Re: [Idr] 2 Week WG Adoption call for draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00 (3/2/2015 to 3/16/2015)

Randy Bush <> Mon, 16 March 2015 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E359D1A0110 for <>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y4W9Mh3ituBy for <>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6ADA1A00E4 for <>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <>) id 1YXTMx-0006wd-If; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:39:39 +0000
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:39:38 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: David Freedman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: idr wg <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 Week WG Adoption call for draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00 (3/2/2015 to 3/16/2015)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:39:43 -0000

as you know, i also have not trusted route servers.  arnold asked what
would allow me to extend a little trust.  draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd is an

>> clue bat, please.  how does your scheme tell the rs to give me next
>> best paths instead of those over the failing link?
> It doesn't , but then, if the exchange is having issues, I won't be
> sending any further traffic over it until it is repaired, so I would
> stop trusting the RS at this point.

we see many cases of small inter-peer failures where other links are
just fine.  it can be an interface, a router-to-switch cable, ...  this
is why we want to tell the rs to back off only the failing link.

>> how likely are we to get the bfd hacks from C, J, A, B, ...?  in our
>> draft, we are trying to minimize dependence on vendor hacks for a
>> reason.  their frelling bfds are not even fully compatible today.
> This one IMHO requires the least protocol changes (we just register a
> new diagnostic flag from an existing IANA FCFS registry), no changes
> needed to BGP or the RS implementation.

your draft requires changes to bfd.  ymbk is trying to avoid that.  a
hack to bird is something we can do ourselves, does not rely on the

but this is a call for adoption.  imiho, the wg should adopt both drafts
so we can sort it in the wg.