[mpls] Update on BFD Directed in MPLS network

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 05 December 2017 14:16 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 BBF771294D2; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:16:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.738
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.738 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, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 VCsPTeEQAZOX; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:16:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x241.google.com (mail-lf0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::241]) (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 BED921294AC; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:16:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x241.google.com with SMTP id x20so482311lff.1; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 06:16:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=BiURLqrYb6Rerxu80RBafkDEffz9pa6031xM7emMlx8=; b=lNoDR+a4PfOSsf9HpuLgPvAvhPOfNZT2AeqzSR5H+2x2skzHYvm1OQEEnZGlbe/9hG qPuAnk2Z8XDeZrR3vgAYBzNpo2s9e5U2vqrEjItgEW1cupxZ6qceCbhAK7yQHKPgaK0y rdrBZots9z2n9lM/8hqv85+F0vKL/7DAyhoO1qHooYie2qiWUYYBSBphCJ/j5xiEY4rc gV3W4/Q8WA4sS5Ubr8JAVLt9gDNSkE85Hz7hNeXjEvxyplP4ZGirWZhSK0ESgkVMTzna 9k7iyr7XX4QzqiftYyk7CTuNlc2PxzMZn6xq0oDli5mUEfWJtOO9H3hZFcxdvA7Y/qF1 1q3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=BiURLqrYb6Rerxu80RBafkDEffz9pa6031xM7emMlx8=; b=GjDSeQyKVdBk/6DpWDqc9Lk3pZyAWzvwg4DNTi03jbysvARyq849fRrup4WG3tMEMp sxuHtmGLnKSXG1s5j37WHTt9frZkU8BJ+3XYLxcNgnjo17QiokhYaZqi1yvEM4/5BrXd P0LfERpL6E6NV2acIyHJzfkUe66JrJcZ1D3pjW7Db3wAnKlpT3olw+8obX/NH87TSh7f wPEJTwMRKEOxicOYllA3p8vc3GPKo5V4DvXIGPW/w+biWxUXtrJ1eNARtpHeZYPQiI6O 05W2h7QqI5ZPreUyG6FX4LT8Lr2StfFXkqlwgLih3UwXvWllIvm57LjbqiLfH3hFLLZJ GGiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4qY1zQhsUqGslFp299qV0KYSu2ZKnUnY8NyUHPLovQc/jYwcVV oIiQH1q8w28MmtMdUPcW87V0+w16H2SnbUJz3Js=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZIGSrIWfEvh0WavEMh8ObKT6hte1Y9n+cstoO4emL6d9PNTqOSpedcNi+oXs8xX7wayAGJnXM9uJDF+rxJ1Qc=
X-Received: by 10.25.81.133 with SMTP id g5mr8937852lfl.77.1512483358867; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 06:15:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.32.136 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:15:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:15:58 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWUfNpws29t55paq7hFvbkZKVOUYr2pxUYE-k+UMSc3xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "n.leymann@telekom.de" <N.Leymann@telekom.de>, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "cpignata@cisco.com" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1cdc005586a6055f98791b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/rrNaIQWoH7g89zArvelEwlDwQeo>
Subject: [mpls] Update on BFD Directed in MPLS network
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: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:16:05 -0000

Hi Nick, WG Chairs, Carlos, at. al,
we've reviewed Carlos presentation from the Prague meeting
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-mpls-sessa-08-2-comments-on-bfd-directed/>.
We greatly appreciate his contribution to improve the solution. Below is
the list of the resolutions to address technical comments:

   - FEC sub-TLVs. Carlos brought up question whether some sub-TLVs listed
   in the Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21 sub-registry are applicable:
      - Nil FEC - may be used;
      - PW FEC (FEC 128 and FEC 129) - though BFD over PW VCCV is addressed
      in RFC 5885, nothing precludes, in my opinion, use of PW by egress LSR to
      send BFD control packets;
      - multicast FECs - good point, I agree. To address we've added the
      following text:

   Multicast Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs, i.e. p2mp
   and mp2mp, SHOULD NOT be included into Reverse Path field.  If the
   egress LSR finds multicast Target Stack sub-TLV it MUST send echo
   reply with the received Reverse Path TLV, BFD Discriminator TLV and
   set the Return Code to "Inappropriate Target FEC Stack sub-TLV
   present" Section 3.3.


   - RFC 5884 does not specify Default
      - good point, agree. To address we've applied the following update:

OLD TEXT
If none sub-TLVs found in the BFD Reverse Path TLV, the
egress BFD peer MUST revert to using the default, i.e., over IP
network, reverse path.

NEW TEXT
If none sub-TLVs found in the BFD Reverse Path TLV, the
egress BFD peer MUST revert to using the local policy based
decision as described in Section 7 [RFC5884],
i.e., routed over IP network.

All the above mentioned updates are applied in the recently published
version -08. Appreciate your consideration to progress this document.

Regards,
Greg