Return-Path: <jerduran@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D352A1A1B80
 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 6F6IacM_b3X9 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46B301A1B74
 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;
 d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1263; q=dns/txt; s=iport;
 t=1426453014; x=1427662614;
 h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id:
 content-transfer-encoding:mime-version;
 bh=SAnNdjzWqz6EMuR7zt6XklS3aNP9hjPaBeLMAkTfAoU=;
 b=BOWWhbnykc5ulDCbq6pSb94C2OWSirIdg8ToJZYRCDUWB17tHzZrNoFQ
 1R64GROQVvxoOnEWkKT6MDNz58jO7jYucFJY1f4XaKf6u8uuyA8hg+DiZ
 oaM8S69Tjj37HAyI2YCpUyr/rwVSWvlfr/B10ddXSjXCBAZ+Fn8nFqGEG 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BRBQCqaeJU/5NdJa1bgwZSWgTCPIVxgRpDAQEBAQEBfIQTHVcFEgGBACcEDiCIEg3OKAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEj3mDHYEUBY84g1eFYJMNIoNubwGBQ38BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,405,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="403599161"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147])
 by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Mar 2015 20:56:53 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75])
 by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2FKurb1018853
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL);
 Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:56:53 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.225]) by
 xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 15
 Mar 2015 15:56:53 -0500
From: "Jerome Durand (jerduran)" <jerduran@cisco.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: 2 Week WG Adoption call for draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00 (3/2/2015
 to 3/16/2015)
Thread-Index: AQHQX2KQloKaLrJPrEOg21NQaaXf0w==
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:56:52 +0000
Message-ID: <7BDA4F61-AF6C-4B56-AFC8-D5CC2B9E7A96@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.61.86.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <2697643AA39EEC4285C81B89DEDEBE8D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jxaBQfetFfqkNropP3bAg5oaxzY>
Cc: David Freedman <david.freedman@uk.clara.net>
Subject: [Idr] 2 Week WG Adoption call for draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00
 (3/2/2015 to 3/16/2015)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 15 Mar 2015 20:56:56 -0000

Dear all,

I think draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00.txt addresses real issues that need to be =
solved somehow and I=92m happy to see work conducted on the topic.

However the approach chosen implies that IXP members rely on a mechanism to=
 be implemented on the route-server, while we believe a direct approach cou=
ld be simpler and quicker to implement, and much more reliable. David Freed=
man and I have worked on finding a solution for quite some time now and we =
are proposing an approach based on BFD, which can be found here:

https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jdurand-auto-bfd-00.txt

The Idea is simple and it only requires a basic BFD capability between IXP =
members. Based on the BFD session state of the learnt BGP next-hop, routes =
can be accepted and BFD backed by a member, the decision remains local.

While we elaborated this document we discovered that there are real challen=
ges in the BFD implementation, for example when there is asymmetric routing=
. This is documented in our draft. I believe on the other hand that there i=
s a lack of this information in draft-ymbk-idr-rs-bfd-00 at this stage. we =
would like to see more information on that in future versions.

Thank you,

Jerome Durand
and=20
David Freedman=

