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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 18 April 2017 20:24 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 C63C01293D9 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 zydz9LnBO5AG for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A096A127876 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 63E2C1E332; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:31:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:31:08 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170418203108.GB9688@pfrc.org>
References: <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> <20170314204212.GD12864@pfrc.org> <815723FC-B143-4410-B0FF-D9FB4F827862@cisco.com> <20170314213607.GH12864@pfrc.org> <579D00D9-D80F-4625-BF16-0D5112C2FA98@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERkXLg3O0hEAtokUDn4ndjixyuT4dpv9LfLVPmfsb1akug@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERkXLg3O0hEAtokUDn4ndjixyuT4dpv9LfLVPmfsb1akug@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Q8NSzOP4jTL82RW4kINQSl9BveY>
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, 18 Apr 2017 20:24:02 -0000

Robert,

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 10:34:49PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> I think that everyone fully agrees that in order to consider prefix as
> valid the next hop to it should be reachable.
> 
> The only open question is how to detect it when you have no direct protocol
> adj. established.
> 
> Jeff seems stuck with BFD .. but there is number of folks who see S-BFD as
> much better fit to the problem.

Since you brought it up to the main mailing list, who are the other folks
besides yourself that thinks S-BFD is a better fit?

You're going to make me write that largeish e-mail that doesn't help the
discussion much about why S-BFD is not a good fit, aren't you?

> Yet UDP echo in some implementations
> already does it today.

As noted previously, the draft does permit for alternate means beyond BFD.
However, we have to pick one.  Standardizing ping is likely a bad idea. :-)


-- Jeff