Comment on DestinationMac in draft-mmm-bfd-on-lags

"JOVELPONNAIEN, ARULMOHAN (ARULMOHAN)" <arulmohan.jovelponnaien@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 28 September 2012 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <arulmohan.jovelponnaien@alcatel-lucent.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 D4E5821F8516 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oqUF1KMpwQEe for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5059F21F8495 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-33.lucent.com [135.250.11.33]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q8SAjXWO014402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:45:36 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub01.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.32]) by inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q8SAjWR1009530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:15:32 +0530
Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.50]) by INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.32]) with mapi; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:15:31 +0530
From: "JOVELPONNAIEN, ARULMOHAN (ARULMOHAN)" <arulmohan.jovelponnaien@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:15:28 +0530
Subject: Comment on DestinationMac in draft-mmm-bfd-on-lags
Thread-Topic: Comment on DestinationMac in draft-mmm-bfd-on-lags
Thread-Index: Ac2dZmAFGHKo16jGQjqD/3BGsTTLJA==
Message-ID: <7A2E55DFE338EE418E3B95A0C388997D075E407F79@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7A2E55DFE338EE418E3B95A0C388997D075E407F79INBANSXCHMBSA_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 28 Sep 2012 10:45:39 -0000

Hi All,

Micro-BFD session would use dedicated destination MAC address allocated for IANA range(RFC 5342). But this MAC address range is not link-level and would allow forwarding of Link-Level BFD packets by intermediate L2 switches.

Assume case below, here it is possible that 3 micro BFD sessions from Router1 could be forwarded on single-port to Router2.
Router1 ------------(3-port) LAG------------L2 Switch-------(1-port LAG)-----------Router2

If MAC-address is chosen from range 01:80:c2:xx:xx:xx, then this case would not arise. Micro-BFD session would then be terminated by L2 switch immediately. By 802.1d standard 01:80:c2:xx:xx:xx would be terminated by L2 switch.

Is it not better if we choose a MAC address in 01:80:c2 range similar to LACP to make sure micro-BFD session remains link-level protocol?

Regards,
Arul Mohan.