RE: BFD Echo format
"Nobo Akiya" <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com> Tue, 24 March 2015 14:35 UTC
Return-Path: <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43B21A8770 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 KOLxxzPXCA5Y for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (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 8A6581A8764 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibgn9 with SMTP id gn9so98037803wib.1 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:thread-index:content-language; bh=4kz20T21Yay7SI8atBxMSQpn5QANea1k/qDZIseNEPs=; b=avPnWA1HvsQ3N/NgVGqAn2vAvIo32eJ8oVmM3k7CLKipQk99op6eYgu3UbQ6va4kNB z2pQemDdwFBituGawYr3btaiDO5OgWf9v5muJLjD3JRnagkZayGod/v+O/HmT6JdZi9c WAap8+PydvX9HzeNl2v3KgIkPU267E+QL1cGqNXKzDoHQMobyp2X8hO/06YpoHsqGFIg oOaemKDaAJ/1w8a2HL0bQPsgzxIAu25FK02wcd+mFMmowrcbb9FkNWk4a7HmSZU7SBDB T7QHe7QhOqIOmHC6kJd/ypwEgwEQ0Z/CxVOsKIdywXen96R0b1M4TQR+phbism2ntKqS 4y2A==
X-Received: by 10.194.223.5 with SMTP id qq5mr8769956wjc.152.1427207748316; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NoboAkiyaPC ([2001:67c:370:176:7c71:12fa:9826:8d5e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hj10sm6329874wjc.48.2015.03.24.07.35.46 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nobo Akiya <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>
To: 'Gregory Mirsky' <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B9382C1@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <006c01d065bf$bbd82d10$33888730$@gmail.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B93885F@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B93885F@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Subject: RE: BFD Echo format
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:35:41 -0500
Message-ID: <002301d0663f$cfbd3200$6f379600$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01D06615.E6EBE4F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQE16SkKAgHCp/TfSUXqHdNEmlPOpQIn0A2HAwUQA6GeN0VYUA==
Content-Language: en-ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/5aG3GvfLeKGlYqWJIz9GOUMHcr0>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:35:53 -0000
Hi Greg, I absolutely agree on the S-BFD reverse path needing to take the corresponding PW. I peeked into draft-gp-pals-seamless-vccv, and I did find a text for this. 2.2.2. S-BFD Reflector Operation All point to point pseudowires are bidirectional, the S-BFD Reflector therefore reflects the S-BFD packet back to the Initiator using the VCCV channel of the reverse direction of the PW on which it was received. So, even though this key aspect was not described in the presentation, it looks like the authors did consider this. Thanks! -Nobo From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com] Sent: March-23-15 8:21 PM To: Nobo Akiya; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: RE: BFD Echo format Hi Nobo, thank you for your thoughtful and interesting, as always, comments. I've realized, after the session, that encapsulation of BFD Echo over LSP or PW MUST be different from what defined in RFC 5880. I think it must follow the same principle as set in RFC 5884 for Async BFD mode. And I agree that PW, unlike LSP (at least most LSP constructs), is a bi-directional construct. Thus, as I think of it, operators more interested in verifying data plane availability in both directions. If we propose two-way single-ended mechanism to check data path of the particular PW, then, I imagine, the return path MUST be in-band, not over IP path. I think that we need to note that in our discussion of S-BFD or BFD Echo over VCCV as a requirement. Then we can see whether extending BFD Echo to MPLS LSP and PW or using S-BFD bring better solution, particularly since we already have ICMP and LSP Ping over VCCV defined. Regards, Greg From: Nobo Akiya [mailto:nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 6:19 PM To: Gregory Mirsky; rtg-bfd@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: RE: BFD Echo format Hi Greg, I believe this comment was in context of S-BFD for VCCV. >From what I understand, the scenario which S-BFD for VCCV is looked into is the case where one end of the PW has very constrained resources. Using the classical BFD will require such devices to maintain a session object per PW, as opposed to S-BFD which only requires one reflector session. Your comment about why not send BFD echo packets over the PW? Sending a probe (BFD echo) with IP destination having the sender address, across multiple physical hops, always has the danger of the probe packet still coming back to the sender despite issues. Yes this is more likely on LSPs like LDP, RSVP (and less likely on PW) but it is possible that PW label gets exposed "somewhere" and that label value happens to match a different LSP, picking up traversal to a different node. Then there's the desire for return packets to come back on the reverse direction of the forward PW. Whether we go with S-BFD for VCCV or BFD echo, this (i.e., reflector bouncing back packets on the reverse PW) is a change that needs to be made/standardized. So to me, S-BFD for VCCV makes sense. Thanks! -Nobo From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] <mailto:[mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org]> On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky Sent: March-23-15 1:54 PM To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: BFD Echo format Dear All, I stand corrected, BFD Echo format is not defined in the RFC 5880 but there requirement suggesting that BFD Discriminator MAY be used to demux Echo replies: The payload of a BFD Echo packet is a local matter, since only the sending system ever processes the content. The only requirement is that sufficient information is included to demultiplex the received packet to the correct BFD session after it is looped back to the sender. The contents are otherwise outside the scope of this specification. Regards, Greg
- BFD Echo format Gregory Mirsky
- RE: BFD Echo format Nobo Akiya
- RE: BFD Echo format Gregory Mirsky
- RE: BFD Echo format Nobo Akiya
- RE: BFD Echo format Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)