Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,
please find my answers in-line tagged GIM4>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 7:24 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 09:53:20AM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> > I'm glad that you feel that our discussion is helpful. I want to point
> that
> > the use of the Poll sequence to communicate to the remote BFD system in
> the
> > Concatenated Paths section is to relay the failure detected in the
> > downstream segment of the multi-segment OAM domain. Also, section 6.8.17
> > does not specify how the upstream BFD system responds to the situation:
> >    Note that if the BFD session subsequently fails, the diagnostic code
> will
> >    be overwritten with a code detailing the cause of the failure.  It is
> >    up to the interworking agent to perform the above procedure again,
> >    once the BFD session reaches Up state, if the propagation of the
> >    concatenated path failure is to resume.
>
> Correct.  That is up to the upstream to determine its behavior.
>
> > And so far we were discussing RFC 5880 though the scope of the draft is
> on
> > the use of Demand mode over MPLS LSP.
>
> MPLS does not magically change the behavior of demand mode specified in the
> core RFC.
>
GIM4>> The draft defines how the head-end LER reacts to receiving the BFD
control message with Diag set to Control Detection Time Expired and the
Poll flag set:
   Reception of such BFD control packet by the ingress
   LER indicates that the monitored LSP has a failure and sending BFD
   control packet with the Final flag set to acknowledge failure
   indication is likely to fail.  Instead, the ingress LER transmits the
   BFD Control packet to the egress LER over the IP network with:

   o  destination IP address MUST be set to the destination IP address
      of the LSP Ping Echo request message [RFC8029];

   o  destination UDP port set to 4784 [RFC5883];

   o  Final (F) flag in BFD control packet MUST be set;

   o  Demand (D) flag in BFD control packet MUST be cleared.

   The ingress LER changes the state of the BFD session to Down and
   changes rate of BFD Control packets transmission to one packet per
   second.  The ingress LER in Down mode changes to Asynchronous mode
   until the BFD session comes to Up state once again.  Then the ingress
   LER switches to the Demand mode.


> > And the draft does describe how the
> > BFD system acts after it receives the control message with Diag field set
> > to Control Detection Time Expired, a.k.a. RDI, and the Poll flag set. In
> > that, I consider, the draft is complimentary to RFC 5884 whose scope is
> on
> > the Asynchronous mode only.
>
> I continue to have problems understanding how the text in your draft is
> intended to be different than 6.8.4 of RFC 5880.  Simply saying "we're
> allowed to use demand mode" can't be it?
>
GIM4>> Section 6.8.4 does not specify that if the BFD system is in Demand
mode and the bfd.LocalDiag is set to 1 (Control Detection Time Expired) the
Poll sequence MAY, SHOULD or MUST be used to notify the remote BFD system.

>
> It will help clear this conversation if you simply state your changes in
> behavior vs. 5880 and 5884.
>
GIM4>> I've never stated or hinted that the draft is to update RFC 5884.
The scope of RFC 5884 is the use of BFD in the Asynchronous mode over MPLS
LSPs. As stated in section 6 RFC 5884:

BFD demand mode is outside the scope of this specification.


> > I believe that the draft addresses practical scenario with the technical
> > and innovative solution. And it was recognized as such by several WG
> > participants during the WG AP. Much appreciate your consideration.
>
> A reminder that we don't vote.  C.f. RFC 7282, section 6.
>
GIM4>> I'm confused to differentiate when you raise the objection as the
individual contributor and evaluate them and the consensus as the WG chair.

>
> -- Jeff
>
>