Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Wed, 12 June 2019 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.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 5B8361201C7 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=G9Tzty1E; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=tyVmSgEs
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 Rmz_pk8RG6Fr for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D61120121 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5408; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1560350145; x=1561559745; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=NHdja0PY43u1yY3fiNl4TkbnsPJ/wN8QHMLULUGHl1Q=; b=G9Tzty1EWICaiuaqAQv2ckYaRWDMSDojPhsTMr21MS+bMyvihEK9hG77 kd17gjxmeHaOXpVFFObDCrSvFH5oDO/c6p2hCIv7E9DABZ76sg1YoELou tue+1vDZVWARTWKaqcYM3BfqnGz8eaQYPFk4XUHQc9Y9VOg6A6ZNbgnnK s=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AFwWsgRaVPGLpUYGSuY1p3Yz/LSx94ef9IxIV55?= =?us-ascii?q?w7irlHbqWk+dH4MVfC4el20gebRp3VvvRDjeee87vtX2AN+96giDgDa9QNMn?= =?us-ascii?q?1NksAKh0olCc+BB1f8KavwdSU6Gc1EfFRk5Hq8d0NSHZW2ag=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AIAACEDAFd/5JdJa1lGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwGBPVADalUgBAsoCoQLg0cDhFKKDYJXfohFjXC?= =?us-ascii?q?BLhSBEANUCQEBAQwBAR8OAgEBhEACF4ItIzQJDgEDAQEEAQECAQRtHAyFSgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQECARIREQwBATcBCwICAgEIEQQBAQECAiYCAgIUCxEVCAgCBAENBRQOgwA?= =?us-ascii?q?BgWoDDg8BDp1cAoE4iF9xgTGCeQEBBYUBDQuCDwMGBYEHKAGLXBeBQD+BESc?= =?us-ascii?q?fghc1PoIaRwEBA4ErARIBHwcQIQKCUDKCJotLEoJUhxOTRD4JAoIQhkeBOYd?= =?us-ascii?q?fg2sbgiWHAY4CjRiHF4FljU0CBAIEBQIOAQEFgU84Kj1xcBVlAYJBgg+DcIU?= =?us-ascii?q?UgSeEGHKBKYwfgSIBgSABAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,366,1557187200"; d="scan'208";a="286673610"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 12 Jun 2019 14:35:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (xch-aln-011.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x5CEZhfC003922 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:35:43 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:35:42 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:35:42 -0500
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:35:42 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=NHdja0PY43u1yY3fiNl4TkbnsPJ/wN8QHMLULUGHl1Q=; b=tyVmSgEsBXscNUjCJnGd3XYkdXhX0qKNrJX9cFTBYQE3STfmHTYazngT9nj952dtA1G8Etd3V3CSbEexCtPpQZKJtcDoYKvTqK3j5CpHEV2DLNBGYgOkYC6q7NvtvXY7F3cXKyYIK8Lg1b9zJa34EZYWej1Pp2CSTjGp4FpPBZc=
Received: from DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.104.151) by DM5PR1101MB2329.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.173.169.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1987.11; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:35:41 +0000
Received: from DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b57b:a39a:5e67:16c6]) by DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b57b:a39a:5e67:16c6%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1987.010; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:35:41 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: "Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1)" <Albrecht.Schwarz@etas.com>, "Alexander Vainshtein" <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
CC: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
Thread-Topic: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
Thread-Index: AdUdHwIY3QLc2dE1SwCr012LbinkaAAAvtBvAABBlQAAAT/tgAArr1KAAAfpV5kAqV1XgAAjL4LgAACphoD//76ogA==
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:35:41 +0000
Message-ID: <48023C71-074E-4C8C-AFF4-CD1706FB0F54@cisco.com>
References: <e06e6a9189eb4174a6777da720d31294@etas.com> <AM0PR03MB3828C11241B4118A96BAFB7A9D100@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <f6450c2f-a436-7127-251d-e09b79ba15f9@gmail.com> <20190607115617.GC15506@pfrc.org> <7a42f74e46484476a8b642a29649a471@etas.com> <AM0PR03MB3828A71E881294059A5BB8829D110@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20190611212305.GB12590@pfrc.org> <AM0PR03MB382870144F1E38857FCF247B9DEC0@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <cef2d3c7fbb443d0b392935193efaf91@etas.com>
In-Reply-To: <cef2d3c7fbb443d0b392935193efaf91@etas.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.6.190114
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rrahman@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.82]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 50e2083e-be26-4f81-c705-08d6ef433ed6
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR1101MB2329;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR1101MB2329:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR1101MB2329E465A0A8C7D197B5BE8EABEC0@DM5PR1101MB2329.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0066D63CE6
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(376002)(136003)(366004)(346002)(39860400002)(199004)(51444003)(189003)(13464003)(6506007)(7736002)(36756003)(5660300002)(8676002)(81156014)(99286004)(64756008)(478600001)(6116002)(102836004)(3846002)(8936002)(81166006)(66446008)(66476007)(73956011)(76116006)(66946007)(305945005)(68736007)(91956017)(53546011)(110136005)(2906002)(26005)(966005)(71190400001)(71200400001)(66556008)(58126008)(66066001)(76176011)(11346002)(256004)(186003)(2616005)(486006)(53936002)(6246003)(4326008)(33656002)(446003)(6436002)(3480700005)(86362001)(14454004)(229853002)(25786009)(6486002)(6512007)(14444005)(316002)(476003)(6306002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR1101MB2329; H:DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: C5Oo0Bs2kVES803+RTSfNIpzenEWc+qE+iwUQtXVel7WRknIADrhOormysW4c361yvyh5t3h85bRhEe2dFIlxIwDc2bJRZ8IrIOj5aOWD/i0c6t19613UsKXYl1MZIyNmFZr/qwZH4uB49B5iffhuM/z6ztOMLiWrH1+FiIukVUG3p4Sr7hDhIsPlM+1CyDR1J4dlA418254z6gvDzHKaTcwGx/rAypsPJDAjlYrCYqqgA+9H3H795kCu6eYvj8Y5UFtcKBAawgg2ZNvNRWLt9ItJ8UVhmJ6vCGlEdRK44r624cFXRnHHBVoQxwXvnpsVwZ6oTXaIOOct4AcQWTzi1sV0VYH+ScIHbPTwuet4+d5UCW+unj/wlAyNtwl8GgCw9xDzV5vj1ZNaoYiqZ4t3M1VdPNJQ7xs4aSr1lX9GPg=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8EF532C8E95E8A42A0574CB246C94079@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 50e2083e-be26-4f81-c705-08d6ef433ed6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Jun 2019 14:35:41.4213 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: rrahman@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR1101MB2329
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.21, xch-aln-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/D3uU_Ihsj0NcOQA6usaRBulfTDk>
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: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:35:51 -0000

Hi,

That should work. Are you referring to the encapsulation overhead?

Regards,
Reshad.

´╗┐On 2019-06-12, 10:30 AM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1)" <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Albrecht.Schwarz@etas.com> wrote:

    Thanks again all for recommendations and background information.
    
    With regards to RFC 7130:
    > Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
    
    Actually, I was thinking about a group size of one ("whereas the normal LAG is > 1") to emulate BFD over a single physical Ethernet link, - something like a dedicated  "BFD-over-LAG protocol profile".
    However, didn't investigate so far the overhead.
    
    Regards,
    Albrecht
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> 
    Sent: 12 June 2019 16:16
    To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
    Cc: Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <Albrecht.Schwarz@etas.com>om>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
    Subject: RE: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
    
    Jeffrey,
    Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
    
    I tend to agree with your statement that " IETF doesn't have a useful OAM model".
    But I would add that, in spite of that, IETF has a rich set of OAM tools that are widely deployed and serve the real needs of the IETF community reasonably well, and from time to time adds to this set when new issues are identified.
    
    Whether a useful OAM model is really needed in his situation, or not, is, IMHO, a matter of personal preferences.
    
    "If it is not broken we don't fix it".
    
    My 2c,
    Sasha
    
    Office: +972-39266302
    Cell:      +972-549266302
    Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 12:23 AM
    To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
    Cc: Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <albrecht.schwarz@etas.com>om>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
    
    On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 12:45:50PM +0000, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
    > To the best of my recollection the BFD WG hss tried to cooperate with IEEE 802.1, but these attempts have failed.
    
    I think that's a mis-characterization.
    
    Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7130
    
    IEEE wasn't really interested in having BFD running native.  Much of this has to do with the OAM and layering models that IEEE has for Ethernet.
    
    And yet, IETF was getting push to solve at least a problem relating to layer 3 issues for traffic balancing over LAGs.  That was somewhat out of the realm of IEEE.
    
    So, while it took us a while to frame the problem, we eventually found a place where we were able to solve our respective problems without stepping too much on organizational and layer-wise boundaries.
    
    > At the same time I think there is a difference in the overall attitude with regard to OAM between IETF and IEEE 802.1.
    
    I think I would state this as "IETF doesn't have a useful OAM model".  Many people would prefer us to have one, and see BFD as a useful component for it.  However, that's bigger work than just BFD.
    
    -- Jeff
    
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    
    This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.
    ___________________________________________________________________________