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

Robert Raszuk <> Thu, 16 March 2017 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9F31294F9 for <>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iRtwV7UbS88C for <>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8193A1294F7 for <>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r45so37599642qte.3 for <>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=6psMURfQxYOSyltHhbWISfiBSDwv8z8qZixPjM/3xN4=; b=rR9g/bROlzCpuBbIvB/hzab4/Pu8RP9itveZSSRvCYkKZ3UolzsD3MafzXkSFx6bSB aW7DyMlabLPXlNAp6mvw5/lrqeSC8kTnyrXJUKjTVsJq1F8T4/PICZNRcUX6vZtg9g6O HHZCGYSCwcRwtm9q4vkYroKlaNC2r209lLIE2BTBHhWQbRrroQQnIINd5nSwOYyK69on AMOBXe1k00u4KOTo76KIUtIxl1yush3S0LKwINzQUxJ+OrDvNycgHixe+ur6g8wBEn0K OeBcAMMc4kpEmFn/W2A9lzrVhYiVuqyV0nK8ZkgLAOxdsYmQgFGUzl5zA8pCHwAKIV5f JGpw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6psMURfQxYOSyltHhbWISfiBSDwv8z8qZixPjM/3xN4=; b=rwAlXuDON7sRKn941B+79V4DJSRnXYWYtSZ8GtKWdR51cBERl8xu/JNJ+J9+uw2FxV mm8lYYZ31f5NaqBZI3lWZvrYXwqWs96e+yJRY17scgQEGYSM9+PiamGImuK6AYyDFxEQ yAtWSkxJziTc+oGF9vd8wARhe6/ywyuxwwuNQ2Ws3Bh3EyMUVj+vR7CyAFyNJfc340sl QEUICKqzkCyHHDSBIIr7XK4b8s7e8igeNV+qSE44i9lzcf0+sbnHhM9c83YRLCIKZwXA 09X0AIPOyeXlk/9IxIPjdpTgCXWXClyqSH0iygIVNSQ4jDyBikxMc8EmmTROe8CECP0r g8zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1+Sqo4uVRqxrfpRdUk0ijrIjYwlhXlKEiBJ4h+vVh8YDvTp/9KD0ZcRBXu5u49VMSf7tfuSPwpLlK+Tw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w54mr9046595qtc.14.1489671882567; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170316121659.GM2367@Space.Net>
References: <> <> <20170315212656.GD2367@Space.Net> <> <> <> <20170316073753.GE2367@Space.Net> <> <20170316100444.GJ2367@Space.Net> <> <20170316121659.GM2367@Space.Net>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:44:41 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: vT0XESlk4-ngZFvoOIH4QuoeGjo
Message-ID: <>
To: Gert Doering <>
Cc: idr wg <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140f782647b64054ad9431c"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:44:45 -0000

> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 01:12:48PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > The fundamental question is should it be unidirectional (no session
> > established of any sort between any to any) or we would like to keep the
> > state associated with tracked object (BFD, symmetric or asymmetric
> > echo/seamless etc ...).
> Both would be vastly superiour to what we have now - "no lively detection".

​Ok .. let me take a stub on this with existing ​equipment after IETF. Will
report findings either offline or online. If for nothing else then to just
document what automation is already possible today in this space.

Having an IETF recommendation how to make indirect peerings more robust
> by doing x, y or z and tieing that into BGP NH feasibility decision
> would defuse the "nobody else is asking for it" argument thoroughly :)

​Well this to me sounds like a perfect GROW draft at most. ​

But let's face it ... for all major vendors IX based revenue does not even
fit to annual balance sheet .... so I am pretty sure any enhancement in
this space will be done only after good amount of convincing arguments even
if all IXPs sign an open letter "We need it".