IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.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 ABD0012D566; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 i8VbxXjZ-Ll2; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EB0C12D0EF; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CGZ94898; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:46:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.73) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:46:54 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.171]) by SZXEMA414-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 01:46:46 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces
Thread-Index: AdGOvsdErg6+dntrQsqNMvPnP9/byACNIV+Z
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:46:46 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28C1F040F@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A3CCED@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A3CCED@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.212.196.126]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28C1F040FSZXEMA510MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.57069D0F.0030, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.171, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 8a58d68ce27ac53c3e71cd40464a12f0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Smfhir0KUd638gHQoZaQP5VZlNY>
Cc: "draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip@tools.ietf.org" <draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip@tools.ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd-chairs@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd-chairs@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:47:00 -0000

Hi Greg and all,



I just have quick review on the drafts. If my understanding is correct, the idea is to use multicast destination address other than unicast address when  sending BFD packets over LAG links. And actually this idea has been proposed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-bfd-interface-00 (the predecessor of RFC 7130). And at that time, the co-authors of RFC 7130 did discuss the idea of using multicast destination address, but for some reason I forget now(I may need to reiterate the discussions on the archive), the idea was abandoned, although I still think multicast destination address is a smart idea.



Best regards,

Mach

________________________________
From: Rtg-bfd [rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Gregory Mirsky [gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:16
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org
Cc: draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip@tools.ietf.org; rtg-bfd-chairs@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com)
Subject: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces

Dear All,
two new drafts, related to RFC 7130, were published before the meeting:

*         BFD on MC-LAG interfaces in IP network<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip-00>

*         BFD on MC-LAG interfaces in IP/MPLS network<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls-00>

Greatly appreciate your reviews, comments, questions and suggestions.

Regards,
        Greg

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email