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

"Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)" <saalvare@cisco.com> Mon, 03 December 2012 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <saalvare@cisco.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 95A7721F8811; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:48:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 d03X4vcIk8T3; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:48:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCB421F880B; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:48:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14069; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1354564085; x=1355773685; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=QffO5VomvQjpkO2DZYnJQIU3Je5ohYF7Q9Qm/rqcySE=; b=j0lYGy1HyScNZWVrC7YYJbdu32tdygUCNpILRhYG99KTvln6zqZ5QVeL OkpFd6vla1L1nJ5By9dZprNKsmm+cpDsXGyWFFT7HhlJRqLSSLkqY7eBD iLzB5jw37wJIqJQPTrjb65CPec182WY53F5bLJogNiONRBCwBd9h/BtZs I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAAgBvVCtJXG//2dsb2JhbABEgkm8HBZzgh4BAQEEGBVMEAIBCBEEAQELHQcyFAkIAQEEAQ0FCIgIvk2MQINgYQOmSIJygiE
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6915"; a="148852149"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2012 19:48:03 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qB3Jm3sC010470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 19:48:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.4.123]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:48:03 -0600
From: "Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)" <saalvare@cisco.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de>, Shahram Davari <davari@broadcom.com>
Thread-Topic: Commenst on draft-akiya-bfd-intervals-03
Thread-Index: Ac3Rh3XM5+9UcfrcQ2S8rX469rwQOQAAVMZQAAqkOwAAChtFQAATgFsg
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:48:02 +0000
Message-ID: <0C8935EE66D53445A3D3982BD9BE546815573400@xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com>
References: <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD38595@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <CC0AACF6-E747-4C99-9ABD-2AAEC437367F@sniff.de> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11201E91E@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11201E91E@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [128.107.163.53]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0C8935EE66D53445A3D3982BD9BE546815573400xmbalnx09ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)" <saalvare@cisco.com>
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 19:48:11 -0000

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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:marc@sniff.de>>