IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim

"MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" <mmudigon@cisco.com> Sat, 15 November 2014 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mmudigon@cisco.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 334421A8767 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 04:33:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.094 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 OwcsM3SZ0x2y for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 04:33:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B590E1A875B for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 04:33:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5708; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1416054802; x=1417264402; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ZaP2wnnrYxfP3874/ZoB/+am5Jf+VldYqPjSwcyVfcY=; b=lVTnz/49723OC/p1iV9btsdn1afDsu2vR0Oza4oCD6aFNkyVbdIgyAxS 8tEJN7lE92s15WLI0qggoxTv5hlrGyhCfwEpX4VyBAcEDJsk/aWmwfs7b 0aqTjzzOUqTaB96kJ8lZqEuygkpd8K+UlIUp7Uzamw2+irDKPU/ln8PBI 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag8FABpHZ1StJV2P/2dsb2JhbABbgkhGgS4E1GECgRMWAQEBAQF9hAIBAgSBCwEIEQMBAigmExQJAwUBAQQBEohB0RYBAQEBAQEEAQEBAQEBAQEakREYhEsFkB+CKAWMAIE0kTyECoN8bYFIgQMBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,391,1413244800"; d="scan'208,217";a="372468741"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2014 12:33:21 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sAFCXKok000391 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:33:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.15.74]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 06:33:20 -0600
From: "MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" <mmudigon@cisco.com>
To: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim
Thread-Topic: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim
Thread-Index: Ac//wAdQ8oS8wTAIRaCZduflS+eKRABcLHWA
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:33:20 +0000
Message-ID: <D08D4586.27631%mmudigon@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943F5279D0@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.42.197]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D08D458627631mmudigonciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/941BPLm42OYEkq8zKh9Fk8-GRUQ
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: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:33:24 -0000

Hi Nobo,

Replies inline

Regards
Mallik

From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com<mailto:nobo@cisco.com>>
Date: Friday, 14 November 2014 9:34 am
To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Subject: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim

[Speaking as an individual S-BFD contributor]

Hi BFD WG,

There were couple of questions I need your input on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim.


(1) Should the "extended" S-BFD use cases move to draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case?

My opinion is yes. Once the "extended" S-BFD use cases have been incorporated into draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case, then we should try to move draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case forward.

How does the WG feel about this?

Mallik>> Agree. Since this is another use case of SBFD it makes sense to have all in one place.


(2) Should the alert discriminator proposal move to draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base?

My opinion is no . Instead we should position this as an optional feature of S-BFD (hence separate document than the base), especially considering we likely need to think through additional security concerns raised by this.

A question was raised by Greg on how does a node find out if the target supports the optional alert discriminator or not. We can define a mandatory diagnostic value that must be implemented when the alert discriminator is implemented. One can send an S-BFD control packet with the alert discriminator with this diagnostic value to check if the target supports the alert discriminator mechanism.

How does the WG feel about this?

Mallik>> Agree. Since this is an optional feature using the base proposal of SBFD, we can have it as a separate document.

Thanks!

-Nobo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email