Re: [mpls] Commenst on draft-akiya-bfd-intervals-03

Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 03 December 2012 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <aldrin.ietf@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 2F7FF21F87EE; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:53:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QAdJPb75mkRw; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:53:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-da0-f44.google.com (mail-da0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA8B21F8809; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:53:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z20so1349619dae.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:53:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=E/waLi5LQEi/SlyjGrZKCjimRHHrL4aod4PGJALJZhY=; b=CJPFZVZiL3eo0ZrD1SJ8ar5NE1T6hzJdB+b1EBSM46fkPzs99kAazw17j8/AcEuiAF 7QCQhBMTFgQ8iMhdz9DWgLe6M+TsfphB3z/jJqKzr99hP3bYN9g7Es8ym5l2DRwnEAXJ QmW0t96nOWN/WY3+PwbFtwy8BA47u8ybKyel9Byd9VqRBcev/GaGNk0SHGXXVKSm6pul 8XyJ+4V+j/N8oJwAwvyVnjxG5wF5Q4z/X4zzZVY0r3B02n4laQ3Wp8kI4JJ7oUtMEkH3 A9IALb4DA2zl+/qvgCHSAQ/SStGkPivS+0sBsF9C4C7dewIUd+xX+5kmwceBdKFOhrUJ r8jA==
Received: by 10.68.131.8 with SMTP id oi8mr32121644pbb.29.1354564412342; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.255.135] (107-1-141-74-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.1.141.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s7sm8538920paz.7.2012.12.03.11.53.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:53:31 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4F8976CD-6F1E-4E09-A3D6-12385AED612B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C8935EE66D53445A3D3982BD9BE546815573400@xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:53:47 -0800
Message-Id: <0C709968-C915-4CDA-98E5-361E67D4C923@gmail.com>
References: <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD38595@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <CC0AACF6-E747-4C99-9ABD-2AAEC437367F@sniff.de> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11201E91E@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <0C8935EE66D53445A3D3982BD9BE546815573400@xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com>
To: "Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)" <saalvare@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Commenst on draft-akiya-bfd-intervals-03
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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, 03 Dec 2012 19:53:35 -0000

I echo what Santiago had said in his email. Good to have an informational document and do not support the idea of standardizing the intervals.

-sam
On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:48 AM, "Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)" <saalvare@cisco.com> wrote:

> Applicability of BFD is pretty wide.  Mandating a set of intervals driven by Y.1731 doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.  Having lived through most of the BFD CC interop testing in the context of MPLS-TP, I can see some value in having an informational doc that would discuss interval configuration and interoperability.
> Cheers.
>  
> SA
> --
>  
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:33 AM
> To: Marc Binderberger; Shahram Davari
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Commenst on draft-akiya-bfd-intervals-03
>  
> Dear Shahram, Marc, et al.,
> I think that since BFD is the CC/CV part of MPLS-TP OAM both MPLS and PWE3 WGs have a stake in this discussion.
> I agree that compatibility with intervals standardized for Ether OAM (CFM/Y.1731) makes sense and might be helpful in interworking. But I'll note that even with the same transmission intervals failure detection in BFD-based CC/CV and Ether OAM is different time interval. Not by much but different nevertheless.
> And I agree with Marc that BFD-based CC is not only for packet or Ethernet transport applications. And more values of transmission interval are useful. That is why I believe that we should not standardize any values, at least not on Standard Track. At most it could be an informational document. Or, which will be great, have a survey among providers on what interval values being used (similar to great survey on PWE VCCV Control Channels).
>  
>     Regards,
>         Greg
>  
> From: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc Binderberger
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:08 AM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Commenst on draft-akiya-bfd-intervals-03
> 
> Hello Shahram,
>  
> thanks for re-vitalizing this discussion - must admit I was busy with too many other things.
>  
> I do agree with including the values you mention in the list of BFD supported values, although I question the large values.
>  
> On the other hand: we are not re-inventing Ethernet OAM and we _have_ BFD implementations out there. So we likely need to support other values as well to fit into the existing world.
>  
>  
> Regards, Marc
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On 2012-12-03, at 20:02 , Shahram Davari wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> I would like to propose standardizing the same intervals as Y.1731/802.1ag for BFD. This would make the total L2, L3 OAM more homogeneous. So the proposal is:
> 3.3ms, 10ms, 100ms, 1 sec, 10sec, 1 min, 10min.
> Thank you,
>  Shharam
>  
> --
> Marc Binderberger           <marc@sniff.de>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls