Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C66612001A for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 19:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=dg6Dhg0F; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=fLuu3Wy+
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 E8FhuQIUpf1B for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 19:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACE5212000F for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 19:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8393; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1568343365; x=1569552965; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=RkwhIxxhDgzFCJd06vKAEHANbYSE+PEBt6k4gGHbKSM=; b=dg6Dhg0FQhDo7a5KXThRmJ4M7nSCT2N8avMwp2s+U85YkUkRd8tA5v03 FLg/TH6QzPqd17OV2jUaYjI44thkFq87u1turjZmPvxBOF2XJmwm+C/HO uAeoxk7sN1FIJNY3SGtXqCzPOE9YrRfZjTdO8CMRtP96Ur0tw5kScYMYh s=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A3kB/jxzG7PTywFbXCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9p?= =?us-ascii?q?sgjfdUf7+++4j5YhWN/u1j2VnOW4iTq+lJjebbqejBYSQB+t7A1RJKa5lQT1?= =?us-ascii?q?kAgMQSkRYnBZuOEUz0Kvf2ZgQxHd9JUxlu+HToeUU=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AUAAA3BHtd/5BdJa1mGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBVQMBAQEBCwGBFS9QA4FDIAQLFhQKh14DimuCXJMUhFyBLoE?= =?us-ascii?q?kA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYQ/AoJdIzYHDgIDCQEBBAEBAQIBBgRthS4MhUoBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAxIuAQE3AQ8CAQgRAwECKAcyFAkIAgQOBSKDAIEeTQMdAQKgEgKBOIhhgiW?= =?us-ascii?q?CfQEBBYJHgkIYghYJgTQBi3cYgUA/gREnH4JMPoRkFoMHgiaUYYkYjlIKgiG?= =?us-ascii?q?UdxuCNIdAjxajXIMRAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFZAi+BWHAVZQGCQT6BDHiDcopTc4E?= =?us-ascii?q?pjCsHgSoBgSIBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,499,1559520000"; d="scan'208,217";a="331190571"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 13 Sep 2019 02:56:04 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (xch-aln-018.cisco.com [173.36.7.28]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x8D2u4Lg010701 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 02:56:04 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:56:03 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:56:03 -0500
Received: from NAM05-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:56:03 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Nz1VR7Klgia4q+lz8iblbLvg6VNABnBxbIpbSYpguiCmal9H/5ToyOVstCbx0h7/9YDQlZvpQ1Pjg82KWstNLDrE477n7+gsf07FRnFe83jw/EovWyDbZFi5Ur3kuvx+BjJp5CX9OfIW96hSuvJkkCkb4/KMs80LtkEujFvUZGe6y1CgEN9JXxFNiX8L9r72/YUaN5waFBdpbKrbtF7NN/u+ROuHMW6/Ov3l7AOwx19Ln1UBtLYET/mqzn/7aTO9kRS0drP3Hh5SJoaOiEx+NMtyv4YB5c60VLj5ZYcFm6/kAjs/T+Q8iWM5wMGRh3MbsfhQzhmFSgRpp7PJ3NcV1Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=cTrW9Ml5ZXHkSvwdxtrBLkcfgCJ6Dh8RAaHX2cxE8MY=; b=autwYz3Ja6LdvMTC8Jj85B9i50gWuUImn/rV6Sp0xT8V4qX94z6r16nIvKbill87L7PpNCQ5fM6AsyME5/NvF1IkC+2Z4L759X8CWaZB/VapTkchkxQTKQp4Mph/8xaORrd6Nzf1kdHoaljiAl84D5gFAheUO4f88czdLwz5Scd0czqaA7r1bm6yzX1/6HtaR2fx3gInv3sB/hBcstxhsBwBipDLJyWgI3ptfLEcF0oQRhhnX1602cqH8ZisEiLb6VDwiToicGN2msdUNK5jfbwvmLjPvuTlmsuUHcPFoMGR9A9s4aVCPRJu3AK9Qd15F0EISwJFXIIAU/kgbYAaOg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=cTrW9Ml5ZXHkSvwdxtrBLkcfgCJ6Dh8RAaHX2cxE8MY=; b=fLuu3Wy+GdiXfj8m3rpiExPD7pCdaxdbZtwVNvqUgjqvWSOOE0J5M/l37Ko8lUojf5PEC0GfhuUnolHXVF3I3tAeR3BmbP/OdkubN+bFgK08ksrqdSntS2tOok4Sy6bpN2QdUnAuo7o/6nmWUWX2X/O/jtZA2YtYBD7CormRUME=
Received: from BL0PR11MB3028.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.204.138) by BL0PR11MB3427.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.204.222) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2241.15; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 02:56:02 +0000
Received: from BL0PR11MB3028.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::956a:2ebf:539e:502b]) by BL0PR11MB3028.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::956a:2ebf:539e:502b%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2241.021; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 02:56:02 +0000
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
CC: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets
Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets
Thread-Index: AQHVXPUyTxWyJBtWsEOnJ4ETycFi16cjIc8AgAXh04A=
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 02:56:02 +0000
Message-ID: <4858942C-0B22-40EE-867E-23F24BA54B34@cisco.com>
References: <9ECC2E5C-E87E-4859-9DA8-E8E9403DF759@cisco.com> <C44550AC-F6E0-4351-9958-CB9144C9F23A@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C44550AC-F6E0-4351-9958-CB9144C9F23A@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=cpignata@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.84]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b6530ca1-8a7b-4e0b-559e-08d737f5e99c
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600166)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BL0PR11MB3427;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0PR11MB3427:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BL0PR11MB342766020C3502AACF843612C7B30@BL0PR11MB3427.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8273;
x-forefront-prvs: 0159AC2B97
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(346002)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(51914003)(199004)(189003)(6246003)(229853002)(6636002)(54896002)(5660300002)(316002)(6436002)(6486002)(99286004)(14454004)(14444005)(256004)(2906002)(33656002)(37006003)(6512007)(478600001)(26005)(102836004)(6506007)(25786009)(486006)(476003)(11346002)(71190400001)(6116002)(186003)(446003)(3846002)(36756003)(2616005)(71200400001)(50226002)(66446008)(64756008)(86362001)(8936002)(236005)(53936002)(66066001)(81166006)(81156014)(66946007)(8676002)(66556008)(66476007)(76116006)(4326008)(7736002)(6862004)(53546011)(76176011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BL0PR11MB3427; H:BL0PR11MB3028.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 9kaSIERsn3McalZNmLGOepvnU9KCnwsGsajHMjGNwJsiP13ap47NRW4H13QcoCX/tAVNw0yfm/djp1X4GO9isiCUwGPqa8dzpuX7/WBqPS9e5d5deyPJJABWMgkM/YBQqPLxQ4RvhEWvHaMzTHRcrSH2Kr3xwozqHE1bBAclquCib2mekq0UiTkppWvGqZzeQKaSX4g4Quoy3e/tSlmsvU3nhJLmKirsx1hE8Vugf1Aqbl+41OF106fwWpdL/ZP8xjAmrgZ7s4++HlZ5+N4qCwkX6O6/CDm7zT/pEHFbAkXTYO5c5r3XR/VcLdTIw1xs8yBr4IMHFT4NlkLfveTCsv2Ix+5++tMXbpVGi3xFqjbqGLBAKtQAvnoHthJT+Do5AsZ4ZyC49IDtO91Rh+whWKzweVC/V6VIsTcOHY94E3U=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4858942C0B2240EE867E23F24BA54B34ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b6530ca1-8a7b-4e0b-559e-08d737f5e99c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Sep 2019 02:56:02.0537 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Z1Wmv0X36APonOWnmwH/GxDvg4CcEKOzH1OALxlT6rHkxxWp+A/73gQrQaHytyNcscX/1Gxx1FrdD8/x/FZFhQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL0PR11MB3427
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.28, xch-aln-018.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/3bcoWmb7o2DHHnl0ZtvP4tWmggE>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 02:56:08 -0000

Thanks for the reminder, Reshad. I support publication of this document, short and useful.

I only have one comment in regards to:

   It is also worthy of note that even if an implementation can function
   with larger transport PDUs, that additional packet size may have
   impact on BFD scaling.  Such systems may support a lower transmission
   interval (bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval) when operating in large packet
   mode.  This interval may depend on the size of the transport PDU.

Instead of (or in addition to) a lower transmission interval, why not add flexibility to not *have* to send large packets every packet, and instead send every n paks or so?

Thanks!

Carlos.

On Sep 9, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>> wrote:

BFD WG, reminder that WGLC is ongoing for this document.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM
To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

BFD WG,

As was mentioned at IETF105, this document is stable and there was an interop test done between FRR and Junos VMX.

Please provide comments/feedback on the document. The deadline for last call is September 13th.

Regards,
Reshad & Jeff.