IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] [Lsvr] Why L2 liveness needed for BGP-SPF

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sun, 22 July 2018 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 42AAE126F72; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 08:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 SnBkdpKNV_Qc; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 08:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 05F46129C6A; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 08:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1fhGV9-0004lq-GH; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 15:42:27 +0000
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 08:42:26 -0700
Message-ID: <m2k1pne0pp.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>, idr@ietf.org, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, "Lsvr@ietf.org" <Lsvr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXvE2gJVuXBB31jj8+CDRB8zBq+97fhhgzpJbNAVDbmZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fb35cb79-881d-4ca2-8a0b-738886d28b8f.xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com> <bd5ff63067a8446ca8e2267c891933ad@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <m2muujec6q.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAJc3aaNCM0XCDEVmkKxxvKxXdMdKsB+YDWLM3qGo83x271D-ow@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXvE2gJVuXBB31jj8+CDRB8zBq+97fhhgzpJbNAVDbmZg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/J84n22jLVUnz4bt2P2yU3BP8cyY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Lsvr] Why L2 liveness needed for BGP-SPF
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 15:42:36 -0000

> hope an easy question you'll help me with. Liveness as path continuity
> check or as connectivity verification.

layer 2 link liveness.  we have other tools above layer 2; e.g. bfd.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email