IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Mon, 29 October 2018 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.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 184C3130FFA for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 rqcSwvsmNVjo for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89A35130DF9 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2694; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540829875; x=1542039475; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=RmqosKjV8ZZLXVSTxsPSgO4ot9UBMBjsP5JbqeHVO38=; b=iQpJqCTkV70KzyFgU+e+gVCGoHLrTGmCtoTyzq0dxata8Vi2h1N/ZKmw iBqTguFInP2jJqzWySd9CPOFbrpg2fHFy5lIqpHsF8+mQ6kCS8z2qK/Sv t3XXAZdlhJWbfsGQ/qOki5MJraHkQdsNoSiQP/3lxpaqVYis2EHCmj80+ g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAADhMddb/4ENJK1kGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBggSBZSgKg2uIGIwXgg2XIIF6CwEBLIRAAheDFiE0DQ0BAwEBAgEBAm0ohToBAQEBAgEjETMSEAIBCA4KAgImAgICMBUQAgQOBYMhgXoIqFyBLooUgQuKXBeBQT+BOB+CTIUVI4JKMYImAp8JCQKRAhiQR5Z1AhEUgSYdOIFVcBVlAYJBkFdvgSiKXgGBHgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,440,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="193252285"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Oct 2018 16:17:52 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9TGHqXr017075 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:17:52 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:17:51 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:17:51 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
CC: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets
Thread-Topic: BFD WG adoption for draft-haas-bfd-large-packets
Thread-Index: AQHUZn7F2obCS5tWFUCJRL2ls+mZdKUo1C+ggAHIywD//67wkIAAV7mA///Hi8CABg0XgIABf/0AgATIogD//8jBAA==
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:17:51 +0000
Message-ID: <F249D798-F2CE-478A-8F56-F0F11A2C1A78@cisco.com>
References: <E052CA19-228D-4271-BF9E-7499255E7C53@cisco.com> <7332e35048d34d44a65ea70df409699c@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <90B9205E-CBD8-4779-96D1-2D15BD1F7E24@cisco.com> <e08744fc4b264fd1bf9844dd0f29557e@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <59DD4DA1-6C83-4D3D-92E7-B4271EB259E8@cisco.com> <2dc00a0d58db41958ad61d73d08ead17@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <20181025153804.GD12336@pfrc.org> <B5988BA3-E039-47C5-9145-48747700E197@cisco.com> <20181029153534.GL12336@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20181029153534.GL12336@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.b.0.180311
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.45]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <92806AE0AD38BF4AB0330EE8FA883234@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.11, xch-aln-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/KkXAc37_R-1ucYMLJWfjmYGd9ag>
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: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:17:57 -0000

Hi Jeff,

I'd be fine with the text below on BFD echo in the discussion section. 

Regards,
Reshad.


On 2018-10-29, 11:36 AM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:

    Reshad,
    
    On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 06:32:26PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
    >On 2018-10-25, 11:38 AM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
    > >     The draft I had previously worked on with Xiao Min discussing probing using
    > >     BFD Echo had the concept of probes that would happen wherein the session is
    > >     not torn down.  The example carries similarly with the "send occasional".
    >
    > <RR> We discussed use of echo at IETF102. The large-packets draft mentions
    > that echo can only be used for single-hop, hence the need for padding the
    > control packets. But isn't single-hop Albert's main use-case? 
    
    It's Albert's primary use case.  And, I think a common related one is
    protecting tunnels of various flavors; e.g. GRE or IPsec.
    
    > I believe we
    > should add the echo option in the large-packets draft, it has the benefit
    > that you get the desired functionality even if only 1 side of the WAN link
    > supports echo. I realize not all implementations support echo so they
    > might have to do pad control packets instead.
    
    While I don't think Albert or I would have any objections to adding Echo
    discussion in the existing document, we perhaps risk running into one of the
    issues Xiao and I had briefly discussed.  Echo is intentionally
    under-specified in RFC 5880 et seq.  While it's possible that we can simply
    put in a discussion section that says "if you use Echo mode with similar
    padding, you can get similar benefit", I think that may be as far as we want
    to go.
    
    The related observation is that nothing stops an Echo implementation from
    doing this with no changes to the protocol. :-)
    
    -- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email