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

Gregory Mirsky <> Fri, 08 April 2016 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F0E12D1CB; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TsExwUkYxnUK; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E787012D1AB; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79fa6d0000057a9-ab-5707d83c4718
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 12.A7.22441.C38D7075; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 18:11:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:12:18 -0400
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: Manav Bhatia <>
Thread-Topic: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces
Thread-Index: AdGOvsdErg6+dntrQsqNMvPnP9/byACNIV+ZABt/KgAADGd7oAANpwaAAAYagaA=
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 16:12:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A40773eusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrFIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPt67NDfZwg+k/dSw+PbzEbHFg00FG iwtrhS0uT2pjt1h3+RSbxa2lK1ktlty+x27x+c82RgcOj52z7rJ7tBx5y+qxZMlPJo8vlz+z BbBEcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGV869vNVvDkMWPFo5+BDYxP7jJ2MXJySAiYSNw9t4kJwhaTuHBv PRuILSRwlFHi1LIkCHsZo8TJp5ogNpuAkcSLjT3sILaIgIZE6/sDzF2MXBzMAl+ZJFqaVrGA JIQFHCW+z7/GDFHkJPHhymJWCNtP4vWhfrAFLAIqEutf3wGL8wr4Ssyc/IYZYtlrJokXN4xA bE6BQImNN+aDHccIdNz3U2vAbGYBcYlbT+ZDHS0gsWTPeWYIW1Ti5eN/rBC2ksTH3/PZIerz JXrezWOC2CUocXLmE5YJjKKzkIyahaRsFpKyWYwcQHFNifW79CFKFCWmdD9kh7CB3p8zlx1Z fAEj+ypGjtLigpzcdCPDTYzAGD0mwea4g3Fvr+chRgEORiUe3gUC7OFCrIllxZW5hxglOJiV RHhZrgCFeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ83pH/gsTEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2CyTJxcEo1MHIe nV8nU2nStytj71vfd0tPajAUX4t2aK857PtTIEAu7KL5Hc1vvSwBE7SFshetdtj0ctH8jjW5 bPPb93OrN4VlmvyQ+X26drucCN9aS4ane48a1ehu08meyezCyq99t+ShRdgpxv0BDwsvTu3x 3esrFbpWzcOx+lx6yI8nHKVTY+e3vt8xR4mlOCPRUIu5qDgRAM+R1tHNAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 16:12:23 -0000

Hi Manav,
thank you for your consideration. The advantage of the MC-LAG is that there’s nothing changes for SE which still sees it LAG. If one to use different destination IP addresses on SE side, then that advantage will be lost. Our proposal is to preserve it.


From: Manav Bhatia []
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 8:05 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky
Cc: Mach Chen;;;;;; Alia Atlas (
Subject: Re: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces

Hi Greg,

Why cant different micro-BFD packets use the IP address of the MC-LAG end points? Ones going to router 1 will all carry the same unicast IP address. The ones going towards the other router will all carry some other IP address, which would be configured along with the MC-LAG configs.

In fact i would argue that the u-bfd packets going to different routers must use different IP addresses so that you can actually verify the data plane liveliness. Whats the point in sending a contrived IP address if the path that it takes is different from the other regular packets?

Cheers, Manav

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Gregory Mirsky <<>> wrote:
Hi Manav,
thank you for sharing insight view of discussions around RFC 7130, extremely helpful.
We believe, and Jeff is co-author of RFC 7130 too, that MC-LAG presents different case and the compromise that you’ve pointed too is justified. We will add more details on the potential differences between unicast and multicast fast paths in the next update.
We are open to the discussion and always welcome comments and alternative proposals.


From: Manav Bhatia [<>]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:39 PM
To: Mach Chen
Cc: Gregory Mirsky;<>;<>;<>;<>;<>; Alia Atlas (<>)
Subject: Re: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces

I believe it had to do with multicast datapath (especially link local) being different from the unicast datapath in most routers. Using link local multicast IP addresses may not necessarily guarantee Unicast IP reachability.

When writing 7130 we spent quite a bit of time ensuring that we dont carve out a special data path for the micro-BFD packets. Using link local would have made it a lot simpler.

And this is where i think the current proposal is flawed -- they use link local multicast to ensure IP unicast reachability which is incorrect.

Cheers, Manav

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Mach Chen <<>> wrote:

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 (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,


From: Rtg-bfd [<>] on behalf of Gregory Mirsky [<>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:16
Cc:<>;<>;<>; Alia Atlas (<>)
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<>

•         BFD on MC-LAG interfaces in IP/MPLS network<>

Greatly appreciate your reviews, comments, questions and suggestions.