Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?

Jeffrey Haas <> Tue, 11 June 2019 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24707120059 for <>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bEfPq7yBPHL3 for <>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F81A120018 for <>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A23C91E2F1; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:23:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:23:05 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <>
Cc: "Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1)" <>, "" <>, Stewart Bryant <>
Subject: Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 21:22:06 -0000

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

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