IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

"Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <nobo@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98AA71A0183 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:14:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 z4mIqlOKCPK0 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:14:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7124D1A8968 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:14:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15416; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1417706092; x=1418915692; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=TCkVIRaZnDxsHjmQ54oCpN1CttPtC6t2pElKBq2dJZk=; b=IWo3uyj4NZs0uDk3z16TMAj5LUQV3ACQYytpJytWkfMjAsaTNZ5+7KqW /eiQ36VIoxMcYfgKr7gCErd5NaS6p90QdLokr3/tQAXMpMiHSAVIpj/a6 4ah9lBDuasawBFVwF3Aey/OLouOR0PLtKnwDAOwFMLi4RmlqNC23nHlYK 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlsJAI15gFStJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABZgkMhIlJYBIMBxUoBhBoCHIEBFgEBAQEBfYQCAQEBBCMKTBACAQgRBAEBCx0DAgICHxEUCQgCBA4FCIghAxIBwByQcw2FXgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReOMIIFMQYBgnEzgR4FjhqBdohYj22GHYN5b4FFgQABAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,516,1413244800"; d="scan'208,217";a="377566840"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2014 15:14:52 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sB4FEpqf031015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:14:51 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 09:14:51 -0600
From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <nobo@cisco.com>
To: Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
Thread-Topic: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
Thread-Index: AQHQCQ6shW/jisJENECZQt8/kBXRdpxy3ruAgAAfxICAAAeWAIAAjSQAgAD7mQCAAEe3gIAABKUAgAAdjoCAAAsZAIAF49GAgANn8YCAAHj2gIAAlzWAgAAFmYCAAFQ6AIAACIMAgAAA+ACAAADogP//un7wgAB4GYD//5u2QA==
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:14:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943F5AE4AE@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
References: <CO2PR0501MB823C222B7D62779F4DF58CDB3780@CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D0A647C1.28843%mmudigon@cisco.com> <CO2PR0501MB8234A1BDDFD008EE12C847AB3780@CO2PR0501MB823.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943F5AE38D@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com> <CAG1kdogkUr2YyodeUPWOqea+2jqOkmdYnPywVHCw8j1+=9eM6A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG1kdogkUr2YyodeUPWOqea+2jqOkmdYnPywVHCw8j1+=9eM6A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.136]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943F5AE4AExmbalnx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/OTCU74f_b44-0hoZA7J0YdVd8n0
Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:14:54 -0000

[no hat on, btw]

Hi Manav,

If what you say is the only requirement not met, one approach may be to pursue a non-standard-track document describing some suggested implementation techniques to locally store TX/RX timestamp.

Given that echo approach will be less accurate and given that we seem to be having difficulty converging, I thought I’ll throw out another idea.

Thanks!

-Nobo

From: Manav Bhatia [mailto:manavbhatia@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 9:53 AM
To: Nobo Akiya (nobo)
Cc: Santosh P K; MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon); Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi); Gregory Mirsky; Marc Binderberger; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

Nobo - Locally storing TX/RX timestamps is not interoperable.

Cheers, Manav

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Nobo Akiya (nobo) <nobo@cisco.com<mailto:nobo@cisco.com>> wrote:
A quick question to understand where we are.

If we had:


1.      Standardization of Null Authentication (i.e., sequence numbers)

2.      Implementation of local TX/RX timestamp mechanism described by Marc below

What are the core requirements which have not been satisfied?

Thanks!

-Nobo

P.S. No, there is no need to standardize BFD echo contents.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email