Re: New Draft- BFD Express Path

Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com> Wed, 24 November 2010 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mach@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30433A6989 for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:53:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EvnbL94hLrDA for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C173A69A1 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LCD00LUQPX67L@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:53:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from m55527c ([10.110.98.66]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LCD00I4GPX5YN@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:53:30 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:53:29 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: New Draft- BFD Express Path
In-reply-to: <AANLkTikdezpxGtY6YLFaea2myJ0BHKZmT_68yTwwV4na@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Giacalone <spencer.giacalone@gmail.com>, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Message-id: <D6E8D3E193D447BEB75CC0E9F6F33EC8@m55527c>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8064.206
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8064.206
Content-type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="windows-1252"; reply-type="original"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <AANLkTikdezpxGtY6YLFaea2myJ0BHKZmT_68yTwwV4na@mail.gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:53:25 -0000

Hi Spencer,

I think using BFD for performance monitoring is a reasonable way. Two years 
ago, we wrote a draft for the same purpose with relevant BFD extensions, it 
could be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-guo-bfd-pm-extension-01. 
The reason for choose BFD for performance monitoring is because BFD is a 
protocol independent technology, BFD-based solution would provide a general 
mechanism for performance monitoring, no matter what the path is IP, MPLS or 
other types.

As Vishwas said in another email, you should consider the compatibility 
issue especially when you want to deploy BFD Authentication at the same 
time.

Best regards,
Mach
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Spencer Giacalone" <spencer.giacalone@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 11:35 PM
To: <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: New Draft- BFD Express Path

> Dear WG,
>
> A new draft, called “BFD Express Path”
> (draft-giacalone-bfd-express-path-00) has been submitted for review.
> The primary intent of this draft is to mitigate capability gaps and
> exploit opportunities in certain performance sensitive networks. BFD
> Express Path creates a scalable, flexible, and integrated framework
> for gathering detailed network performance information. This
> information could be used to influence routing or traffic engineering,
> or for other network management purposes. It is assumed that further
> drafts will provide routing protocol extensions. BFD Express Path is
> focused on real world issues, and is aimed at (for example) the
> production network that I am responsible for. I invite discussion,
> comments, or questions. The abstract is as follows, and the draft
> itself is posted on the WG page:
>
> “In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial
> information networks (e.g. stock market data providers), network
> performance criteria (e.g. latency) have become (or are becoming) as
> (or more) critical to data path selection than other metrics. This
> document describes extensions to the BFD protocol, such that
> network performance information can be gathered in a scalable fashion,
> and subsequently used (by other protocols) to make path selection
> decisions. These extensions will also provide granular performance
> monitoring information.”
>
> Regards,
>
> Spencer