IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Correcting BFD Echo model

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Fri, 24 March 2017 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@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 0B0E4129458; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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
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 6e2fGE0YmmZy; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41109127011; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8402; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490381964; x=1491591564; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=pgQ0clkIHADWcL3q3J8I57MiokVNj22E1dVRvagFTxQ=; b=e/5EaAvkRHf8LTpunxHGYbedY3PufoCS3OEpa3CbdSpp2zz5bv+jnlAK H+eFKuB4rU7LDpYaWkFW6hz63rdrzVJjpF4aiuxeI10cdwWXBCjkNo4n8 RXdgVrBMcFWUVejiPzMn7OWGXV/jPzvFRWd6b7U56Qauxv2fRdGdfCXh8 c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DPBQCea9VY/5tdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1SBbAeDW5s/H4gWiAOFMIIOhiICGoMPQRYBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQEBAQIBI1YFCwIBCBgnAwICAh8RFBECBA4FiW8DDQiqLIImhzENgwcBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdhk6CBQiCYoJRhQkugjEFnB86AY4UhDaRMIptiHcBJg4jgQRZFUERAYZGdYhhgQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,216,1486425600"; d="scan'208,217";a="400914906"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Mar 2017 18:59:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2OIxMxg019411 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:59:23 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:59:22 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:59:21 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: Jeff Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf. org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Correcting BFD Echo model
Thread-Topic: Correcting BFD Echo model
Thread-Index: AQHSj8GzaZh47YcNe0Gey+/wXcwM+qF8OnCAgAAdrQCAAEFcAIAAGoQAgACC5gCAABprgIAnPeQAgAAzPgCAAAKZAA==
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:59:21 +0000
Message-ID: <F6DB90E6-B6DF-4175-83DC-188CDEF2D67F@cisco.com>
References: <CA+RyBmWcU79iCBYM_bi__Ce1RpWwNn_jZCkPHv3Sc+qtybt_pg@mail.gmail.com> <D4D8BE31.25AE5C%rrahman@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmWyQZs5B3LG8x=ZoVXTkiHhGPzbZwRX70jCyT_MpQwzCA@mail.gmail.com> <E308FD25-A695-498C-8E34-756250776CE4@gmail.com> <CA+RyBmW=t0DH5H_UVau8t5rS_1A8Qpsh478ayVUN=Se6qqKHyg@mail.gmail.com> <D4D9967A.25B679%rrahman@cisco.com> <CA+RyBmV9QiGGCgxxEHmC8GjnecHksjfZgVO3NJ5q2aLSSrZMvA@mail.gmail.com> <20170324154640.GO27015@pfrc.org> <CA+RyBmUE3g1gNTtf30Wr7hvgMhahnuCznt7LY77kLGSXNYQ=Xg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmUE3g1gNTtf30Wr7hvgMhahnuCznt7LY77kLGSXNYQ=Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.243.227]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F6DB90E6B6DF417583DC188CDEF2D67Fciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/EBzj_E0J-MRd9Jy694PudJQK3w8>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:59:26 -0000

Hi, Greg,

It would be useful to understand uses of BFD Echo for on-demand scenarios.

It’s not clear how that would be:

   When a system is using the Echo function, it is advantageous to
   choose a sedate reception rate for Control packets, since liveness
   detection is being handled by the Echo packets.  This can be

Thanks,

— Carlos.

On Mar 24, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Jeff,
I'll be glad to put couple slides to help jumstart the discussion on BFD Echo.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org<mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> wrote:
[continuing the top-posting heresy to preserve context]

Greg,

Our schedule is relatively open right now, and this matter is esoteric
enough that it probably warrants a slide for the majority of the Working
Group to follow this issue.  Would you prepare a slide or two to use as a
discussion point?

I'll also use this opportunity to point out that in S-BFD scenarios, we have
somewhat similar ambiguities since it's an on-demand service.

-- Jeff

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 07:31:01AM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Reshad,
> thank you for providing the context to BFD Echo TX. Indeed, I'm familiar
> with implementations that use BFD Echo as Echo request/reply and thus Tx
> would be in RPC, not in configuration. I think that it would be good to
> discuss this in Chicago unless we hear comments from others on the list.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > draft-zheng-mpls-ls-ping-yang-cfg defines transmit interval in RPC
> > because all ping operations are done via RPC.  I do not consider BFD echo
> > to be “on demand” like LSP Ping (caveat: this is possibly due to the BFD
> > configuration/implementation I am most familiar with).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email