Re: [mpls] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-07

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 17 July 2017 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED51E131771; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 02:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 WhX8hwiOGK2s; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 02:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54C5D12EB5F; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 02:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id a66so101296121qkb.0; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 02:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DvdsPYNNiuGSfOWUdTjJVp2OkKE01K3xDsaVIOqTfZo=; b=m1V5zjWaU0UGx0H9FK+1QQ3TPzKMvvuMZyPFzUf6azsY1i/ytMLfnDxSAwNebLtL3K ZBmJoKmUgG45oDwoBLloimLBf8hP/5iGAVdFFMoEpNohveESkn2dqP5llncn4oduWYmK ReB2GrZUVFI4lhqK1TZdLiauvflKe0PuNeSy2PNVpNjZhjeQMmHsNTzIRJh/4cCaR6vO wircRTcODCRIQWm0oiQJ7piY/zBmtVyf3XGcExrkQUChEU1CFAacYX5F1jO9SJILjrEj SQevo6Groo/op8kSZ8AXjznqw/4IEp/vTLyG25HhR6WvT4e7V373mY/GF7HOYtGPCtLm e+lA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DvdsPYNNiuGSfOWUdTjJVp2OkKE01K3xDsaVIOqTfZo=; b=DSgsNAOUKOc+3Ku/DxUtj5HBOlSlrikjC+l0i6BlzxIi/wu1OG2bjJHhEHY5bZ+Swc OQvIQzAoEfCnRIpeHrsKxLYRlxxDKTl/VFLZ+0afIDJ7d1GiTktl/stYlrbyXP1hzLpv s5xQytjls0AZ/WRfU4s1J23okQAumJdknzMux8hoRGO3MSqqoQ3FG4y6xzwzCQQm/3jI of1xQGGfXG44PuBbLuWYJcUoOxrjVtX6T5UhCiOFZtkYjB1QwOL720RE8yIgIzpEOc9T PgTrXZHxPUFNEcU598flRDkYA8HZ62yN1yvCw3WAYNnk7T3iCRE8g1961aqF0T0ZHnBz iVgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1136IdPPRy41lF+fFML+Ec5WAoK99+ocItarCLw1cOMYn2g0vHQQ jcBdPr7nXp7jzrwrb+/QocDsu2GLXw==
X-Received: by 10.55.78.85 with SMTP id c82mr24877891qkb.154.1500282362318; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 02:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.22.227 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 02:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170717090400.GC24942@pfrc.org>
References: <149978159930.12344.18347332855391607627@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmUrraRZeO3mwmurfaVwZva22J=3YNOTSN77utjhZc5Osw@mail.gmail.com> <20170717090400.GC24942@pfrc.org>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 02:06:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXZmb0tXx2Up=uyDAv2-i2sbPzHfSQ4K-ov6+K6WQy4og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed.all@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a7ac444d5a905547fb5b7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/D_eUkyb44fxCbHf_Uce7yHIVdYA>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-07
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 17 Jul 2017 09:06:05 -0000

Hi Jeff,
true, the RFC 5884 does not discuss handling of subsequent LSP Ping with
the same BFD Discriminator value in BFD Discriminator TLV. My reference to
RFC 5884 is to point that the default, implied path for the reverse
direction of the BFD session is over IP network and that how this draft
interprets BFD Reverse Path TLV with none- sub-TLVs included. And yes,
nodes that would support this draft MUST handle subsequent LSP Ping Echo
Request with BFD Discriminator and BFD Reverse TLVs.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>; wrote:

> Greg,
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 07:19:04PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > GIM>> I disagree with your conclusion that  the draft does not include
> > mechanism to switch the reverse path of the BFD session in Up state.
> > Firstly, the BFD Reverse Path TLV MAY be included in LSP Ping at any
> moment
> > in time, not only when bootstrapping BFD session. Secondly, the draft
> > states that if BFD Reverse Path TLV contains none sub-TLVs, then the
> > reverse path MUST be switched to IP network, which is the default
> behavior
> > per RFC 5884.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion.  As best I'm aware,
> implementations only bootstrap their sessions to start with lsping.  I
> don't
> recall discussion about procedures for updating existing sessions.  This
> may
> be a fault of my memory - would you clarify where you believe this is
> covered in 5884?
>
> -- Jeff
>