RE: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim

["Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Santosh,

Many thanks for comments.

Speaking with couple of folks at IETF91, they were in agreement on the suggested approach for (1) and (2).
Hoping to hear further comments in response to this thread, so that we can close this off and move forward.

Please see in-line.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Santosh P K [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 12:07 PM
> To: Nobo Akiya (nobo); [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Seeking opinions on draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim
> 
> Nobo,
> 
> > (1) Should the "extended" S-BFD use cases move to
> > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless- use-case?
> >
> > My opinion is yes. Once the "extended" S-BFD use cases have been
> > incorporated into draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case, then we should try
> > to move draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case forward.
> >
> > How does the WG feel about this?
> >
> 
> I agree.

:)

> 
> 
> >
> > (2) Should the alert discriminator proposal move to
> > draft-ietf-bfd-seamless- base?
> >
> > My opinion is no . Instead we should position this as an optional
> > feature of S- BFD (hence separate document than the base), especially
> > considering we likely need to think through additional security concerns
> raised by this.
> >
> > A question was raised by Greg on how does a node find out if the
> > target supports the optional alert discriminator or not. We can define
> > a mandatory diagnostic value that must be implemented when the alert
> > discriminator is implemented. One can send an S-BFD control packet
> > with the alert discriminator with this diagnostic value to check if
> > the target supports the alert discriminator mechanism.
> >
> > How does the WG feel about this?
> >
> 
> I agree with making this as optional feature and not merging with use case
> document. This also assumes that all the nodes on the path MUST have S-
> BFD implemented. What even if we mandate diag bit and intermediate
> router does not understand that diag bit as that box is with old BFD
> implementation? There should be something suggested in this document
> that ingress should try for only finite time or retries?

Classical BFD vs. S-BFD will be differentiated with the UDP port. With that said, having some texts about how an initiator unambiguously determines whether or not a target node support S-BFD alert discriminator (and recommended sequences) is a good idea. I'll place this text in the next revision.

Thanks!

-Nobo

> 
> 
> Thanks
> Santosh P K
> 
> 
>