IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re:WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets

<xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> Wed, 11 September 2019 03:34 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 274E2120025 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ouocCFJKAZq4 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBE81120024 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 289C0BED35584AC952C3; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:33:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x8B3XjCK056466; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:33:45 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:33:45 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:33:45 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5d786b191e0d1e7a
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201909111133452853680@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <C44550AC-F6E0-4351-9958-CB9144C9F23A@cisco.com>
References: 9ECC2E5C-E87E-4859-9DA8-E8E9403DF759@cisco.com, C44550AC-F6E0-4351-9958-CB9144C9F23A@cisco.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: rrahman@cisco.com
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re:WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn x8B3XjCK056466
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/GnfvkBe4Z4HE18wXw3f7vxawmc8>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 03:34:01 -0000

Hi Reshad,







I support this draft to be published, it provides a simple and elegant extension for BFD to verify path MTU.


By the way, if further we'd like to achieve a fine-grained process control while using BFD to verfiy or detect path MTU, with the cost of a more complex extention to BFD, then draft-mirmin-bfd-extended potentially can provide such a solution.






Best Regards,


Xiao Min



原始邮件



发件人：ReshadRahman(rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>
收件人：rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;
日 期 ：2019年09月09日 23:14
主 题 ：Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets




BFD WG, reminder that WGLC is ongoing for this document.


 


Regards,


Reshad.


 



From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM
To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets



 


BFD WG,


 


As was mentioned at IETF105, this document is stable and there was an interop test done between FRR and Junos VMX.


 


Please provide comments/feedback on the document. The deadline for last call is September 13th.


 


Regards,


Reshad & Jeff.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email