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

Nick Hilliard <> Fri, 21 April 2017 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE571294F4 for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id em9ogXjPVF5i for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE3A0129415 for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 01:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crumpet.local ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (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
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:57:02 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.12 (Macintosh/20170323)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Raszuk <>
CC: idr wg <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 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.