Re: Adoption request for draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff, Reshad, John, et. al,
at our discussion in Berlin
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-bfd> John pointed
to recent extension of IEEE 802.1AX, Distributed Resilient Network
Interface (DRNI). I've reviewed, to the best of my understanding, Section 9
in IEEE 802.1AX-2014 (I can send copy if anyone is interested) and I agree
with John that MC-LAG can be viewed as special case of DRNI. But I'm not
sure that trying to address monitoring of DRNI with BFD would be
appropriate. I think that using CFM/G.8013, a.k.a. Y.1731 mechanisms to
monitor Layer 2 entity, which DRNI is, seems more appropriate. If there are
cases of DRNI, other then MC-LAG, that are of interest to IETF community,
I'd certainly would like to discuss these and see how we can apply BFD to
monitor them as unified entity as well as its individual interfaces,
similar to RFC 7130.

Regards,
Greg


On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> We had presentations on draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-(mpls|ip) during
> IETF 96.
> This work covers multi-chassis forms of BFD-on-LAG, similar to RFC 7130.
>
> After that presentation, the sense of the room was that this work was
> something the WG would like to adopt.
>
> This e-mail begins a formal adoption poll for one or both of these drafts.
> This poll ends on April 16.  The timing of this poll is to give WG members
> a
> chance to read the draft for comment during the WG session in Chicago on
> Monday and also to set the date for two weeks after IETF 98 ends.
>
> Please respond to this mail to indicate your support or lack of support for
> this adoption.  Unless otherwise noted, support will be interpreted as
> support for *both* documents.
>
> The chairs wish to remind the Working Group that these documents have IPR
> asserted against the mechanisms contained in these drafts.
>
> -- Jeff and Reshad
>
>