IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A question about RFC5884

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 17 July 2017 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 B2D82131A64 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 wDeEnRaiyE3U for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EB53131A86 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id p73so50481174qka.2 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EkKyI3fM5NWcdMgC6kBVQwYz4Wz7s6hJ0MzNKLiRrOA=; b=dMlGe70NAnXdpPAKM73CzHoX7JrRL2uUea6Yp+9vSXqLc7vOKU26Wz150YDwUZV81r qYYqo8FnYLnd6LJ1Vdk2ZoaqLrM3Pvy1L3a0JwUvj0lkf0xcWDBvaZY/lyFp/JPG9ru0 3DeM1frq0Om8DDeBxS/LSOQiJFu+9FNdcwcY9wPt3TiRdV7EKpNC8RudDdtb9U3cthor R2CjV1O9d8cn1FOg8v3FS8qg4lU0XjBhnjTyLLXuNAHI/CIprct+gmOurN2YP/3XDpFs BnCubxbYSu76XRodTXpkvXVTdXiEJYdxNch5Ye9KG6HjXWjMoFj9loNum+/cznvj1zo0 Sjzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EkKyI3fM5NWcdMgC6kBVQwYz4Wz7s6hJ0MzNKLiRrOA=; b=Hby36EzalkLlN+AKJD4J0FKu0e5grDuTLOQDnFjvestbEC/IohGKm+4PhlidkT+tVa 6a34fNuFDc71Z6VaW5BYdpm4WypPDO4bbi7gheG9vvlef/U1gSQ1svQQZCHqkaKgIzxd yCZuMwkPxRAoLEQ8oshlxDMyRBlc+x89UtmhFBWKm1+EKodxEXxj7ephpvl339dQNYpw ltUgDsnMe34ix2NwvOyfuhUc3S6JsoHYmufphRw02URR5N1d7BXscr4wt2kj/G7PKrrK 2So6+88QqJAM6Nvk75jQjox7rUpLe4Kfdl5/Hg8d7FI0gM5BGChHsnQhF2sz8v8L6Ncd /bEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110dhWHaT4wosIrk5Jx4SCqPuU2rp+5FnktA4vWkCYdpHqSdSaq5 Hf6lfGBzAlKIoNF2SIPOy+iLMsPstA==
X-Received: by 10.233.235.3 with SMTP id b3mr26451778qkg.138.1500276867311; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.22.227 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE291842ADE@dggeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE291842ADE@dggeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:34:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUvLPm1qUi+_JvGWHHvGKBECOdccfnUdtkeCDAA-_L=vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A question about RFC5884
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c09743ebdade205547e6d00"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/N_sW0yMXTbGhTeYOhZfQeVdtQvg>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 17 Jul 2017 07:34:37 -0000

Hi Mach, et. al,
I recall that this question was discussed some time ago and the
clarification came from the original authors of the BFD protocol. The Echo
Reply is optional if there's no error to report. But if the remote LER,
acting as BFD node, does decide to send the Echo Reply it MUST send it
after is sends the first BFD control message.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi BFDers,
>
> We met a multi-vendor interoperate issue recently, it's about whether an
> Echo reply is necessary.
>
> In Section 6 of RFC5884, 2nd paragraph
>
> "... The egress LSR MAY respond with an LSP Ping Echo
>    reply message that carries the local discriminator assigned by it for
>    the BFD session."
>
> >From the above text, my understanding is that an Echo reply is optional,
> the egress LSR can freely to return or not return an Echo reply, and the
> Ingress LSR should not expect there MUST be an Echo reply, but if there is
> one, it should handle it properly.
>
> Is my understanding correct?
>
> Thanks,
> Mach
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email