IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-shen-bfd-intf-p2p-nbr-00.txt

"Nitin Bahadur" <nitinb@juniper.net> Mon, 09 April 2007 17:15 UTC

Return-path: <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HaxSx-0000J4-Ol; Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:15:43 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HaxSx-0000Iw-AX for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:15:43 -0400
Received: from kremlin.juniper.net ([207.17.137.120]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HaxSw-0003H5-2q for rtg-bfd@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:15:43 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO gamma.jnpr.net) ([172.24.245.25]) by kremlin.juniper.net with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2007 10:15:40 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,388,1170662400"; d="scan'208"; a="683980095:sNHT41700172"
Received: from electron.jnpr.net ([172.24.15.21]) by gamma.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:15:39 -0700
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:15:41 -0700
Message-ID: <5EB31780BD297F46812C8F495FA08F620B9E9C03@electron.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <6CF5DBD6-27D5-4CA5-92D6-35F939030FEB@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-shen-bfd-intf-p2p-nbr-00.txt
Thread-Index: Acd6fNIRN7Eb0nZ4REKqRwTQcXnB9wATaGKw
From: Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>
To: Naiming Shen <naiming@cisco.com>, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2007 17:15:39.0329 (UTC) FILETIME=[B218A310:01C77ACA]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Cc:
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-shen-bfd-intf-p2p-nbr-00.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org

If you add a new diag-code, then you either need to do it to the base
spec or make your spec Standards track...I prefer the former.

Nitin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Naiming Shen [mailto:naiming@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 12:56 AM
> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-shen-bfd-intf-p2p-nbr-00.txt
> 
> 
> Just to add one more thing that, even though this draft does not
change
> anything in terms of BFD base spec, but this scheme does generate
unique
> error conditions, such as detection of multiple peers over a point-to-
> point
> interface. If the implementation does bring the session down, it
> needs to
> report this with a new DIAG code to reflect this error. Although the
> detection
> mechanism is out side the scope of this document. Thanks to the folks
> brought this to my attention. Will fix.
> 
> thanks.
> - Naiming

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email