IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Thu, 16 March 2017 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
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 549E9129471 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 05:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 t08FD69nKRCg for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 05:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED8F4129452 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 05:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158AA615C0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:17:00 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0354604A9; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:16:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id C1AC2235FA; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:16:59 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:16:59 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170316121659.GM2367@Space.Net>
References: <20170315195050.GT12864@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ERn-uya3kB-FgXvfFjdK-hPmj-W-mv_T+TnbEAfkzR8Hfg@mail.gmail.com> <20170315212656.GD2367@Space.Net> <CA+b+ER=MnejDq5JNyNUHvf7mV7vkFehbeE65a_5cqFUsTEAzZA@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC-gAPbV0fdraHkkjhSo=Tc_YUFWMTOjx311a2XDJZMDmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERmxQkH75tbotT16hsZvqrvMVsX0G_zyY1ofA=kTZZzZ0w@mail.gmail.com> <20170316073753.GE2367@Space.Net> <CA+b+ER=92wsFQefzw=R6myCeSXfhsPiL3UgHiZ0mcMpsHHTwnQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170316100444.GJ2367@Space.Net> <CA+b+ERkUeX6zd=UmqT_yYyQQf6jbhg9maz76v4pPhkJZNwDyvg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KmzaXh/dgmvFxern"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERkUeX6zd=UmqT_yYyQQf6jbhg9maz76v4pPhkJZNwDyvg@mail.gmail.com>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wW2xAvhqvD75y4mO12pwvLe1Vro>
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: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:17:04 -0000

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 01:12:48PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> The fundamental question is should it be unidirectional (no session
> established of any sort between any to any) or we would like to keep the
> state associated with tracked object (BFD, symmetric or asymmetric
> echo/seamless etc ...).

Both would be vastly superiour to what we have now - "no lively detection".

As for "just ask your vendor about it" - yeah, been doing that, since
years, for stuff that should have been obvious.  But the standard reply
is "nobody else is asking for it" and "how many new boxes are you going
to buy?" - and since we're small, the latter argument is not convincing.

Having an IETF recommendation how to make indirect peerings more robust
by doing x, y or z and tieing that into BGP NH feasibility decision 
would defuse the "nobody else is asking for it" argument thoroughly :)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email