Re: [Isis-wg] New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-sbfd-discriminator-00.txt

["Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for prompt response Greg.

Will incorporate the text in draft-ietf-...-01.

-Nobo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:22 PM
> To: Nobo Akiya (nobo); Mach Chen; Hannes Gredler
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-sbfd-
> discriminator-00.txt
> 
> Hi Nobo,
> I like it.
> 
> 	Regards,
> 		Greg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nobo Akiya (nobo) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 6:18 PM
> To: Gregory Mirsky; Mach Chen; Hannes Gredler
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-sbfd-
> discriminator-00.txt
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> That's true, the whole paragraph in the section 7 of S-BFD base document is
> just describing some possible implementation techniques. How about we
> change the paragraph:
> 
> [old]
>    Note that incoming BFD control packets destined to BFD target
>    identifier types may be IPv4, IPv6 or MPLS based.  For those BFD
>    target identifier types, implementations MAY either allow the same
>    reflector BFD session to handle all incoming BFD control packets in
>    address family agnostic fashion, or setup multiple reflector BFD
>    sessions to handle incoming BFD control packets with different
>    address families.  This policy is again a local matter, and is
>    outside the scope of this document.
> 
> [new]
>    Note that incoming BFD control packets destined to BFD target
>    identifier types may be IPv4, IPv6 or MPLS based.  How such packets
>    reach an appropriate reflector BFD session is a local matter, and is
>    outside the scope of this document.
> 
> -Nobo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 6:46 PM
> > To: Nobo Akiya (nobo); Mach Chen; Hannes Gredler
> > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] New Version Notification for
> > draft-ginsberg-isis-sbfd- discriminator-00.txt
> >
> > Dear All,
> > according to Section 7 of the S-BFD Base document differentiation
> > among address families by S-BFD is optional and mention in connection
> > to separate S-BFD reflectors to act as per-AF reflectors. Perhaps I've
> > missed that part of S-BFD Base discussion but I don't see the benefit of
> supporting such mode.
> > BFD control packets been AF-agnostic since RFC 5880 and I think that
> > S-BFD should maintain that approach.
> >
> > I agree with Mach that discriminators in S-BFD, as well as in BFD, are
> > and must remain AF blind.
> >
> > 	Regards,
> > 		Greg
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Nobo
> > Akiya
> > (nobo)
> > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:07 AM
> > To: Mach Chen; Hannes Gredler
> > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] New Version Notification for
> > draft-ginsberg-isis-sbfd- discriminator-00.txt
> >
> > Hi Mach, Hannes, et al,
> >
> > > IMHO, the capability issue should not be a S-BFD specific issue,
> > > even not BFD specified issue. It is actually a forwarding capability
> > > issue, it is about whether the target node can process IPv4, IPv6,
> > > MPLS, SR encapsulated BFD packets.
> >
> > I agree Mach, mostly :)
> >
> > I can also see one arguing that forwarding supporting X does not
> > always mean S-BFD is supported on X. If we want to address this, then
> > it is an S-BFD specific issue, and we _may_ want to solve this via
> > introducing S-BFD capability advertisements.
> >
> > With that said, S-BFD discriminator advertisement is one area which
> > the capability problem can be solved, but not necessary a problem that
> > has to be solved with S-BFD discriminator advertisement. Rather I
> > don't think the two should be bundled together.
> >
> > Let us continue the capability discussion separate from the
> > discriminator advertisements?
> >
> > -Nobo
> >