IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-shen-bfd-intf-p2p-nbr-00.txt

"Nitin Bahadur" <nitinb@juniper.net> Fri, 30 March 2007 23:41 UTC

Return-path: <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXQiP-0005ja-5C; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:41:05 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXQiO-0005iU-I2 for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:41:04 -0400
Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXQiN-0004qh-Af for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:41:04 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO gamma.jnpr.net) ([172.24.245.25]) by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2007 16:41:03 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,355,1170662400"; d="scan'208"; a="699772392:sNHT34525576"
Received: from electron.jnpr.net ([172.24.15.21]) by gamma.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:41:02 -0700
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:41:01 -0700
Message-ID: <5EB31780BD297F46812C8F495FA08F620B55FC95@electron.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <3D93D8A8-F2CD-4F5D-BA37-5A2489E2C3DA@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-shen-bfd-intf-p2p-nbr-00.txt
Thread-Index: Acdy8Atfh055QwCIQ9OIJEZnf99/TgAM+hkQ
From: Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>
To: Naiming Shen <naiming@cisco.com>, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2007 23:41:02.0510 (UTC) FILETIME=[E0748CE0:01C77324]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc:
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-shen-bfd-intf-p2p-nbr-00.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org

Not sure of the exact problem you are trying to solve. Instead of using
BFD as a link failure detection mechanism for Ethernet, can't you use
Ethernet OAM? If this draft is a stop-gap mechanism before Ethernet OAM
is implemented/put-in-use, maybe it's ok.

To implement the draft correctly, a lot of special case handling would
need to be added in multiple places. It would be better to use a
link-layer mechanism for detecting link failures.

Also, with the draft you are tying in the concept of a link failure to a
bfd session failure...which might not necessarily be true. BFD sessions
might fail due to firewall filters, IP packet handling errors. You would
need more tools to tell the customer/operator that the link is *actually
not down* and it's BFD that has marked the link as down.

Nitin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email