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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 21 April 2017 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.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 1CE571294F4 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 em9ogXjPVF5i for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE3A0129415 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: idr@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v3L8v39o021497 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:57:03 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Message-ID: <58F9C95E.2050201@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:57:02 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.12 (Macintosh/20170323)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
CC: idr wg <idr@ietf.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> <20170418203108.GB9688@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ERnxjsjVbSowzBgBhrCtY5ehhn+SM+uvF3G071No-3gk6Q@mail.gmail.com> <58F89C07.8080900@foobar.org> <CA+b+ERnZvPM0jyuMEx1cGTHS70Rw+h+Ze0KoM7cbCkvVMAKMTw@mail.gmail.com> <58F93B30.2010909@foobar.org> <CA+b+ER=QLQy8hTrw4Dvs7Au5uhQd=wUxdFWQqQx06Kc61n5BLg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=QLQy8hTrw4Dvs7Au5uhQd=wUxdFWQqQx06Kc61n5BLg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rVsLzFh_EBFU269x2KyPolEHjO4>
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: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:57:09 -0000

Robert Raszuk wrote:
> But my point is that we can come up with single solution to both
> problems which would work in a hardware accelerated way equally well.

Then I suggest you author documents to:

- add a new icmp type to define reachability / mtu detection / etc mechanism
- replicate whatever bits of BFD you want to port over
- get widespread vendor support

Once you've done all this, and not before, then please feel free to
write an update to draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd rfc to include your new
reachability mechanism.

Or you could update bfd to support mtu detection.

> I
> am also observing that MTU issue is applicable to long distance
> stretched IXes which as I am sure you are aware is a real IX service
> offering by number of IX operators today. 

IXP core MTU monitoring is orthogonal to draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd.  IXP
edge MTU monitoring is the responsibility of the ixp edge participant.

If you are operating a private infrastructure in your company which
amalgamates these roles and where you have a need to monitor for MTU
changes, then this is a private problem which can be easily solved using
any one of a plethora of off-the-shelf tools and there is no reason
whatsoever for the ietf to standardise a new protocol to solve this
corner case.

I'm not going further down this rat-hole because it has nothing to with
this draft.

Nick