Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-on-lags-00.txt

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 07:04:42PM +0000, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
> GIM>> You're concerned with LAG interoperability, not interoperability of micro-BFD as fully addressed without Section 3. Integration of micro-BFD and LACP is implementation issue. Interoperability or lack of thereof is result of particular implementation desicions.
> Sure, we could have everyone sort it out themselves that the two allowed ways to influence the LAG

Operation of micro-BFD sessions with LAGs with LACP present is a task we are
required to resolve.  IEEE will have some nasty words for us if that is not
the case.

> (A) BFD influences the per-port MAC operational flag

We had previously decided to not do this since it put us a bit too deep into
state machines in other mechanisms.  Working in this space also gathered the
most concern from IEEE.  As you'd point out, the mac operational flag was
also their recommended mechanism to avoid meddling with LACP directly.

> (B) BFD influences the load-balance algorithm

This was our chosen path forward.  One point that pushed the authors in this
direction were a multitude of implementation specific issues wherein taking
the link out of service (a above) rather than simply updating the forwarding
behavior made things difficult.  Rather than walk the line of the protocol
purists to cover a, b permitted the greatest opportunity for
interoperability.

> Regarding the language: which aspects do you think are not acceptable to define a new standard and need to be changed?
> 
> GIM>> No MUST or SHOULD in Section 3.

The authors have some new text in that section in review and will be
desiring comments on it.

-- Jeff