IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 04 July 2017 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@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 E48FE1327AB for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 11:46:37 -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 UEg0fBohohP0 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 11:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC931316DD for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 11:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F5E11E333; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:55:50 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170704180904.imv4rk7zzkckfxbo@Vurt.local>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 14:46:35 -0400
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0138E6D2-9C5C-4C89-A2CE-C951616EE97F@pfrc.org>
References: <149909741417.22786.4679459342587499122@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170703160800.x6wcym2ma6jceqv7@Vurt.local> <FBD5248C-33C6-436C-8B01-FAE2658B0768@juniper.net> <20170703163846.224w6lxvbt4txqub@Vurt.local> <m2wp7pz3ld.wl-randy@psg.com> <CACWOCC-=B-08FG6No0muVdOwXWdtm2JkuiM1MFYFY=6B4m9MSw@mail.gmail.com> <20170704175827.GP2289@pfrc.org> <20170704180904.imv4rk7zzkckfxbo@Vurt.local>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/q3f5IuyZswQDK2E6bqIY6ugnuW8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.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, 04 Jul 2017 18:46:38 -0000

> On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 01:58:27PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> 
>> I must admit to being boggled at expecting IXP switch fabric endpoints
>> being expected to sniff on a chatty protocol to derive state.  Why do
>> you think this makes sense?
> 
> Because some IXPs already use 'snooping' style methods, this is not my
> own idea. For instance VIX offers insight into who peers with who at
> https://www.vix.at/vix_peeringmatrix_detail_ipv6.html (page may take up
> to 60 seconds to load) based on a form of snooping, some other IXPs
> snoop ('intercept') ARP traffic to prevent unnecessary chatter. This
> isn't new.

Traffic matrixing is pretty standard.
ARP filtering with consequent static ARP is pretty common.
IGMP snooping usually relies on first hop upstream device to implement and it's a very quiet and boring protocol.

BFD is chatty.  I don't think it's the same problem space at all.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email