RFC5883: Using LSP for MH-BFD
TULASI RAM REDDY <tulasiramireddy@gmail.com> Thu, 28 March 2019 17:12 UTC
Return-Path: <tulasiramireddy@gmail.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 D6F9C1202DC for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:12:39 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 a1hx-tWhP6nK for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) (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 5A22612002F for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id u15so19019685otq.10 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
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=W+1MKJeNTSy744JkLJAr0ORqRrotTnrKJT5mNcJk9+A=; b=CcpHR5EHaU7UMSkS8NOD8QAyn7NuNGBOMbn4GcXQap6zSx+IUw0wPkHw+qr08w7kD8 rX1mvQSBC0nwhsnQ7ZS811WK6da4GAvYgp9wPHBlyRoPHzzf61awnupBw7nkSdzUjHUF fhMM+nNV9Pxc/IawxnA3pRugu6sr0U3sgzqUFz0yNLXruKf2S07h+K8RJGe36kEP5VTE dwHvOfMfoAvvALvrEqqEMejW9JD7pjeCMfdL+fv00/aALN6pMilYYSL0cJLqKWscQYkE OC2B6X/E2KHJK4zYBnla+KUpVEsgv+/ReJNTl1DBcVUETbim4ykB9CZk/0rmeSB0QDol a0Hg==
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=W+1MKJeNTSy744JkLJAr0ORqRrotTnrKJT5mNcJk9+A=; b=WgW5jPWNy2XjBZJrnidm3qL1dU2MAr02cDxzr7gOG1kubHM9YQGlyEwmspOeslp/10 BMP+czmeI5uJaHPpikPUL0pzlL60Rf2iqZyD0HxlB+N+JC7Gyct1EbP9APXMV+sFCndJ qf0Yrw4VQZgSxW5waeoqD4wyudfo6D0qCFV9t/RGwH0M1G1HKXctBdzqnOYLh1mGS265 rQ/oiqd17mmeuc55DjdPTGr3D+c9lg2Bjp/BXSJBxCDPI1nGB+2oOyuMNSmHJtGSCeWx 9ZzY9LvU3mGnxn+o3AZTL2Ldke4ubGqErMQRIVSAOUpkt+WGlK3vVRPkSFlyFdYDzc5a 1QqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVcNxZLOSStLo79RGxFZIEIvGBEWIPF48kB7CaZZ4tgs5JcHi+z AAHfTN7oHx4yMvXvhlyrqDEJviUwnef7+2/d3wrJQabs
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzALndZRAE5RIJSDabZH7ZCcjYjpUjoUKmSjuSZDwBvo8FHs+c0PwqaY8VKADscn6MuhlN0FD1MrODNqe39chk=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:191a:: with SMTP id j26mr31184648ota.327.1553793156564; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: TULASI RAM REDDY <tulasiramireddy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:42:26 +0530
Message-ID: <CA+JENaJZ0vSvzfnWQdYzWTCUSZX9N6+OZNwsb6GCpgKCoP-OCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RFC5883: Using LSP for MH-BFD
To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000026ca7105852aa979"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/6WLFy7esvxyXETRItTD7OpKPL2A>
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: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:12:40 -0000
Hi Dave, If there exist both IGP path and LSP to a destination which requires MH-BFD, which is the preferred one to use? I believe some implementations impose labels for plain ip traffic egressing on the node having LSP to destination. In that case, MH-BFD control packets might go over LSP tunnels to destination. Is there any advantage/disadvantage from MH-BFD perspective to prefer one over other? Tulasi.
- RFC5883: Using LSP for MH-BFD TULASI RAM REDDY