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

Binny Jeshan <binnyjeshan@gmail.com> Sun, 16 December 2012 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <binnyjeshan@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 063DD21F8715; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:44:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.714
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, 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 E+dCXX1FkPZ2; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com (mail-qa0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E011E21F84EB; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z4so1818379qan.10 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:44:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aSX4HIkwJMuIdAFsuDHgNX+SykTHKvZR1DE79DYCFfc=; b=h+xDDOYtQ/GB2G1C4dHHQ9XQAwMA6Z1mCzfoFF/DaFEYh+PzTRJFoFBXKvmcWZ3YW9 Ihz+VmiLttJLidumSBxNd7FaoE6es1NZH+y6AzxJ64/RO3WxsM8sA/odXUsUC/SKyNvC J1o0RWYEITZ3EsB172EKYMZGhSdQssV86ows4toIRf9tSM9yxXljFxoc+spQNU7oaiKN gTxdTizTMwX035ZqwebL3VdJQKdh21JD8guOqbVzEjHaWQD7TnbWeIic8F+ix+NsmHh7 +YvaDW8gjlahJpRoI64PnqbefungSF/BDaYJXpLIXTX3qIgiAH605Gc6LGqk3We38No4 vMhA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.195.211 with SMTP id ed19mr1076553qcb.78.1355669075006; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:44:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.106.169 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:44:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8C07C743-5276-429E-AC05-E1577A9EE856@sniff.de>
References: <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD38595@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <CC0AACF6-E747-4C99-9ABD-2AAEC437367F@sniff.de> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11201E91E@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <0C8935EE66D53445A3D3982BD9BE546815573400@xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com> <0C709968-C915-4CDA-98E5-361E67D4C923@gmail.com> <8C07C743-5276-429E-AC05-E1577A9EE856@sniff.de>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:14:34 +0530
Message-ID: <CAHcPYOz0SZZGFyK_SoVz-QyQ7qxA9UarzTebdi_Y-e952PwcjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Binny Jeshan <binnyjeshan@gmail.com>
To: Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="005045016f07a6163604d0f94dd5"
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, "Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)" <saalvare@cisco.com>, pwe3@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: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:44:43 -0000

Hello,

Looks like i missed this discussion.

I second Sam to his point - "Good to have an informational document and do
not support the idea of standardizing the intervals"

And IMHO, i think BFD as it currently supports wide range of adjustable
timer intervals has given good flexibility for troubleshooting faults like
packet drops in high bandwidth links.

Regards,
Binny.
Aricent Group - India.

On 5 December 2012 05:19, Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de> wrote:

> Hello Sam, Santiago, Gregory, Sharam et al.,
>
> thanks for the feedback. Input from the MPLS and PWE3 list is welcome
> regarding important timer values for which we would like to have a common
> support.
>
> Few comments from my side:
>
> I can live with an informal document, at least with respect to the
> "standard intervals". The document shall help to improve interoperability
> and even an informal document can become de-facto standard when customers
> request it ;-)
>
> There is the aspect of the multiple poll/final sequences to find the next
> common interval. I think it is covered by RFC5880 but this statement may
> require more discussion on the BFD list. If not covered then we would need
> a standard, I think.
>
> We will not make any reference to Y.1731 in the text but where intervals
> we proposed are close to Y.1731 intervals I'm fine to adjust to Y.1731
> values, which may make a combined "OAM hardware" simpler/cheaper.
>
>
> We list the following values in the draft -03 version
>
>    o  3.3msec: required by MPLS-TP
>
>    o  10msec and 20msec: both values allow to detect faster than 50msec,
>       when used with a multiplier of 2 or 3 (for 10msec).  A compromise
>       could be a single interval of 15msec.
>
>    o  50msec: this seems an interval often supported by software
>       implementations, so the assumption here is that for convenience
>       this value should be supported.
>
>    o  300msec: this would support large scale of 3 x 300msec setups used
>       by customers to have a detection time slightly below 1sec for VoIP
>       setups.
>
>    o  1sec: as mentioned in RFC5880
>
>
> We also discussed some time ago that the 300msec could be replaced by
> 100msec intervals but this still needs more discussion. And the lower
> interval range 10-50msec, especially 10-20msec, I personally tend to have
> more "standard values" than less, providing more common intervals between
> hardware based BFD and software based BFD; it is at least my impression
> that in this range most software-based implementations have their lower
> limit and the more common intervals the easier we can support 50-60msec
> detect+restore even with software-based BFD (10msec may just push the
> limit, 100msec is obviously too slow).
>
>
> This is vague beside the 3.3msec and 1sec, so again if good reasons exist
> for specific values from the MPLS, MPLS-TP and PWE3 standards or
> applications: input is very welcome!
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Marc
>
>
>
>
> On 2012-12-03, at 20:53 , Sam Aldrin wrote:
>
> 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<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
>
>
>
> --
> Marc Binderberger           <marc@sniff.de>
>
>