Re: draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Thu, 31 August 2017 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30CB132D47; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 02:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.518
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.518 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, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62Aizzk6E0wn; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 02:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 154B0132D41; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 02:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=58512; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1504173353; x=1505382953; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=K1eJqEvxEDv+EClq5gbQ5eU+OhJfY9FHEJyEk5TgAYQ=; b=YVwiNPmxoNqeEaDvVkAInL39p75mEEhSNeJOkNtQTfqqNMUg+c45kttw TYgZLVX1YOOCGAdPGMweImDDL8qdJco6FTe5jht6+81Lq3xdTGm+MlNaZ +zIA6+WAxcPZnpH531JkwvkHu8uYd60Defjnp3d3RudLSO7qdIC0H5C3Z g=;
X-Files: image001.png, image002.png, image003.png, image004.png, image005.jpg : 6451, 970, 950, 1272, 10079
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,451,1498521600"; d="png'150?jpg'150,145?scan'150,145,208,217,150,145";a="292662781"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 31 Aug 2017 09:55:51 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v7V9tpJW030234 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:55:51 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 05:55:50 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 05:55:50 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: "Nitish Gupta (nitisgup)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "Aditya Dogra (addogra)" <>
Subject: Re: draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd
Thread-Topic: draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd
Thread-Index: AQHTIPDTV6qxk41fsEyAvy6buwPgj6KeO3+AgAABMYA=
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:55:50 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_008_D5CD54E2C53E2aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 07:48:09 -0700
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:55:57 -0000

Hi Nitish,

Irrespective of any IPR discussions, BFD is inherently a P2P protocol and, consequently, I would vote for P2P peer table.


From: rtgwg <<>> on behalf of "Nitish Gupta (nitisgup)" <<>>
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 1:51 AM
To: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Routing WG <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "Aditya Dogra (addogra)" <<>>
Subject: Re: draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd

Hi Thibault,

Thanks for the interest in the Draft, appreciate it. Please review the draft and let us know if you have any comments, suggestions.


There were two solutions proposed in the draft.
One pertains to making a peer table in VRRP and uses p2p BFD.
The second solution pertains to p2mp BFD.

While we were working on the draft there was an IPR associated to the DRAFT and the WG felt that we need to wait until we can see the IPR and what its associated to.
We can see that the IPR is available for us to view and we can see that the IPR is associated to p2mp BFD.

We are going to submit a draft with the p2p BFD so that we can continue working on the Draft.
There was lot of interest last time as well, just because of the IPR claim we had stopped the work.


From: Greg Mirsky <<>>
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:01 AM
To: TABANI Thibault <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, "Nitish Gupta (nitisgup)" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd
Resent-From: <<>>
Resent-To: <<>>, <<>>, <<>>, <<>>, <<>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:01 AM

Hi Thibault,
thank you for your interest in the draft, much appreciated. Please don't be discouraged that it lapsed, we can fix it easily. I think that authors had similar to your idea when we've started thinking about BFD supporting VRRP. And like you we haven't found any reference in existing documents, hence this draft draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd. Would be much obliged if you review and share your comments, suggestion regarding solutions proposed in the draft.


On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:20 AM, TABANI Thibault <<>> wrote:

I am working at improving VRRP convergence time. (target a few 100’s of milliseconds)

It appears that VRRP supports BFD health monitoring which might be a better option than tuning VRRP aggressive timers.

Unfortunately I cannot find any active RFC where VRRP supports BFD. The only document I found is your draft document:

Fast failure detection in VRRP with BFD

Unfortunately date expires of this document.  As BFD support for VRRP is implemented on most routers, I suppose that an active RFC might exist on that specific BFD implementation within VRRP. (new backup advertisement messages….peer table….)

Thibault TABANI
architect Altran Connected Solutions
Altran France


1, Impasse Charles Trenet
44800 Saint-Herblain
Tel. : +33 2 40 67 62 62<tel:+33%202%2040%2067%2062%2062>
Mob. : +33 6 79 06 33 63<tel:+33%206%2079%2006%2033%2063><><>

[escription : Description : cid:image002.png@01CD89E1.42D19210]<>[escription : Description : cid:image003.png@01CD89E1.42D19210]<>[escription : Description : LinkedIn_signatureMail]<>[escription : Description : pictog_viadeo]<>