IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] BFD Packet Flow

RAKESH GUPTA <gupta_rakesh62@yahoo.co.in> Mon, 16 August 2010 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <gupta_rakesh62@yahoo.co.in>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B87B33A63C9 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.084
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.339, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u4fY-2dWyoba for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web94008.mail.in2.yahoo.com (web94008.mail.in2.yahoo.com [203.104.16.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C34533A67F1 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13203 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Aug 2010 15:39:41 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.in; s=s1024; t=1281973181; bh=uDEbkjigAeKZ5S8OSN/oK03bH2n3P/Gi3DE5atDXWRA=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SJ1g1pKrnfbsO3777xCN5Bfg97MrCJcvpqq6fG9ccD7qzdxhBvkcUt7pONkVciWFey8qGxxCcbOf54MKVyfN2INb6c3AdiN6UI7PeLSn5PCrd0enrplVTp1OZazLYefQlKDODrKABZ+4tvQZzbdzHE6QfAUVPDutcf0DyCynB0A=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.in; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Z/zUMx8WSbNR5DW1HAysZwRPxHSodjdBMVT7p4UZIAxibU4Hd7jkJQCV10HqVltPXD0/2RDEsZWy2kXSAT74vq/W9fHyIvfl9s6ffVVTeOr17sJz2qLLMWv5FRClJ944taPgWZn2mAUMamagLZNWckzW5CWarmNUcWtrHqCkUFI=;
Message-ID: <770882.13186.qm@web94008.mail.in2.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: klKIURQVM1kSrFzuvnw_gCt797zgPLvDI.FLX7OYn6EoowZ NXd7CcGfwtvGlQf6BBK2.WgIsqykQu.BbkeGZSYvRexzfmjhcbQM4BMzuDjQ KS1AyiOQk6rq4GU8aAH1qi34UCEvhevw2omNoPkzNT32xMSY9GpXjnmiWfyX NC92oIfWFHMDqr6f5fDadIqGFlIXbt39qUMEMuyy.ZoF1OcxgK8WLNZyhrgu C8lSWsba4wRj43tlEuvHpfakjVEC9xESX.oZ7zhhAHYaMYGkF
Received: from [59.180.153.81] by web94008.mail.in2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:09:41 IST
X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/11.3.2 YahooMailWebService/0.8.105.279950
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:09:41 +0530
From: RAKESH GUPTA <gupta_rakesh62@yahoo.co.in>
To: Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <8F235FED-E707-48FE-9713-4AEB4746241C@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1975122636-1281973181=:13186"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:20:32 -0700
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org WG" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] BFD Packet Flow
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:39:11 -0000

Thanks Dave.

--- On Sat, 14/8/10, Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net> wrote:

From: Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [mpls] BFD Packet Flow
To: "RAKESH GUPTA" <gupta_rakesh62@yahoo.co.in>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org WG" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Date: Saturday, 14 August, 2010, 3:09 AM

I suppose the source of confusion might be RFC 5884's choice of verbiage:
   On receipt of the LSP Ping Echo request message, the egress LSR MUST
   send a BFD Control packet to the ingress LSR...
This might give the impression that LSP Ping is just transmitting BFD control packets willy-nilly without any BFD context.  But it also says:
   A BFD session is bootstrapped using LSP Ping.
and
   A BFD session may be established for a FEC associated with an MPLS LSP.  
This seems unambiguous that a BFD session is being established, and the procedure for doing so is spelled out clearly in RFC 5880.  I believe the following to be unambiguous:
   State (Sta)

      Set to the value indicated by bfd.SessionState.

and
   bfd.SessionState

      ...This variable MUST be initialized to Down.

One might be tempted to start in Init state in order to save one packet during session establishment, but in doing so one would be breaking the semantics of the protocol, in particular the three-way handshake through session failure.
--Dave

On Aug 12, 2010, at 4:20 AM, RAKESH GUPTA wrote:
hi,

I have query regarding BFD packet flow when LSP Ping is used for bootstrapping. 

As per my understanding from the RFC 5880 and RFC 5884 when LSP Ping is used for bootstrapping the remote end MUST reply with BFD control in response to the LSPPing.

The specification does not clearly specify about the Stat parameter value that should be returned in the response of LSPPing. Should it have the value Init or Down? Or it might be possible to return no stat information.

Can someone please share the exact packet flow that happens during BFD session set up with LSPPing in Bootstrap till the session comes into UP state?

thanks a lot in advance for ur help,
rakesh


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status