RE: Direct BFD over Ethernet?

[Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>]

Albrecht, Reshad and all,
I concur with Reshad - it will work (RFC 7130 never says anything about the number of links in the LAG).

Such a session would still use encapsulation in IP/UDP with the UDP destination port set to 6784 and the Destination IP address " that is configured on the peer system and can be reached via the LAG interface ". I.e., some lightweight IP functionality would be still required.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: [phone]
Cell:      [phone]
Email:   [e-mail]


-----Original Message-----
From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:36 PM
To: Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <[e-mail]>; Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>; Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Direct BFD over Ethernet?

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)" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 
    Sent: 12 June 2019 16:16
    To: Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>
    Cc: Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>
    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: [phone]
    Cell:      [phone]
    Email:   [e-mail]
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>
    Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 12:23 AM
    To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>
    Cc: Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>
    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.
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    
    


___________________________________________________________________________

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.
___________________________________________________________________________