Re: [karp] BFD Authentication costs
"Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 11:36 UTC
Return-Path: <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 0B28911E80DE for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 Vmfn17Pg67Rx for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C7B21F9F5C for <karp@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-63.lucent.com [135.5.2.63]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r6VBagXj008688 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:36:42 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.48]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r6VBafXC020861 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:36:41 -0400
Received: from SG70YWXCHHUB03.zap.alcatel-lucent.com (135.253.2.37) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:36:41 -0400
Received: from SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.5.176]) by SG70YWXCHHUB03.zap.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.253.2.37]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:36:39 +0800
From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "karp@ietf.org" <karp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [karp] BFD Authentication costs
Thread-Index: AQHOjeF8bkSP2qWbZkyOgCSBtcO5kpl+p/oQ
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:36:38 +0000
Message-ID: <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E462595@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <51F8F576.8020205@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <51F8F576.8020205@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.253.19.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
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 11:36:59 -0000
Hi Joel, > 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). Cheers, Manav
- [karp] BFD Authentication costs Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [karp] BFD Authentication costs Bhatia, Manav (Manav)
- Re: [karp] BFD Authentication costs Russ White
- Re: [karp] BFD Authentication costs Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [karp] BFD Authentication costs Joel M. Halpern