Re: [karp] BFD Authentication costs

"Russ White" <russw@riw.us> Wed, 31 July 2013 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <russw@riw.us>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C273A21F9DF3 for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.362
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.237, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QSrWE0Ge33IG for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from da31.namelessnet.net (da31.namelessnet.net [74.124.205.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A85211E817B for <karp@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpe-098-122-147-095.nc.res.rr.com ([98.122.147.95] helo=USCSWHITER10L1C) by da31.namelessnet.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <russw@riw.us>) id 1V4Vfc-0005SD-J6; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:38:24 -0700
From: "Russ White" <russw@riw.us>
To: "'Bhatia, Manav \(Manav\)'" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, <karp@ietf.org>
References: <51F8F576.8020205@joelhalpern.com> <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E462595@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E462595@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:38:23 -0400
Message-ID: <00a501ce8dea$d8dc4120$8a94c360$@riw.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQHl6WXMPZGqw8rqm5Qb/ycyBPGa2gKGuW0TmTvMyZA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Seems clean. You should still use an Antivirus Scanner
Subject: Re: [karp] BFD Authentication costs
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:39:39 -0000

> > In practice, on most devices, when BFD is run at low intervals it is
> > done directly on the line card.  Doesn't this mean that in most
> > topologies the number of sessions is roughly the same as the number of
> > physical ports on the device?
> 
> Not necessarily. Our customers use vlan tagged IP Interfaces where the #
of
> sessions on a physical port can be greater than 1 (and it usually is).

I would say this is pretty normal --ie, customers running multiple logical
interfaces is more common than the one-to-one situation, in my experience.

Russ