IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 14 March 2017 20:36 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 DCAE4129993 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 Jbj18YFycUS6 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED261296B4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BC4CA1E33B; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:42:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:42:12 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170314204212.GD12864@pfrc.org>
References: <148924277112.2960.17904473852401253352@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2k27tzs5k.wl-randy@psg.com> <CA+b+ERmmqtUkJMtfOE9ABFHN0gNdztjOGELmirNgWRnDENrjaA@mail.gmail.com> <58C6751D.60306@foobar.org> <CA+b+ERkxvKzArYf7eefB5UL_kDMVBJERz=Qyi=zOsBm3KivAtg@mail.gmail.com> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=f-S118JtY--n-B0P+CB0yvy_rw3JaJpWw02n7prQ=Ww@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GpCRp4RPo1oN10HDu2qVNZZR3Z8>
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, 14 Mar 2017 20:36:04 -0000

Robert,

I'll let the other comments in this thread stand on their merit.  However, I
did want to respond to one specific point here:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:45:25AM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> I am afraid you have completely missed my point.
> 
> I never said clients must not detect other clients liveness before using it
> for best path selection and in their local data planes.
> 
> I said RS does not need to bothered with that information.

The relevant bit of procedure within this document to run BFD toward an eBGP
nexthop and use it in the local decision process is of potential value even
without the RS SAFI part of the protocol.  So, in this respect, I agree.

The authors had previously discussed extracting this procedure from the
document and are fine with doing so if it makes sense.

The one "common" use case where this may be of benefit outside of a
route-server environment is BGP "VPNs" that are constructed using IPSEC
tunnels with the network effectively an NBMA subnet.  

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email