Return-Path: 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 E076012DBD7; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:48:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 6ren1AXIExCF; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (usplmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77E8D12DDE5; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:48:43 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79886d000002334-82-570d74c7d730 Received: from EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.93]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 50.CE.09012.7C47D075; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:20:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.93]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:48:42 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: Jeffrey Haas , Greg Mirsky Thread-Topic: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces Thread-Index: AdGOvsdErg6+dntrQsqNMvPnP9/byACNIV+ZABt/KgAADGd7oAANpwaAAAYagaD//+aOgIAAJa0AgASgtgD//lcisA== Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:48:40 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A43F14@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A3CCED@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A40584@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A40773@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <20160411172332.GA22064@pfrc.org> In-Reply-To: <20160411172332.GA22064@pfrc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A43F14eusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrBIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPrO7xEt5wg+kzjSw+PbzEbHFg00FG i2/TnrJa7D/4ltVi3eVTbBa3lq5ktbi2opXdYsnte+wWn/9sY3Tg9JjyeyOrx85Zd9k9liz5 yeRxuXcrq8eXy5/ZAlijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDK2NixiKzhkWbH87wSmBsazhl2MnBwSAiYS L59OZoWwxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcJRRYn9DAwuEs5xR4sPbk2BVbAJGEi829rCD2CICbhK3puxl BiliFmhiltg3/xgLSEJYwFHi+/xrzBBFThIfrixmhbCzJA4+XQVmswioSlyfthqsnlfAV+L+ /EVQ2w6wSNy8vYoJJMEpoCcx5f1+NhCbEei+76fWgMWZBcQlbj2ZzwRxt4DEkj3nmSFsUYmX j/9B/aMkMWnpOVaI+nyJh29us0EsE5Q4OfMJywRG0VlIRs1CUjYLSRlEXEdiwe5PbBC2tsSy ha+ZYewzBx4zIYsvYGRfxchRWlyQk5tuZLCJERi/xyTYdHcw3p/ueYhRgINRiYd3QRhPuBBr YllxZe4hRgkOZiUR3pwK3nAh3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJDjNIcLErivI3B/8KEBNITS1KzU1ML UotgskwcnFINjHrPb4WnHEv+tMvKfnvWqwVPpI4uWBk4tdfo2D/Jqb+/fWg5uCZayXGP6uND O20rFl59HiXL/sbOM81MyYdt6sqHNx62nrpyyUnEU6cgTy/1cPTRdx9Td+1beaVwbrOTgcL0 Vo9ny/Xe8mmYJr0/euhd6QHF6yqqR2u8UjTstpdfDI4Ifr+I/ZYSS3FGoqEWc1FxIgADdEGL 2wIAAA== Archived-At: Cc: "draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip@tools.ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" , "Reshad Rahman \(rrahman\)" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd-chairs@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [mpls] Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org 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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:48:46 -0000 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A43F14eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jeff, thank you for adding more details to the discussions before RFC 7130. We ha= ve submitted another draft that proposes to use MPLS encapsulation of BFD c= ontrol packets over MC-LAG interfaces. Would greatly appreciate reviews, qu= estions and comments on draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls. Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:24 AM To: Greg Mirsky Cc: Reshad Rahman (rrahman); draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip@tools.ietf.or= g; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com); rtg= -bfd@ietf.org; rtg-bfd-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces Greg, This is more of a general comment on discussions from the development from = RFC 7130 than any specific comment on your draft. On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:43:18AM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote: > yes, link local multicast may be used in MC-LAG scenario. The draft > states that it MAY be used while the broadcast has SHOULD normative. > But we are all open to the discussion. During our discussions across multiple vendors, including some hardware ven= dors, it was determined that attempts to exercise the layer 3 mechanisms wo= uld vary significantly across implementations depending on how packets were= encapsulated. Multicast in particular provided some problematic issues fo= r us beyond the initial bootstrapping phase of LAG for BFD wherein we might= not have ARP completed. My recommendation is to proceed with your drafts with similar caution. Try= to stay as true to pure IP as possible to best insure the L3 data paths ar= e exercised across implementations from various vendors. -- Jeff (speaking as an individual contributor) --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A43F14eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Jeff,

thank you for adding more details to the discussi= ons before RFC 7130. We have submitted another draft that proposes to use M= PLS encapsulation of BFD control packets over MC-LAG interfaces. Would grea= tly appreciate reviews, questions and comments on draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls.

 

        &= nbsp;       Regards,

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           Greg

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:24 AM
To: Greg Mirsky
Cc: Reshad Rahman (rrahman); draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip@tools.ietf.or= g; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com); rtg= -bfd@ietf.org; rtg-bfd-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Two new drafts on (micro-)BFD over MC-LAG interfaces

 

Greg,

 

This is more of a general comment on discussions = from the development from RFC 7130 than any specific comment on your draft.=  

 

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:43:18AM -0700, Greg Mi= rsky wrote:

> yes, link local multicast may be used in MC-= LAG scenario. The draft

> states that it MAY be used while the broadca= st has SHOULD normative.

> But we are all open to the discussion.<= /o:p>

 

During our discussions across multiple vendors, i= ncluding some hardware vendors, it was determined that attempts to exercise= the layer 3 mechanisms would vary significantly across implementations dep= ending on how packets were encapsulated.  Multicast in particular provided some problematic issues for us beyond the= initial bootstrapping phase of LAG for BFD wherein we might not have ARP c= ompleted. 

 

My recommendation is to proceed with your drafts = with similar caution.  Try to stay as true to pure IP as possible to b= est insure the L3 data paths are exercised across implementations from vari= ous vendors.

 

-- Jeff (speaking as an individual contributor)

--_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221A43F14eusaamb103erics_--