below :)
>
>
>
> In the draft you are not making any distinction between iBGP and eBGP
> sessions. Is this intentional ?
>
>
>
> Procedures to establish and maintain eBGP vs iBGP sessions are
> vastly different hence an obvious question if you intentionally made no
> distinction or perhaps you had in mind all along that the draft applies
> only to eBGP ?
>
>
>
> I think for eBGP it is useful, for iBGP I already see real cases where it
> may not give you what you expect.
>
>
>
> In any case I support the adoption.
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> Robert.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 9:57 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Speaking as a co-author, I support WG adoption.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares <
> shares@ndzh.com>
> *Date: *Monday, September 2, 2019 at 2:02 PM
> *To: *IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[Idr] WG adoption call for
> draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-02.txt (9/2 to 9/17/2019)
>
>
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
> draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-02.txt which you can access at:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-merciaz-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode/
>
>
>
> For those who have indicated support for this draft during the lengthy IPR
> call, you are welcome to comment again
>
> or to trust that the IDR chairs read your comments during the lengthy IPR
> call.
>
>
>
> Please indicate if you think this draft is a good start for using the BFD
> technology
>
> as a check that prevents BGP connectivity until BFD session is established
>
> (indicating link connectivity).
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Susan Hares
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>